HEMANT GUPTA,J - (1.) THE challenge in the present revision petition is to the order passed by the Authorities under the East Punjab Urban Restriction Act, 1949, whereby an order of ejectment has been passed on the ground that the demised premises is required for bona fide use of the respondent-landlord. The respondent has sought ejectment of the petitioner from the premises bearing No. 236-A, Sarabha Nagar, Ludhiana. It has been alleged that an agreement was executed between the parties and the petitioner came to occupy the same as a tenant without any right over the roof and the staircase on a monthly rent of Rs. 2,000/-. The landlord sought the ejectment of the tenant on the ground that he is carrying on the business of cloth in Chaura Bazar, Ludhiana under the name and style of Paris Cloth House since long. He is living at Phillaur and is a daily commuter, and in view of his advancing age and health reasons, it is hazardous for him to do so as a lot of time is wasted in coming and going. He has pleaded that he has no residential building in the urban area nor he has vacated any such building without sufficient cause after the commencement of the Act.
(2.) IN the written statement, the tenant alleged that the entire property was given on rent including staircase, roof and passage. In respect of bona fide requirement, it was pointed out that the landlord does not require the tenanted premises for his own occupation or for use or occupation of his family but the landlord is using pressure tactic to get increase in the rate of rent. It was stated that the landlord is neither in advancing age nor he is suffering from any disease. Before the first learned Appellate Court an argument was raised that the premises let out to the petitioner is a non-residential building. A reference was made to an agreement Mark P-2, wherein the building was referred to be used as an office and that the non-residential building cannot be got vacated for the bona fide personal use and occupation of the landlord. Though, the dispute between the parties revolved around the admissibility of the agreement Mark P-2 being an un-registered lease deed, but keeping in view the fact that the landlord himself is not disputing execution of the agreement between the parties, the said agreement Mark P-2 can be taken into consideration at least for the purpose of finding out the purpose of letting out.
(3.) A perusal of the said agreement shows that the landlord had agreed to construct a new building according to the requirement of the tenant as per plan approved "for its use as office and/or residence for officers". In view of the said clause in the agreement, the building was not constructed exclusively for the non-residential purpose.;