J.V.GUPTA, J. - (1.) THIS is landlord's petition in whose favour ejectment order was passed by the Rent Controller but set aside in appeal.
(2.) THE landlord, Sant Parkash Singh, sought the ejectment of this tenant Labh Singh from the house in dispute, inter alia, on the ground that he required the same for his personal use and occupation. In the Written Statement it was pleaded that the tenant never got the house for a residential purpose but for commercial use, i.e., for manufacture of harmonious, and thus, the landlord could not get an ejectment order on the ground of personal necessity. The learned Rent Controller found that since the building was being used only for the purpose of manufacture of harmoniums, it was a non-residential building, and, therefore, the ground of personal requirement was not available. However, on the ground of material impairment of the value and utility of the building in dipsue, the order of ejectment was passed against the tenant. In appeal, the learned Appellate Authority reversed the finding of the ld. Rent Controller, and came to the conclusion that the alleged structure appeared to be a re movable wooden structure which was not permanently fixed to the earth or any other part of the building. However, the Appellate Authority found that it was the admitted case of the parties that after 1965, the tenant had constructed his own house where he was residing but since the house in dispute was being used for a commercial use, the landlord was not entitled to seek the ejectment on the ground of personal necessity. In view of these findings, the eviction order was set aside. Aggrieved with it, the landlord has come up in revision. Earlier, vide this Court order dated 13th July, 1984, a report was sent for from the Rent Controller after framing two additional issues as follows :- (i) Whether the premises in dispute is a residential building for all intents and purposes; even if it was rented out for a commercial purpose, and if so, whether the landlord bonafide required the same for his own use and occupation ? and (ii) Whether the landlord is entitled to ejectment because the tenant has constructed his own house in the year 1965 ? Report dated 25th February, 1985, has been received from the Rent Controller. According to the finding of the learned Rent Controller, the building in question is a non-residential one, so, it can be very well said that the landlord is not entitled to ejectment. At the same time, a finding has also been recorded that the landlord did not bonafide required the building in question for his own use and occupation. Under Issue No. (ii), it has been found that it has not been established that the tenant has constructed a shop, and, therefore, if the landlord has constructed a residential building it is of no consequence.
(3.) LATER on, vide this Court order dated 24th April, 1985, the case was referred to the Full Bench on the question as to whether a residential building, if let out for a commercial purpose, could be got vacated by the landlord for his personal requirement. The said question has been answered by the Full Bench vide judgment dated 2nd December, 1985, (1986(1) RCR 92) and it has been held that if the building is a residential one, even if it be let out for a non-residential purpose, the landlord is entitled to seek ejectment on the ground that he bonafide requies it for his own use and occupation.;