BALAK RAM Vs. B.N. GUPTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY order dated 26 -4 -1976 the Hon'ble the Chief Justice sitting as a Single Judge of this Court has referred this matter to a larger Bench as, without expressing any opinion in the matter, he has accepted the contention of the learned Advocate of the Petitioner to make this reference with a view to further consider the single Judge decision given by this Court in Civil Revision No. 54 of 1974 Prem Chand v. Beni Madav, now reported in, ILR (1975) H. P. 670. The Hon'ble the Chief Justice sitting as a single Judge has held in that case that it is only if the building governed by the provisions of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 is used exclusively for the purpose of business or trade that it can be described as a "non -residential building". It is further observed in that decision that this is apparent from Section 2(d) of the Act. The said decision further proceeds to say that if the building is used partly for a residential purpose and partly for the purpose of business or trade, it cannot be classed as a non -residential building and must, therefore, be treated as a residential building within the meaning of section 2(g) of the said act. Further it is held therein that the contention that the entire building was let out to the Petitioner for the purpose of bakery and it is the purpose for which the building was let out which determines whether it is residential building or non -residential, is not agreeable because the definitions set out in Section 2(d) and Section 2(g) of the said Act clearly point to the materiality of the nature of the user. This decision now comes up before us for re -consideration in this revision petition.

(2.) AT the outset it would be proper to make a brief reference to the facts of this particular case. The Petitioner of this petition is a tenant of the opponent Shri B.N. Gupta who is the landlord. This landlord preferred a petition for eviction before the Rent Controller under the Himachal Pradesh Urban Rent Control Act, 1971 (Act 23 of 1971) which is hereinafter referred to as "the Act". The grounds for eviction were, inter alai, that the disputed premises were required bona fide by the landlord for his own occupation, that these premises were originally leased out to the tenant for business purpose only and he is rendered liable for eviction because after the commencement of the Act he he has used the premises for a residential purpose, that is, a purpose other than that for which they were originally leased that the tenant has carried out some alterations and additions in the premise materially affecting their value and utility, that the premises require repairs in from of substantial additions and alterations which could not be carried out without eviction of the tenant and that the tenant has defaulted in making the payment of the rent of the premises.

(3.) SINCE the whole of this revision petition is referred to a larger Bench, we propose to decide all the contentions which are raised by the parties in this petition.