A premises let out for business purposes cannot be treated as a residential building for the purpose of eviction under the Rent Control Act, even if it forms part of a building in which the landlady is residing.

J.V.Gupta, J.

1. This is landladys petition whose ejectment application has been dismissed by both the authorities below.

2. The petitioner, Smt. Santosh Kumari, rented out a room in a residential building bearing No. NB-257, Mohalla Lakshmipura, Jalandhar, to Messrs. Ravi Raj and Sons on a monthly rent of Rs. 400/- on 4th May, 1981. The ejectment application was filed on 12th November, 1982, inter alia, on the ground that she bona fide required the premises for her own use and occupation as well as for her family. It was also stated that the premises were rented out because the petitioner was in dire need of money to met the needs of the family; that she did not own any other building in the urban area concerned nor her family owned any such building; that her children were grownup and she was in possession of only one small room over the premises in dispute, which is hardly enough to meet her requirements; that she has got one son and three daughters who are school going; that prior to the leasing out of the premises she was living there but later she got loan from the tenant and constructed a chobara thereon and started living there. According to the petitioner further, the premises in dispute was a part of the residential building, and, therefore, she was entitled to evict the tenant on the ground of bona fide personal necessity. The petition was resisted, inter alia, on the ground that the premises consisting of one room was rented out for business purposes, and, moreover, the same was situated in a bazar where the upper portion was used by the occupants for their residence whereas the ground floor was being used for business purposes; that the petition had been filed with an ulterior motive to increase the rent from Rs. 400/- to Rs. 600/-. According to the tenant the premises did not fall within the definition of residential building, and, therefore, could not be got vacated on the ground of personal requirement.

3. The main controversy between the parties before the Rent Controller was as to whether the demised premises were residential or not. The learned Rent Controller found that the premises in dispute was not residential, particularly when it had been let out to the tenant for business purposes. It was also found that the petitioner did not require the premises bona fide for her personal use. In view of these finings, the ejectment application was dismissed. In appeal, the learned Appellate Authority affirmed the said findings of Rent Controller, and, thus, maintained the order dismissing the ejectment application. Aggrieved with the same, the landlady had filed this revision petition.

4. Efforts were made in this Court for compromise between the parties but unfortunately the learned counsel for the petitioner stated at the Bar that his client was not prepared for a compromise.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the premises in dispute consisted of one room only and though it was rented out for business purposes but prior to that the landlady herself was living herein. As she was in need of money, she rented out the said room to the tenant and constructed a chobara thereon after raising loan from the tenant, and started living therein. Now the said accommodation is insufficient for the landlady, and hence the present application for ejectment. Thus, argued the learned counsel, in these circumstances, it could not held that the premises in dispute which forms part of the residential building ceased to be residential as such. On the other hand, learned counsel for the tenant submitted that the premises is situate in a bazar on both sides of which there are shops, and in that locality the ground floor is being used by the occupants for business whereas the upper store is being used for residence. Thus, contended the learned counsel, the premises in dispute which were rented out for business purposes could not be termed to be residential building according to the Act.

6. After hearing the lear