Punjab-Haryana High Court
K.G. Industries And Ors. vs Joginder Singh on 16 March, 1992
Equivalent citations: (1992)102PLR256
JUDGMENT V.K. Jhanji, J.
1. This revision petition has been preferred by the tenant against the order of the appellate Authority accepting the appeal of the landlord, and thereby setting aside the order of the Rent Controller dismissing the ejectment petition filed by the landlord.
2. The premises in dispute form part of a residential house situated in Mohalla Himmatpura, Kalsian Road, Ludhiana. The landlord asked for the eviction of the premises in dispute on the ground that the same were required for his own use and occupation as the premises in his occupation are not sufficient for his requirement.
3. The Rent Controller after considering the oral and documentary evidence on the record, dismissed the ejectment petition after finding that the premises in dispute were given for commercial purposes by the landlord to the tenant, for which purpose the same are being used by the tenant and therefore, the ground of personal necessity is not available to the landlord. The Rent Controller also found that the premises in dispute are located in a commercial area.
4. On appeal by the landlord, the appellate Court relying upon the Full Bench judgment of this Court reported as Hari Mittal v. B. M. Sikka (1986-1) 89 P. L. R. 1 (F. B.), allowed the appeal of the landlord and thereby passed an order of ejectment against the tenant. This order of the appellate Authority is being challenged by the tenant in the present revision petition.
5. Mr. M. L. Sarin, Sr. Advocate, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the premises in dispute are not an integral part of the residential building. The door of the demised premises opens on the road and is situated in an area which is pre-dominantly industrial. He further argued that the premises in dispute were let out for the purpose of carrying on an industrial activity, and therefore, the ground of personal necessity is not available to the landlord.
6. On the other hand, Mr. J. R. Mittal, Sr. Advocate, learned counsel for the respondent-landlord submitted that the premises in dispute are an integral part of the residential building and therefore, the appellate Authority rightly passed an order of ejectment against the tenant on the ground of personal necessity.
7. The only question which arises for determination in this revision petition as to whether the demised premises which are a part of residential house, were let out separately and independently for the purpose of business or trade, comes within the definition of 'residential building'. The site plan, Exh. Al, produced on the record shows that the demised premises consist of a room forming part of residential building. The site plan further shows that it is not inter-connected with the rest of the building and it opens on the road. The detailed site plan, Ex. RW-5/1 clearly points out that the entire street is being used for the purpose of commercial/industrial activity. The premises in dispute were let out some-time in September 1978. At the time when it was let out to the tenant, there was an industrial connection of 5 H. P. which was converted into 15 H. P. in the year 1979. This is proved from the statement of R. W. 8, Prem Sagar, Clerk, in Punjab State Electricity Board, who deposed on the record that in the year 1979, electric connection from 5 H. P. was increased to 15 H. P. The tenant has placed on record the statement of Joginder Singh, landlord, recorded in the suit filed by the tenant against the landlord for grant of injunction restraining the landlord from disconnecting the electric connection. In this statement, the, landlord has admitted that the premises in dispute were let out for running lathe machines, and has also admitted that initially the power connection was of 5 H. P. which was later on increased to 15 H. P. All this evidence leaves no scope for doubt that the premises in dispute are completely independent from the rear part of the residential house of the landlord and it was let out for the purpose of carrying on the industrial-activity. The locality in which these premises are located is pre-dominantly commercial/ industrial in nature and therefore, J have no hesitation in holding that the premises in dispute will come within the definition of 'non- residential building' being part of the building let out for the said purpose falling within the meaning of clause (dt read with clause (a) of Section 2 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949. For this I find support from a judgment of this Court reported as Gurbax Singh v. Kuldip Singh, (1990-1) 97 P. L. R. 704.
8. The contention of learned counsel for the landlord that the tenant had no right to convert the residential building into non-residential one without permission of the Rent Controller in view of Full Bench judgment of this Court in Hari Mittal's case (supra) is also devoid of any merit. In Hari Mittal's case (supra), the question was whether the residential building can be converted into non- residential one by putting it for non-residential use. However, this is not the question here. In the present case, the premises in dispute are an independent unit of residential building forming part of long line of shops abutting both sides of the road as is clear from site plan Ex. RW-5/1. As noticed earlier, the premises in dispute are commercial/ industrial in nature. Therefore, the ratio of Hari Mittal's case (supra) is not at all applicable to the case in hand. Moreover, Hari Mittal's case (supra) related to a building in the Union Territory of Chandigarh where the user of every building is specified by law and therefore in that context, it was held that the residential building cannot be converted into non-residential one without the consent of the Rent Controller. In the present case, the landlord has not produced on the record any sanctioned scheme under the Municipal Law or Punjab Town Improvement Act, in order to show that the building of which the premises in dispute form part, cannot be used for any other purpose except residential.
9. For the reasons recorded above, the revision petition is allowed, order of the appellate Authority is set aside and the application filed by the landlord for the ejectment of the tenant is dismissed, leaving ths parties to bear their own costs.