HARJIT SINGH BEDI, J. - (1.) THE petitioner, who is the landlord of the premises in dispute, filed an application under Section 13-A of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act (hereinafter called the 'Act') claiming that as he was a specified landlord in terms of the Act he was entitled to seek eviction of the respondent-tenant thereunder. On notice of the ejectment application, the respondent-tenant appeared before the Rent Controller and sought leave to defend. This permission was declined vide order of the Rent Controller dated 2nd June, 1987 but on a revision to the High Court the order aforesaid was set aside and leave to defend was given to the respondent. The respondent accordingly filed a reply on 20th March, 1989 in which it was admitted that he had been inducted as a tenant by Ghansham Dass, father of the petitioner, and that as the original landlord had died the tenancy had devolved on his sons and daughters. It was further contended that Ghansham Dass had also filed an application for eviction of the respondent from the premises in dispute, inter alia, on the ground of personal necessity but the said application and the appeal filed thereon had been dismissed vide orders of the Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority dated 26th April, 1979 and 11th January, 1980, respectively, with the concurrent finding that as the demised premises were neither a residential house nor a scheduled building, the eviction of the tenant on the ground of personal necessity could not be ordered. On these pleadings the Rent Controller framed the following issues :- (1) Whether the applicant is a specified landlord and as such is entitled to evict the respondent from the demised premises ? OPA (2) Whether the application is not maintainable ? OPR (3) Relief. The parties led evidence and on a consideration thereof the Rent Controller found that the petitioner was a specified landlord in terms of the Act, but as the building in question was not a residential one, it could not be got vacated by taking recourse to Section 13-A thereof. In arriving at this conclusion the Rent Controller was very substantially influenced by the findings to the same effect which had been recorded in the litigation referred to above between Ghansham Dass and the respondent therein.
(2.) THE counsel for the petitioner had also referred to Vinod Kumar v. Smt. Surjit Kaur, 1987(2) RCR 156 : AIR 1987 SC 2179 : [1987(2) Rent Law Reporter 660 (SC)], Jagdish Singh v. Rambir Singh, 1987(2) PLR 483, Hari Mittal v. B. M. Sikka, 1986(1) RCR 92 (P&H) (FB) : 1986(1) PLR 1 and Dr. Subhash Chander v. Giani Joginder Singh, 1989(1) RCR 435 (P&H) : 1989(1) PLR 631 : [1989(1) Rent Law Reporter 384 (P&H)] to support his plea that a residential premises could not be converted into a non-residential purpose without the permission of the Rent Controller taken under Section 11 of the Act and as this permission had admittedly not been obtained, the change of user would not change the character of the building. The Rent Controller repelled this argument by stating that these rulings ought to have been cited before the Rent Controller in the earlier proceedings between Ghansham Dass and the respondent herein and, as the matter could not be considered afresh in the present proceedings, the ejectment application was accordingly to be dismissed. Mr. Des Raj Mahajan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, on the basis of the judgments quoted above has reiterated the arguments raised before the Rent Controller. He has, in addition, cited Om Parkash v. Shiv Dutt Prasher, 1991(1) RCR 395 (P&H) : 1991(1) PLR 418 : [1991(1) All India Rent Law Reporter 225 (P&H)] to urge that even in the face of finding in some earlier litigation inter se the parties that the premises were non-residential, could not operate as a res judicata in view of the settled position of law that the change of user could not be made without the written permission of the Rent Controller under Section 11 of the Act. Mr. Mahajan has also, in additional filed Civil Misc. No. 2799-CII-94 under Order 41, Rule 27 read with Section 151 Civil Procedure Code for placing on record by way of additional evidence the certified copy of the Master Plan of the Industrial Area Rajpura Town No. I and II wherein the premises in dispute are said to have been situated to show that the area in question being residential, no change of user could be made without the authorisation of the Rent Controller.
(3.) MR . Chhibber, learned counsel for the respondent has further supported the findings of the Rent Controller and has further argued with reference to a large number of judgments that the premises in dispute having come to the share of the petitioner and his brother, Kranti Kumar as Joint owners on account of the order Exhibit A7 passed by the Civil Court, the eviction of the tenant only at the instance of the petitioner could not be ordered Mr. Chhibbar has also filed Civil Misc. Nos. 2069 and 2070-CII of 1994 to put on record some additional evidence which is primarily in the shape of various court orders which have come into existence during the pendency of the present petition whereby the petitioner, who is owner of certain other premises, has been able to secure the eviction of the tenant from those premises.;