Naurata Ram vs Bagga Singh (Deceased) Through His Legal Representatives

J.V. Gupta, J.—This is landlord''s revision petition whose ejectment application has been dismissed by both the authorities below.

The premises, in dispute, which are a rented land, consisting of a taur and a verandah, were let out vide rent note, Exhibit A. 2, dated February 15, 1947 Though no specific purpose is mentioned therein for letting them out, yet it is the common case of the parties, that they were let out for running a saw mill. The landlord filed the ejectment application on August 7, 1973, for the eviction of the tenant from the demised premises inter alia on the ground that he required the same for his personal occupation bona fide. The tenant contested the application on the ground that the premises were not covered by the definition of the "rented land", as defined u/s 2(f) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, (hereinafter called the Act). According to the tenant, the premises included a room; hence they were a nonresidential building. Since the premises were let out for commercial purpose, the bona fide requirement of the landlord therefor was denied. The learned Rent Controller found that though the landlord bona fide required the premises for the use and occupation yet as they were not the "rented land", as defined under the Act, but were a non-residential building, the tenant could not be ejected therefrom on that ground. Consequently, the ejectment application was dismissed. In appeal, the learned Appellate Authority affirmed the said finding of the Rent Controller and, thus, maintained the order dismissing the ejectment application.

The learned Counsel for the Petitioner contended that from the rent note, Exhibit A. 2, and the plan, Exhibit A. 1, it was quite evident that the premises, in dispute, were "rented land", as defined under the Act and that it was wrongly held that they were a non-residential building. According to the learned Counsel, the premises, in dispute, consist of a taur i e., the vacant land and a verandah. Therefore, they could not be said to be a nonresidential building," as defined under the Act. In support of the contention, the learned Counsel relied upon Udham Singh v. Hari Chand 1983 (2) R.C.R. 425.

I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and have also gone through the relevant evidence on the record.

From the description of the premises, in dispute, in the rent note, Exhibit A 2, it is quite evident that what was let out was a taur, i.e., the vacant land and a small verandah. The mere existence of the verandah will not make the vacant land, i.e., the rented land, a nonresidential building," as defined under the Act. The whole approach of the authorities below in this behalf was wrong, illegal and misconceived inasmuch as the contents of Exhibit A. 2, were not properly construed. Once it is held that the premises, in dispute, are a rented land, then on the finding by both the authorities below that the landlord bona fide required the same for his use and occupation, the eviction application is liable to be allowed.

Consequently, this revision petition succeeds and is allowed. The impugned orders are set aside and the ejectment application is also allowed. Eviction order is passed against the tenant ejecting him from the premises, in dispute, with costs. Since the counsel for the tenant was not agreeable to give undertaking for vacating the premises, no further time could be allowed to him to vacate the same.