Ajit Singh and others vs Harnam Singh

Pritpal Singh, J.—Ajit Singh took the disputed premises on rent from Harnam Singh on September 28, 1972 on the basis of a rent note (Exhibit A-2). Upon the ejectment application filed by Harnam Singh, the Rent Controller, Batala, ordered Ajit Singh to be evicted from the tenancy premises, mainly on the ground of landlord''s requirement for bis personal occupation. The appeal filed by Ajit Singh was dismissed by the Appellate Authority Gurdaspur. Against the order of the Appellate Authority, dated October 3, 1981, the instant revision has been filed by the tenant.

The sole controversy in this case pertains to the nature of the tenaney premises. The landlord Harnam Singh contended in his ejectment application that these premises were rented out for residential purposes On the contrary the tenant Ajit Singh asserted that the premises falls under the category of non-residential premises which cannot be got vacated by the landlord on the ground of personal necessity. The Courts below have accepted the contention of the landlord and have held that the tenancy premises are a residential building. This is the finding which has been primarily challenged in these proceedings.

As to what is a non-residential building has been defined in Section 2 (d) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949. According to this definition "non-residential building" means a building being used solely for the purpose of business or trade It is further provided in Section 2(g) of the said Act that any building which is not a non-residential building is to be considered a "residential building". Thus, in the present case if the tenancy premises are a building being used solely for the purpose of business or trade they would be considered non-residential building, otherwise these premises would fall within the definition of residential building.

A perusal of the written statement filed by the tenant would clearly show that the premises in dispute had not been let out solely for the purpose of business or trade. In paragraph 2 of the written statement it is admitted by the tenant that the disputed ahata was taken on rent by the tenant partially for selling fodder, fire-wood etc. and partially for residential purposes. The same fact was reiterated in paragraph 3 (iii) of the written statement Thus according to the Petitioner''s own case the premises in dispute are not a non residential building since these premises were not let out solely for the business or trade. There is, therefore, no infirmity in the concurrent findings of the Courts below that the tenancy premises in occupation of the Petitioner were a residential building.

A half hearted attempt was made by the learned Petitioner''s counsel to urge that the landlord''s need of the premises in dispute for his own occupation has not been established Obviously, there is no merit in this contention The landlord is a widower and 85 years'' old. It stands proved from the evidence that he is staying alone in his native village. He is not personally cultivating his land and he has leased out the same to the tenants. His two daughters are married at Batala who would look after him in his old age when he shifts to the premises in dispute situated in Batab town From aft these circumstanced the lower Courts returned a concurrent finding of fact that Harnam Singh doess require the premises in dispute for his own occupation.

Besides the fact that I find no infirmity in the concurrent finding of the Courts below that the landlord bonofide requires the premises for his own use and occupation, such a finding is unassailable in the present revision as held in Sri. Raja Lakshmi Dyeing Works and Others Vs. Rangaswamy Chettiar, Relying upon this judgment of the Supreme Court this view was reiterated by this Court in Siri Ram v. Air Com Mahabir Chand (1981) 83 P. L R. 424, and Amar Nath (deceased) v. Som Nath (deceased) 1982 C. L. J. (C & Cr ) 173. In both these judgments it has been held that it is not within the scope of the revisional jurisdiction of this Court to upset the concurrent finding of fact regarding the personal necessity of the landlord arrived at by the Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority

For aforesaid reasons there is no merit in this revision and the same is dismissed with costs. The Petitioner is, however, allowed to vacate the tenancy premises within three months from today on the condition that he will pay or deposit upto date arrears of rent within a fortnight and the future rent by the 10th of each following month.