The second proviso to Section 13-A of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 limits the landlord's right to recover possession of a residential building to one building or part thereof, even if the building is let out in different parts to different tenants.

1. This order will also dispose of Civil Revisions Nos. 2414, 2389 and 2390 of 1988 as all these four petitions were disposed of by one order by the Rent Controller, dated 7-9-1988.

2. Landlord Col. Prem Singh Grewal filed these four ejectment applications under Section 13-A of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (as amended) against his four tenants separately. According to the landlord he was a specified landlord as defined. He retired from service with effect from 31-1-1980 and filed the present ejectment applications on 10-11-1986 alleging that earlier the property in dispute was converted into four portions and each portion was given at a monthly rent of Rs. 18/- plus house tax etc. to the tenants. The tenants started using verandah as shop whereas in the rear portion they started residing. The landlord requires the same for his own use and occupation keeping in view his status and family requirement. He has no residential building at Patiala in the urban area concerned in his occupation. Rather as and when he comes to Patiala he puts up with his brother who has got a house here. Thus, he wants to keep the building for his own use and occupation.

3. The tenants on receipt of the notice, filed applications under Section 18-A of the said Act, supported by affidavits and other documents seeking permission to contest the petitions on the allegations that the application was not in accordance with law. The premises in question is a shop and cannot be vacated for residential purpose. In the ejectment application filed earlier by the landlord and his brother, regarding the premises in dispute, the same were described to be the shop. Even in the receipt regarding payment of rent issued prior to July, 1985, the premises were shown to be the shop. Moreover, the premises in dispute are situated in the area of shopping centre and there are about 20 shops of the landlord and his brother in this area. In these circumstances, the landlord was not entitled to ejectment under Section 13-A of the amended Act. The learned Rent Controller allowed the necessary permission to contest the ejectment applications, inter alia, on the ground "whether the disputed premises is a residential building or not?."

4. After considering the entire evidence led by the parties, the learned Rent Controller found thus, "I am clearly of the view that it stands proved on record that the premises in dispute are not solely used for trade, business rather those are used for trade and residence also." In view of that finding ejectment orders were passed against the tenants vide impugned order dated 7-9-1988.

5. Learned counsel for the tenants-petitioners submitted that the finding of the Rent Controller that the premises in dispute are residential is wrong and illegal. According to the learned counsel, from the evidence on record, it could not be held that the premises are residential. The same were let out for business purposes as per rent note and, therefore, no ejectment order could be passed with respect to the demised premises under Section 13-A of the amended Act. In support of this contention reference was made to Hari Mittal V/s. B.M. Sikka, (1986) 89 (1) Pun LR 1 : (AIR 1986 Punj and Har 119) (FB) and Lal Chand V/s. Bal Kishan, (1987) 92 Pun LR 222. It was further contended that in any case under Section 13-A, second proviso, a landlord was not entitled to recover possession of more than one residential building inclusive of any part or parts thereof if it is let out in part or parts, and that being so, the landlord could eject only one of the tenants from the demised premises. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the landlord submitted that on the appreciation of the entire evidence, it has been found that the premises are residential and that being a finding of fact should not be interfered with in revisional jurisdiction, in view of sub-section (8) of Section 18-A of the Act. He further submitted that second proviso to Section 1