UDHAM SINGH Vs. HARI CHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition is filed on behalf of the landlord whose application for ejectment was allowed by the Rent Controller but has been dismissed in appeal.

(2.) THE landlord-petitioner sought the ejectment of his tenant from the premises in dispute which were claimed to be rented land leased out vide rent note dated July 1, 1969 for doing dairy business. The ejectment was sought inter alia on the ground that the landlord requires the premises for his own use and occupation as he is not occupying any premises in the urban area concerned for his business and that he has not vacated any such premises without sufficient cause after the commencement of the Act No. III of 1949 in the urban area concerned. In the written statement, it was pleaded that the premises in dispute are not rented land as alleged by the landlord. It was non-residential building let out for business and trade purposes and, therefore, the tenant was not liable to ejectment on the ground of personal necessity. The learned Rent Controller came to the conclusion that the premises in dispute was clearly rented land as it was a site which was let out by the landlord for running dairy business and if the tenant had built a small room on this land for maintaining and continuing his business, the rented land would not cease to be so and would not become a building. It was further found that the landlord bonafide required the same for his own use and occupation. As a result of these findings, the order of ejectment was passed against the tenant. In appeal, the learned Appellate Authority reversed the said findings of the Rent Controller and came to the conclusion that the premises in dispute were not rented land as claimed by the landlord. It was further held that even if it may be rented land then the landlord has failed to prove all the three conditions provided in section 13(3)(a)(ii) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (hereafter called 'the Act'). As a result of these findings the ejectment application was dismissed. Dissatisfied with the same, the landlord has come up in revision in this Court.

(3.) AFTER hearing the learned counsel for the parties and going through the relevant evidence on the record, I am of the considered opinion that the premises in dispute is rented land as provided under section 2(f) of the Act and not building as defined in section 2(a) of the Act. It is not the mere description in the rent note which will make the premises in dispute a building as such. It is to be concluded from the entire evidence on the record as well as from the purpose for which the premises were let out and the nature of constructions, if any, thereon. In the present case from the plan Exhibit A.10 it is quite evident that on one corner of the vacant site there is a katcha dhara, i.e. open varanda, otherwise the whole of the site is lying vacant for the purposes of tethering cattle. Admittedly, the premises were let out for milk dairy purposes where the tenant is tethering his cattle etc. The approach of the appellate Authority in this behalf was not correct because it was observed with the idea that since in the rent note the description was given as one haveil along with the open site and, therefore, the premises were to be held as building. As a matter of fact it will be a question of fact in each case as to find out whether the premises in dispute when rented out was rented land or a building. Mere existence of a Small Dhara on one corner of the site does not make it a building simply because it was so described in the rent note. In this view of the matter the approach of the Rent Controller was correct and from the evidence on the record it has to be held that the premises in dispute are rented land and not a building.