Nahar Singh vs Surjit Singh

J.V. Gupta, J.—This order will dispose of C.R. Nos. 1267 of 1987 (Nahar Singh v. Surjit Singh) and 1694 of 1988 (Nahar Singh v. Raghbir Krishan), as the question involved is common in both the cases. Moreover, at the time of motion hearing of C.R. No. 1694/88 it was submitted by the learned Counsel for the tenant that C.R. No. 1267/87 pertaining to part of the building in dispute was pending in this Court. It was, therefore, directed that C.R. No. 1694/88 be heard alongwith C.R. No. 1267/87.

Nahar Singh, landlord, sought the ejectment of his tenant Surjit Singh (in C.R. No. 1267/87) and another tenant of his named Raghbir Krishan (in C.R. No. 1994/88) from premises comprising room No. 7, verandah and shop No. 2, alongwith common use of verandha, infront of the shop, and property comprising shop No. 4, alongwith common verandah, respectively.

The facts of the cases are being mentioned from C.R. No. 1267/87, and they are similar.

The application for ejectment was filed u/s 13-A of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, as amended, on the allegations that the landlord had retired from Government service on 30th November, 1982, and the premises in dispute were a part of the residential building, though let out for business, and, consequently, the landlord was entitled to seek the ejectment of the tenants, and that the accommodation under his occupation was not suitable to him and was insufficient for him and his family. The application was contested by the tenant, inter alia, on the grounds that the tenant was inducted in the shop on a monthly rent of Rs. 400/- for commercial purposes, that the provisions of Section 13-A of the Act were not applicable and the ground of personal necessity was not available, and that the landlord was in occupation of sufficient accommodation. The learned Rent Controller after discussing the entire evidence came to the conclusion that the building in this case could not be termed as residential for all intents and purposes, It was concluded that "...the nature of the buildings in this area are such that the property owners designed and constructed the building in such a manner as to rent out the portions abutting the road for shops and keeping the remaining portion for residence. There is no case of the Petitioner that the Municipal Corporation ever objected to the use of building in the front portion to carry on business." The learned Rent Controller found that earlier, the landlord bad filed an application against one Joginder Singh and another tenant from shop No. 6 on the ground of personal necessity. The said case was instituted u/s 13 after his retirement from Government service. It was dismissed by the Rent Controller and the appeal there against also met failure, and, thus, the same became final between the parties. If shop No. 6 was held to be a non-residential building, shop Nos. 2 and 4, referred to above, could not be held to be residential buildings as claimed by the landlord. In view of these findings, the application u/s 13-A of the Act have been dismissed on the ground that the provisions of the same are not applicable to the shop in dispute being non-residential building.

The only argument raised on behalf of landlord-Petitioner is that in view of the Full Bench judgment of this Court in Hari Mittal v. B.M. Sikka (1986-1) P.L.R. 1, since the premises in dispute formed part of a residential building, though let out for a non-residential/purpose, the landlord was entitled to seek the ejectment of his tenant.

After hearing the learned Counsel for the parties I find no merit in this petition. On an appreciation of the entire evidence it has been found as a fact that in this area, the property-owners designed and constructed properties in such a manner as to rent out the portions abutting the road for shops and keeping the remaining portions with them for residence. In view of this finding, no interference is called for in revisional jurisdiction.

Consequently, both the petitions fail and are dismissed with costs.