J.V.GUPTA,J - (1.) THIS is a landlady's revision petition in whose favour eviction order was passed by the Rent Controller, but was set aside in appeal.
(2.) THE landlady Miss Kamla Khanna sought the ejectment of her tenant Lal Chand Palta from the demised premises consisting one room on the ground floor, two rooms and one hall on the first floor as detailed in the head-note of the ejectment application, on the ground that the tenanted premises had been let out to the tenant for residential purposes as they were a part of the residential building. The tenancy was created in the year 1971. The tenant had changed the user thereof from residential to non-residential. The stand taken by the tenant was that the premises had originally been let out for non-residential purposes, i.e., commercial and business purposes. So, there, was no change in the purposes of letting. The other allegations made by the landlady were also controverted. The learned Rent Controller found that the tenant was guilty of the change of user from residential to non-residential. The other grounds taken by the landlady were negatived. Consequently, eviction order was passed on December 8, 1981. In appeal, the learned Appellate Authority reversed the said finding of the Rent Controller and came to the conclusion that the premises were given on rent by the landlady to Palta General Stores from the very inception of the tenancy and the same are being used for manufacturing purposes. Therefore, there has been no change of user, as alleged, entitling the landlady to seek the ejectment of the tenant. Consequently, the eviction order was set aside and the appeal was allowed. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the premises were let out for residential purposes. It was later on that the same were being used for the non-residential purposes. He referred to the letter, Exhibit C-1, dated October 21, 1971, issued by Director, Health Services, Punjab, to M/s Palta General Stores. It was issued to the tenant on the premises occupied by it earlier. It was stated therein :- "It has been brought to the notice of this office that uptil now you have not got premises separated from the residence in Jalandhar. As such you are hereby served with a show cause notice of two months to get some proper premises otherwise your cosmetic manufacturing licence will be cancelled." In reply to the said letter, it was stated vide Exhibit R. 5, dated Oct. 27, 1971, as follows :- "With reference to the above we wish to inform that we have already submitted the plan of separate premises with Treasury Receipt for Rs. 40/- to the Division Inspector of Drugs, Jullundur, on 8th October, 1971. We trust you have already received his report to this effect. Kindly note our fresh address as under :- Palta Cosmetics Division, N.D. 168, Bikrampura, Jullundur City." This is the address of the present premises which were taken on rent by the tenant. This clearly shows that from October, 1971, when the premises were let out, the tenant is doing his business therein and never resided therein, as alleged by the landlady.
(3.) FASED with this situation, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the premises, in dispute, are a residential building and, therefore, in view of the Full Bench judgment of this Court in Hari Mittal v. Shri B.M. Sikka, (1986-1) Punjab Law Reporter 1, the petitioner was entitled to seek the ejectment of the tenant on the ground of her personal necessity. However, it has been stated at the bar that such an application has already been filed by the landlady before the Rent Controller and is pending disposal. That being so, it will be open to the landlady to urge this point therein.;