SUBASH CHANDER Vs. GIANI JOGINDER SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is landlord's petition in whose favour eviction order was passed by the Rent Controller, but was set aside in appeal.

(2.) DR . Subash Chander-landlord sought the ejectment of his tenant Joginder Singh from the room of a residential house which was converted into a shop by the tenant. According to the landlord, one Smt. Shanti Devi was the original owner of a big building out of which the petitioner purchased 1/2 share. Later on he got partitioned and became the owner of the specific rooms in the said building. Out of this building, one room which was converted into a shop was in occupation of the respondent as a tenant on the monthly rent of Rs. 12/-. He was running his business in that room. Ejectment was sought, inter alia on the ground that the landlord is a medical practitioner since 1974 and is carrying on his business in lane in a room which is quiet insufficient for his needs. He is residing in the portion of the joint house owned by his father and it is also insufficient for his requirement. This building was purchased by him for his residence and for running his business as a doctor for dispensary etc. Therefore, he needs the room for his personal use and occupation. The present room is on the ground floor and opens on the road and it being a front portion of the building, is most essential and suitable for his medical practice. The stand taken by the tenant was that the landlord has no personal requirement nor the said room could be got vacated for that purpose as it was a commercial premises and was let out as such from the very inception of the tenancy. The same is being used as shop and, therefore, the tenant was not liable to eviction. The learned Rent Controller found that in the present case it is proved that the landlord is living in the house at the sufferance of his father and not in his own right, and is, therefore, not occupying any other residential building. He further found that the landlord purchased the house for his comfortable living and medical practice and, therefore, he was in bonafide need of the same. Ultimately, it was concluded that the landlord has succeeded to prove his bonafide necessity for his personal requirement. The contention of the tenant that the demised premises was a shop and not a room of a residential building was negatived. It was found that though the said room was being used as a shop by the tenant, but since it formed part of the residential house, the tenant was liable to ejectment on the ground of bonafide requirement.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner submitted that it has been concurrently found by both the authorities below that the demised premises formed part of the residential building. Even if it was used as a shop by the tenant still the landlord was entitled to eject his tenant for his bonafide requirement. According to the learned counsel the earlier view of this Court reported in 1985 Punjab and Haryana 25 was accepted, whereas later on by a Full Bench of this Court reported in 1986(1) P.L.R. 1 and 1987 S.C. 2179 it was overruled. He also pointed out that the other tenant Bansi Lal, who was occupying another room adjacent to the room in dispute was also ejected by the landlord and his revision petition in this Court was dismissed on 31st July, 1987, i.e. Civil Revision No. 1678 of 1988, and that also formed part of this residential building. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the demised premises is a shop and is being used as such from the very inception of the tenancy. In opens in the bazar and, therefore, it could not be held that simply because it formed part of the residential building, it ceases to be a non-residential building. In support of this contention, he referred to 1984(2) RCR 427 and 1987(2) P.L.R. 222.