J.V. Gupta, J. - (1.) Landlord petitioner has filed this revision petition against the order of the Appellate Authority whereby his appeal was dismissed and the order of the Rent Controller rejecting his application was maintained.
(2.) The disputed premises were the property of one Hans Raj who sold the same to the petitioner vide sale-deed dated July 7, 1972. These premises were in the occupation of Gurdas Mal respondent at a monthly rent of Rs. 11. After purchasing these premises, the petitioner Om Parkash served a notice on the tenant-respondent requiring him to vacate the premises as he wanted the same for his own use and occupation because the present accommodation was insufficient for his residential requirement. As he did not comply with that notice, an application for ejectment was filed on Oct. 11, 1973. In the written statement filed on behalf of the tenant, a plea was taken that the premises is not a dwelling house but is a cattle-shed known as "Ahatta". in the replication filed on behalf of the landlord in reply to this objection it was stated that it is wrong and denied that the premises. In dispute is a dwelling house and not a cattle-shed and is attached with a courtyard. On the pleadings of the parties, the Rent Controller framed the following issues : "1. Whether the respondent is liable to ejectment for the ground alleged by the petitioner ? 2. Whether the disputed premises is not a dwelling house but is a cattle-shed known as Ahata ? 3 Whether the respondent is liable to pay the house tax to the petitioner for the disputed premises -
(3.) The Rent Controller as well as the Appellate Authority came to the conclusion that the premises in dispute is not a residential building and. therefore, the same cannot be got vacated for the landlord's personal requirement under Sec. 13(3) (a) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act (hereinafter to be referred as the Act). On the issue of bona fide requirement the Rent Controller observed that "in the very outset, the claim of the petitioner deserves to be ignored because the disputed building is non-residential and his plea that he requires such building for his personal occupation, is not at all tenable Admittedly, the petitioner is a person belonging to the higher ranks of society as his investment for sugar business alone, is about between one or two lakhs, according to his own admission The disputed building is a dairy compound having small kacha and pacca structures. It can never be conceived by any person of discreet understanding that the petitioner would he really keen of occupying such a building for himself. Thus I hold that the disputed building is a dairy compound, nonresidential and the petitioner does not bona fide requires it for his personal occupation. This finding given by the Rent Controller has been maintained by the Appellate Authority as well. Feeling aggrieved against this order of the Appellate Authority, the tenant petitioner has come up in revision to this Court.;