A "specified landlord" under the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 cannot get a non-residential building vacated for his personal occupation under Section 13-A of the Act.

D.V.Sehgal, J.

1. This revision petition by the tenant is directed against as order of his ejectment from the premises in dispute passed by the learned Rent Controller, Jalandhar, vide his judgment dated 21.2.87.

2. The landlord-respondent invoking the jurisdiction of the Rent Controller under Section 13-A of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (for short the Act) sought ejectment of the petitioner from the premises which he styled as a "room" forming part of house bearing No. K-37/2, Ladowali Road, Jalandhar. He averred that he was working as a District Development and Panchayat Officer at Jalandhar and was due to retire on 31.7.1986 and is, therefore, a "specified landlord" within the meaning of Section 2(hh) of the Act. He was holding appointment in the Public Service under the State of Punjab. He required the demised premises for his personal use and occupation. He is a Law Graduate and after retirement from service he intended to start his practice as an advocate at Jalandhar and he required the premises in dispute for setting up his office. The application was duly supported by an affidavit and a certificate of the competent authority that the respondent was due to retire from service on 31.7.1986. The petitioner was allowed to contest the application. He filed his written statement. Though he denied therein the allegations of the respondent that he is a "specified landlord" within the meaning of the Act, during the course of evidence there was virtually no contest on this point and as such the learned Rent Controller rightly held that the respondent is a specified landlord.

3. The petitioner, however, denied that the premises in dispute is a room. He contended that it is a shop. The site plan produced by the respondent himself showed that the shop in dispute is totally separated and cut off from the main residential building. On either sides of this shop there are other three shops owned by the respondent which are also a part of the building owned by him. The premises in dispute thus being a shop is a non-residential building and the respondent could not get the same vacated for his personal occupation under Section 13-A of the Act. It was further averred that the petitioner who is a Medical Practitioner for about 12 years has been in occupation of this shop. So, the contest was mainly confined to the question whether the premises in dispute is a shop and thus a `non-residential building within the meaning of Section 2(d) of the Act or part of the residential building within the meaning of Section 2(g) thereof. The learned Rent Controller vide judgment under revision mainly relying on the plan of the building sanctioned by the Municipal Committee has held that premises in dispute is a part of the residential building and is not a shop and has thus upheld the plea of respondent and negatived the defence raised by the petitioner. As a result it has been held that the premises in dispute being suitable for carrying on legal practice by the respondent, is required by him and as such the order for recovery of possession of the same was passed in his favour.

4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also examined the pleadings and evidence brought on the record before the learned Rent Controller. I am of the considered view that the learned Rent Controller has erred in the exercise of his jurisdiction while passing the order of ejectment through the judgment under revision. His jurisdiction under Section 13-A of the Act would be attracted only in case the premises in dispute is a "residential building or scheduled building". It was admittedly not a scheduled building because the petitioner was using the premises in dispute exclusively for his medical practice while he is residing in a separate house owned by his wife. So what is required to be seen is whether the premises in dispute could be styled as a residential building.

5. The site plan of the entire building owned by the responde