J.V. Gupta, J. - (1.) THE landlord -Petitioner has filed this petition against the order of the Appellate Authority, dated 27th October, 1978, whereby the order of the Rent Controller directing the ejectment of the Respondent was set aside and the landlord's application was dismissed.
(2.) THE landlord -Petitioner is the owner of House No. 1635, Sector 18 -D, Chandigarh, a residential house, and had let out the same to the tenant -Respondent, i.e. Central Board of Workers' Education, by means of a lease -deed, dated 1st January, 1969, which was further renewed for a period of three years with effect from 1st January, 1972. Later on, the lease was terminated by the landlord by means of a notice expiring on 22nd October, 1973, that she required the premises for her own use and occupation. Then she filed an application under Section 13(3)(a)(i) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, on the ground that she bona -fide requires the premises for her own use and occupation and she is not occupying any other building in her own right and that she has not vacated any such building after the commencement of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), in this urban area. The application was contested by the tenant -Respondent on the ground that the premises in dispute is not a residential house as the same is being used for a non -residential purpose, and thus, the same cannot be got vacated by the landlady for her own use and occupation. On the pleadings of the parties the Rent Controller framed the following issues: (1) What is the nature of the building? (2) If it is held that the building is a non -residential one, whether the ground of personal necessity is available to the Petitioner? (3) If it is found that the building is a residential one whether the Petitioner requires the same for her own use and occupation? (4) Whether the notice of ejectment served on the Respondent was bad and illegal? (5) Whether the Respondent materially impaired the value and utility of the building? (6) Whether the petition is not maintainable against Respondent as stated in para 3 of the preliminary objections of written statement? Additional issue: Whether the Petitioner does not hold any other residential building and had also not vacated any such premises after the enforcement of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act to the area of Chandigarh? The Rent Controller, on issue No. 1, came to the conclusion that since the premises were let out for both office -cum -residence, the same, therefore, falls within the definition of 'residential building'. Secondly, it was held that the landlady was entitled to eject her tenant as she bona fide required it for her own use and occupation. Consequently, the ejectment of the tenant was ordered. In appeal, the Appellate Authority has reversed the findings of the Rent Controller on Issue No. 1 and came to the conclusion that the premises were a non -residential building. Though it has been observed that the premises were let out by the landlady to the tenant for maintaining an office and providing residence for officers, guests or trainees, but it could not be said to be a residential building in view of the admitted use of the same for the purpose of maintaining an office from the very beginning of the tenancy. As a result thereof the ground for ejectment for personal occupation was not available and, thus, the application for ejectment was dismissed. Feeling aggrieved against this, the landlady has come up in revision to this Court. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner contended that once it is held that the premises were let out for the purpose of maintaining an office, and providing residence for officers, guests and trainees, then the subsequent use by the tenant as its office only, will not render the building a non -residential one, because, according to him, the tenant by his conduct cannot convert a residential building into a non -residential one, particularly in view of the provisions of Section 11 of the Act. In any case, it was contended that even if the building was being used for an office, the premises will fall within the definition of 'residential building' as the same was never let out or solely used for the purposes of business or trade. In support of his contention, he referred to Kamal Arora v. Amar Singh and Anr., 1980 (1) R.C.R. 530, Tara Chand v. Shri Sashi Bhushan Gupta, 1980 (1) R.C.R. 718 and Smt. Raja Rani v. Amir Chand, 1980 (2) R.C.R. 162.
(3.) ON the other hand, the learned Counsel for the Board -Respondent submitted that the building is being used from the very beginning as an office, and, therefore, it will fall within the definition of 'non -residential building'. According to the learned Counsel, any purpose which is not residential , will be deemed to be a purpose for business or trade, as contemplated in the definition of non -residential building in the Act. In support of his contention, he referred to Jagan Nath v. The Sangrur Central Co -operative Bank Ltd. Tappa, 1980 (1) R.C.R. 600, Rattan Lal v. Mst. Laxmi Devi, 1971 P.L.R. 86, Ram Micas v. Union of India through the Secretary Ministry of Post and Telegraph, New Delhi and Anr., 1973 R.R.C. 425, and Shri Arjan Singh Chopra v. Sewa Singh and Ors., 1967 C.L.J. 408.;