Nirmal Yadav, J. - (1.) This is tenant's revision against the judgment and decree dated 22.1.2003 passed by the appellate authority affirming the order of eviction passed by the Rent Controller dated 20.12.2001.
(2.) The brief facts of the case are that respondents-S.K. Jain and his wife Chitra Jain, who are owners and landlords of Shop-cum-office No. 14, Sector 26, Chandigarh, rented out the demised premises @ Rs. 6,000/- per month excluding water and electricity charges to the petitioner-National Textile Corporation. They filed petition under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (in short 'the Act'), mainly, on two grounds that the premises was required by them for their personal use as well as for the use of their son Nikhil Jain who was going to complete the degree in Electronics Engineering from Chandigarh in the year 1998. They wanted to start their own business for which they had sufficient funds to invest. It was further averred that neither landlords nor their son was in occupation of any other suitable commercial or residential premises in the urban area of Chandigarh nor they vacated any premises after the commencement of the Rent Act. The second ground pleased was that tenant had changed the user of the premises. The tenant contested the petition, mainly, on the ground that petition was not maintainable as it had not been filed against the proper person or functionary of the firm. The rate of rent was admitted. It was further pleaded that petition had been filed in order to enhance the rate of rent. The tenant denied having changed the user of the premises. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed:- "1. Whether the petitioners require the demised premises for their personal use and occupation ? OPP 2. Whether the respondent has changed the user of the demised premises without the consent of the petitioners, if so its effect ? OPP 3. whether the instant petition is not maintainable in the present form ? OPR 4. Whether this instant petition has not been filed by the authorised persons ? OPR 5. Relief."
(3.) The Rent Controller after taking the facts and evidence into account, decided issue Nos. 1, 3 and 4 in favour of the respondents-landlords while issue No. 2 against them. The appellate authority affirmed the order of the Rent Controller. Aggrieved by the orders of both the Courts below, the petitioner-tenant has challenged the order mainly, on the ground that commercial/non-residential property situated in Union Territory, Chandigarh, cannot be got vacated by the landlord on the ground of personal necessity. This argument of the learned counsel does not survive in view of the judgment rendered by the apex Court in the case of Rakesh Vij v. Dr. Raminder Pal Singh Sethi and others, 2005(2) RCR(Rent) 354 : 2005(8) SCC 504, wherein it has been held that Rent Act purporting to completely deprive a landlord of his right to seek eviction of a tenant from non-residential building on the ground of his bonafide personal necessity would be highly unjust and inequitable. Such an interpretation would be violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. It has been further held that such a ground is available both in respect of residential and non-residential buildings under the Act in the Union Territory of Chandigarh.;