Surjit Singh vs Gian Singh

G.R. Majithia, J.—The tenant has come up in Revision Petition against the order of the Rent Controller, ordering his ejectment from the demised premises.

The respondent (hereinafter referred to as the landlord) filed an application for eviction of the petitioner (hereinafter referred to as tenant) u/s 13-A of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act (in short the Act) on the ground that the demised premises is a part of residential building No. 608/13 situate in Rani Bazar, Sharifpura, Amritsar. The landlord is a specified landlord having retired from government service on June 30, 1987. He required the demised premises for his own use and occupation. The tenant changed the demised premises into a shop without the permission of the landlord. The tenant denied that the landlord is specifics landlord or is a landlord qua him. The demised premises is a shop and was let out for business purposes. Therefore, the provision of Section 13-A of the Act is not applicable.

The learned Rent Controller framed the following issues :--

Whether the applicant is entitled to the possession of the premises in dispute, as prayed for ? OPA

Whether the premises in dispute is a non-residential building and does not fall under the provisions of Section 13-A of the Rent Restriction Act ? OPR

Relief.

On the basis of the evidence on record, the learned counsel for the respondent contended that the landlord was a specified landlord of the demised premises which is part of residential building and that the landlord required the demised premises for his own use and occupation, since he did not have any other building in the urban area concerned. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the landlord is not a specified landlord and that the demised premises is non-residential and an application u/s 13-A of the Act was not maintainable. There is no force in the submission made by the learned counsel. Undisputedly, the landlord was in service of the Punjab State Government and ritired from service on June 30, 1987 vide certificate Exhibits A/1 and A/2 issued by the Joint Secretary, Administration Government of Punjab, Chandigarh.

The demised premises is a part of building No. 608/13. The building is an evacue property and was allotted to the father of the landlord vide allotment letter Exhibit A/5. In the allotment letter the building (No. 608/(sic)) is described as a house. Adjoining to the demised promises, there was a room (baithak) which was let out to Jaimal Singh, who had converted it into a shop. The landlord filed an application for eviction against Jaimal Singh, which was allowed by the Rent Controller vide order dated October 28, 1988 and it was held in that order that the premises in dispute was residential one. The demised premises being part of residential house could not be converted into non-residential one without the permission of the Rent Controller. Even if residential building is let out for non-residential purposes by the landlord without the written permission of the Rent Controller in terms of Section 11 of the Act would continue to be a residential building and the landlord would be entitled to seek ejectment of the tenant on the ground of bona fide requirement. Reference in this regard can be made to Hari Mittal v. B.M. Sikka (1986) 89 P.L.R 1.

For the foregoing reasons, I find no merit in this petition and the same is hereby dismissed.