A portion of a residential building used for non-residential purposes is deemed to be a separate non-residential building, allowing landlords to seek eviction for non-residential purposes.

Rakesh Kumar Jain, J.

1. This order shall dispose of two revision petitions, namely C.R. No.7915 of 2010 titled as Sk Satpal Chadha v. Satish Kumar and another, and C.R. No.8327 of 2010 titled a* Brij Mohan v. Satish Kumar and another.

2. In both the revision petitions, the landlords are the same who have filed, similar eviction petition against two tenants in respect of two shops in question. In brief, the facts of C.R. No.7915 of 2010 are that tenant Satpal Chadha is in occupation of one room of property No.4163, Durga Charan Road, Near Subzi Mandi Chowk, Ambala Cantt. at a monthly rent of Rs. 50/- for doing the business of clothes. His eviction was sought on the ground that he was in arrears of rent from 01.01.2003 to 31.12.2005 amounting to Rs.1,800/- and that Satish Kumar (landlord) requires the said shop for the business of readymade garments by his younger son Gaurav who is unemployed youth of 23 years of age. In reply, the personal need of the landlord was denied and rent was tendered, therefore, the said ground of eviction was over. It was also alleged that the house bearing No.4162-63 with its sub numbers is a very big building having an area of . 300 square yards. The room (shop) adjoining to the room in question is about 4 times in size than the room under the tenancy of the tenant and both the sons of respondent No.1 Satish Kumar including the said Gaurav are well settled. It was also submitted that ejectment on the ground of personal necessity for non-residential purpose from a portion of residential building is not maintainable. Replication was filed and from the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by the learned Rent Controller on 17.09.2007:-

"1. Whether the petitioners requires the property in question bearing No.4163, Durga Charan Road, Near Subzi Mandi Chowk, Ambala Cantt. on the ground as mentioned in the petition? OPP

2. Whether the petitioners have no locus standi to file the present petition? OPP

3. Whether the petition is not maintainable? OPR

4. Relief."

3. Both the parties led their respective evidence. On the ground of personal necessity, the learned Rent Controller held that dominant purpose of the said building is residential and thus it can be safely concluded that it is a residential building and as such the premises in question being part of residential building cannot be got vacated for opening a shop, which is a nonresidential purpose. The learned Rent Controller thus dismissed the eviction petition on 06.02.2010 which was challenged in appeal by the landlord and the same was allowed on 21.09.2010.

4. The facts of CR No.8327 of 2010 are that the tenant (Brij Bhushan) is in occupation of one room of property No.4162, Durga Charan Road, Near Subzi Mandi Chowk, Ambala Cantt. at the monthly rent of Rs.52/- and was doing the business of repair of stoves etc. His eviction was sought on the ground that he is in arrears of rent from 01.01.2003 to 31.12.2005 amounting to Rs.1,872/- and that the landlord required the shop for personal necessity because respondent No.2 (Ashok Kumar) is unmarried and is residing with respondent No.l Satish Kumar and has to start the business of cosmetic goods in the said shop after its vacation. In reply, it was averred that Madan Mohan, father of the petitioner/tenant, obtained the shop in question from Kalawati in the year 1964-65 and after her death, litigation began between the petitioner and LRs of Kalawati. Earlier, only Satish Kumar had been filing the petition against the tenant with regard to property in question. It is alleged that he is the tenant at the monthly rent of Rs.5/-. The rent was paid, therefore, the ground of nonpayment of rent was over. It was alleged that it is a big building comprising of 14-15 rooms, therefore, there is no question of any personal necessity. After filing replication, issues were framed on 05.02.2008, which reads as under:-

"1. Whether the respondent is liable to be ejected from the portion of property