J.V.GUPTA, J. - (1.) THIS is landlord's petition whose ejectment application has been dismissed by both the authorities below.
(2.) IT was alleged in the ejectment application that the petitioners are the owners and landlords of Kothi No. 233, Sector 9-C, Chandigarh, whereas Respondent No. 1 Shri G.S. Sardana was their tenant at a monthly rent of Rs. 1200/- excluding water and electricity charges. It was further alleged that the landlords had kept with themselves only one room adjoining the garage. According to the allegations in the ejectment application the said house was let out for residential purpose but the tenant had started running a school therein causing great damage to the building. The ejectment was sought on the ground that the landlords bonafide required the premises for their personal use and occupation. Shri Jagjit Singh Cheema, landlord, was a retired Army Officer and had to start legal practice at Chandigarh, whereas Shri Jaswant Singh Cheema landlord and his mother Smt. Hukam Kaur remained sick and were under treatment of the doctors in the P.G.I. Hospital. The application was resisted, inter-alia, on the ground that the premises had been let out for running a school and had been in use as such since the very inception of tenancy in 1972. The premises in question fall within the definition of 'non-residential building' and, therefore the same could not be got vacated on the ground of requirement for personal use and occupation. The trial Court found that it was Respondent No. 2, Manav Mangal School, which was the tenant of the landlords as alleged in the written statement. It was further found that the purpose of the tenancy was that of running a school. The demised premises were held to be a non-residential building and, therefore, the landlords were not entitled to seek ejectment on the ground of their personal occupation. However, it was further found that the landlords have failed to prove that they bonafide require that the premises for their own use and occupation. With these findings the application was dismissed. In appeal, the learned Appellate Authority affirmed all these findings and thus maintained the order dismissing the ejectment application. However, before the appellate court it was conceded that it was Manav Mangal School, Respondent No. 2. which was the tenant under the landlords and not Respondent No. 1, Shri G.S. Sardana as alleged in the ejectment application. Dissatisfied with the same, the landlords have filed this petition in this Court. Learned counsel for the petitioners contests the findings of the courts below under Issue Nos. 4 and 7, which are to the following effect : 4. What is the nature of tenanted premises ? OP Parties 7. If the premises are proved to be residential, whether the petitioners bonafide require the demised premises for personal use and occupation ? According to the learned counsel for the petitioners even if the building was given on rent for running a school, it did not cease to be a residential building and, therefore, the landlords are entitled to seek ejectment on the ground of their personal use and occupation. In support of his contention he referred to Kamal Arora v. Amar Singh and another 1980 (1) RCR 466 I.L.R. 1980 (II) Punjab and Haryana, 416, Smt. Raja Rani v. Amir Chand, 1980 (2) R.C.R. 162 : 1980(2) R.L.R.236 and Faqir Chand v. Ram Kali, 1982(2) R.L.R. 404 I.L.R (1983) 1 Punjab and Haryana 383. In reply to these contentions, the learned counsel for the respondents referred to Rattan Lal v. Mst. Laxmi Devi, ( 1971 R.C. R 68) 1971 P.L.R. 86 and Devi Chand Kakkar (deceased represented by his L.Rs. v. Amar Nath (deceased) represented by his L Rs. (1983(1) R.C.R. 672) 1983(2) R.L.R. 425. The judgments cited at the bar on behalf of the petitioner fully support his contention. The facts of the case reported as Kamal Arora ( supra) were practically the same as are in the present case. After considering the statutory provisions of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act it was held therein that the intention of the Legislation appears to be that if the premises are admittedly residential one, for all intents and purposes the same cannot be converted into non-residential building without the prior permission of the Rent Controller and if this provision is violated, the penalty is provided under section 19 of the Act. Thus, where the premises are initially let out for residence and the landlord subsequently acquiesces in the change of the user as a non-residential building so as to deprive the landlord of the ground of personal necessity to seek ejectment of his tenant. A Division Bench of this Court in Faqir Chand's case (supra) indirectly supported this view taken by me in that case. It was held therein that conversation of a portion of a residential building by the landlord into non-residential one does not disentitle the landlord to seek ejectment of the tenant of another portion of the building on the ground personal necessity. The effect of section 11 of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act was duly considered therein. The judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the respondents have no bearing on the facts of the present case. In any case, the effect of section 11 of the Act was not considered in the said judgments. Thus, the view taken by the appellate authority that the demised premises could not be vacated on the ground of personal use and occupation since it was leased out for non-residential purposes is not correct.
(3.) HOWEVER , it was contented by the learned counsel for the respondents that there was no evidence to prove that the demised premises were residential building though let out for non-residential purposes. I do not find any force in this contention. In para 1 of the ejectment application it was specifically mentioned therein that the petitioners are owners and landlords of House No. 233, Sector 9-C, Chandigarh. In the reply filed thereto the tenants never denied that it was not used as a residential building. Instead of using the word 'House' in the written statement he used the word 'Bungalow No. 233-C, Chandigarh. From these pleading it was quite evident that it was a common case of the parties that the rented building was a residential building as it was constructed as residential house. This is also evident from the recital in the lease agreement marked 'A' wherein it was stated that 'the said lessors are the joint owners of the residential House No. 233, Sector 9-C, Chandigarh measuring 6 kanals". Thus the rented building was residential building and was constructed as such. Simply that it was rented out for running a school, it did not cease to be a residential building on that ground alone. The landlords were certainly entitled to seek ejectment of their tenant on the ground of their personal use and occupation.;