Punjab State and Others vs Megh Raj Goyal and Another

J.V. Gupta, J.—The is tenant''s petition against whom ejectment application was dismissed by the Rent Controller but eviction order was passed in appeal.

The landlords sought ejectment of their tenant, the Punjab State, through the Sub-Divisional Officer, Canal Lining Sub-Division No. 4 Grain Market, Bhatinda, Market, from the premises in dispute which was rented out at the rate of Rs. 385/- per month for the purposes of the office of the said Sub-Divisional Officer. It was pleaded that the disputed building was constructed for residence-cum-business and is used for this purpose and, therefore, this is a residential building. The ejectment was sought inter alia on the ground that the landlords bona fide required the same for their own use and occupation. According to the landlords, they have no other building in Bhatinda nor have vacated any building without any cause after coming into force of the Rent Act. They pleaded that they lived at Rampura Phool but they wanted to shift their business to Bhatinda to start business there. In the written statement it was pleaded that the premises in dispute was not a shop-cum-flat as alleged by the landlords, nor it was used as such. Rather, the disputed premises is a shop and was taken on rent for commercial purpose of being used as office. It was further pleaded that the plea of landlords for use and occupation was not bona fide. Rather, they want to get the shop vacated and lease it out for higher rent. The learned Rent Controller, came to the conclusion that the building in dispute is only a shop and has been used merely for commercial and non-residential purpose. According to the Rent Controller, it cannot be termed as a shop-cum-flat and it has not been used for residential and non-residential purposes together. In view of that finding, bona fide requirement for their own use and occupation did not arise. Consequently, ejectment application was dismissed. In appeal, the Appellate Authority reversed the said finding of the Rent Controller and came to the conclusion that the disputed premises is residential in view of the Full Bench judgment of this Court in Hari Mittat''s case (1986) 89 P.L.R. 1. It was further found that the requirement of the landlords to occupy the said premises was bona fide. The tenant did not lead any evidence that the landlords wanted to increase the rent or will let the same on higher rental value. As a result of this finding, eviction order was passed. Dissatisfied with the same, the Punjab State-(tenant) has filed this petition in this Court.

The only argument raised on behalf of the Petitioner is that the premises in dispute was let out for running the office of Sub-Divisional Officer Canal Lines and therefore, the building will be termed to be non-residential. According to the learned Counsel once it was so held, the landlords were not entitled to evict the tenant on the ground of personal necessity. The Full Bench authority referred to above was sought to be distinguished on the ground that the landlord was bound by the lease and, therefore, it could not be said that the building was residential. In support of his contention, he referred to Nanakram Vs. Kundalrai, .

After hearing the learned Counsel for the parties, I do not find any merit in this petition. Admittedly, the premises were let out for office and not for any commercial purpose as such. A building is defined as non-residential building, which is let out solely for the purpose of business or trade. If the building was let out for office, it may be a non-residential purpose but it does not fall within the definition of "non-residential building." The judgment relied upon by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner has no relevancy to the facts of the present case.

No other point has been urged.

Consequently, the petition fails and is dismissed with costs. However, the Petitioner is allowed three months* time to vacate the premises provided all the arrears of rent, if any; are paid within one month before the Rent Controller with a further undertaking in writing that after the expiry of the said period, vacant possession will be handed over and the rent for the said period will be paid regularly overy month.