- (1.) Petitioner filed an application against the respondents for their ejectment from the building in dispute, inter alia, on the allegation that the half portion of the said building was purchased by him from the Custodian, Evacuee Property, on the following grounds :- (a) That the respondents have not paid rent to the applicant from 18th September, 1959 to 31st March, 1969, amounting to Rs. 1,144/- ; and (b) That the applicant requires the house for his own use and occupation and he has no other residential building in his possession and occupation in the Municipal limits of Sonepat that a room of a building in which he is putting up is in the occupation of his mother and step-mother who have been given the right of residence till the time of their deaths vide the will of his father dated 20th November, 1959 ; and that he is not putting up in that room in his own right.
(2.) The application was contested by respondents. On the pleadings of the parties, seven issues were framed. The finding of the Rent Controller on Issues Nos. 4 and 5 which are the subject-matter of dispute before me, was that the building in question is a non-residential building and that the petitioner requires the premises for his own use and occupation. In view of the finding on issue No. 4 and other issues, the application for ejectment was rejected. On appeal, the finding on Issue No. 4 was upheld and the finding on Issue No. 5 was reversed, with the result that the appeal was dismissed. Hence the present revision petition.
(3.) It is contended by Mr. S. C. Kapur, learned counsel for the petitioner, that the premises in dispute falls in the definition of "residential building" and that the finding recorded by the Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority to the contrary is not legally sustainable. What has been argued by Mr. Kapur is that by using the premises for the purpose of C. 1. A. office, no business is being transacted and that only public service for maintaining law and order is being rendered. On the other hand, Mr. Manmohan Singh Liberhan, learned counsel for the respondents, submits, that by locating the C.I.A. office in the building, the State is transacting business and that the finding of the Appellate Authority is perfectly legal.;