Punjab-Haryana High Court
Daya Parkash Mahendru vs Darshan Lal on 7 December, 1992
Equivalent citations: (1993)103PLR524
Author: H.S. Bedi
Bench: H.S. Bedi
JUDGMENT H.S. Bedi, J.
1. The present petition has been filed by the landlord, whereby his application under Section 13-A of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act") has been dismissed.
2. Facts of the case, in so far as they are relevant for decision of the present case, are as under :
3. The petitioner retired from the post of Accountant with the Punjab National Bank, Chaura Bazar, Ludhiana, on May 31, 1986, on attaining the age of superannuation. He filed an application under Section 13-A of the Act, seeking the eviction of the respondent/ tenant from the demised premises, which is one room in a part of the building occupied by the petitioner, on the ground that the portion of the same house which was in his possession, was not suitable to his needs. The Rent Controller allowed the respondent leave to contest the case and thereafter dismissed the application. The Rent Controller found that the petitioner, being ex-employee of the Punjab National Bank, was a 'specified landlord', as defined under Section 2 (hh) of the Act and the petition filed by him was maintainable, but as the respondent had used the premises for commercial purposes only from the very inception of the tenancy, an application under Section 13 A of the Act was not the appropriate remedy. The Rent Controller after recording a finding placing reliance on a Full Bench decision Sh. Hari Mittal v. Sh. B. M. Sikka, (1986-1) 89 P.L.R. 1 (F.B) held that the change of user had been affected without the written consent of the landlord taken under Section 11 of the Act and as such the premises in dispute continued to be a residential one but dismissed the petition on the short ground that as the petitioner was already occupying a portion of same property, it was not open to him to take proceedings under Section 13-A of the Act as the question as to whether the portion in the possession of the petitioner was suitable to his needs or not, was not a matter that could be decided in these proceedings. The Rent Controller also found that as the petitioner had been serving in Ludhiana itself when he superannuated, the provisions of Section 13-A of the Act were not applicable as the same could be utilised by only such employees who on superannuation, had come from other places. Aggrieved by the order of the Rent Controller, the petitioner-landlord has come in revision before this Court.
4. it has been argued by Mr. M. L. Sarin, Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner that the findings of fact that the premises were being used for commercial purposes from the begining, was erroneous in view of the evidence that has been led by the parties. He has also urged that at best it could be said that the premises had originally been let out for residential purposes, but had been changed to commercial use subsequently, even then the nature of the tenancy could not change and the demised premises would continue to remain a residential one.
5. Mr. Sagar, learned counsel for the respondent, has, however, drawn my attention to the finding of fact recorded by the Rent Controller for showing that the premises in dispute had been used for commercial purpose from the very inception of the tenancy and that this Court would not under its provisional jurisdiction seek to differ with those findings.
6. After giving the matter my thoughtful consideration, I find that the present petitions deserves to succeed Mr. Sareen has brought to my attention various documents on the record which show that the demised premises had been let out for residential purpose only. He has referred to the pleadings of the parties and brought to my notice that the averment that the room in question was being used for residential purposes has not been specifically denied. He has also asserted that the sales tax number for the premises was obtained by the respondent-tenant for the first time in the year 1976 and a commercial electricity connection was obtained in the year 1978. In support of his arguments that although the room, had been let out for residential purpose, the change of user had been effected from 1976, the learned counsel for the petitioner has also brought to my attention the plan-Exhibit A/5 and the certificate-Exhibit A/7, showing that the premises in question had been passed by the Municipal Committee, Ludhiana, as a residential one and was also situated in a residential zone It may be seen that the preponderence of evidence does show that the room in question had been originally let out for residential purpose and there was a change of user without the permission of the landlord but this change could not be recognised by virtue of Section 11 of the Act, as interpreted by the Full Bench decision in Han Mittal's case (supra). It will also be noticed that the finding recorded by the Rent Controller that the petitioner was living at Ludhiana at the time of his retirement and, thus, he could not claim ejectment of the respondent under Section 13 A of the Act, is also misconceived. In Inder Dass v. Hem Raj and Ors., (1987-2) 92 P. L. R. 642. Parminder Singh v. Budh Singh Kochhar, 1989 H. R. R. 638 and Savitri Devi Dutta v. Shakuntla Khullar, (1990-2) 98 P. L. R. 324. it has been held that while sufficiency of the accommodation in the hands of the landlord is not a matter which can be gone into under Section 13-A of the Act, the suitability has to be adjudged. I am also of the opinion that the bare reading of Section 13 (A) of the Act does not justify the interpretation put by the Rent Controller on it as the only requirement is that the landlord in order to succeed must not possess any other suitable accommodation in the local area in which he intends to reside. The further essential requirement adduced by the Rent Controller that this suitability can only be inferred or adjudged in case the landlord is residing outside the local area and intends shifting therefrom and not in a case where he is already occupying a part of the same building, is wholly misconceived.
7. For the reasons recorded above, the present petition is allowed, the order of the Rent Controller is set aside The respondent is, however, given three months time to vacate the premises in dispute subject to clearance of all arrears and the payment of rent in advance for three months and subject to the furnishing of an undertaking to vacate the premises on the expiry of the period of three months ; the rent to be paid within three weeks and the undertaking also to be filed within that period. No costs.