The adequacy or insufficiency of accommodation with the landlord is a ground admissible to him under Section 13(3)(a)(i) of the Act.

Mehar Singh, J.

1. These three revision petitions, Sant Ram Des Raj V/s. Karam Chand, Civil Revision No. 373 of 1960, Ram Nath V/s. Lal Singh, Civil Revision No, 190 of 1961, and Bhagwati Parshad V/s. Jamni and Ram Singh, Civil Revision No. 59 of 1961, have been taken together because a common question of law has arisen for consideration in these petitions on three separate references that have come before this Bench.

2. The first revision petition, Civil Revision No. 373 of 1960, concerns properly No. 586 Ward No. 7 of Kalka town. It was the property of Abdul Rashid Butt under an oral tenancy with Sant Ram DES Raj petitioner-firm, at an annual rental of Rs. 450/- Abdul Rashid Butt sold half defined part of it to Karam Chand respondent on April 2, 1957. The responent is admittedly in possossion of rented accommodation consisting of one room with a kitchen. It is, however, in somewhat dilapidated condition. Apart from him there are two Other members of his family, his wife and mother. On January 21, 1958, be made an application under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (East Punjab Act No. III of 1949), hereinafter to be referred as the Act, for eviction of the petitioner-firm from half of the property purchased by him on grounds of non-payment of rent and the requirement of the property for his own occupation. The petitioner-firm admitted ownership of the respondent in the half portion of the property but resisted the application on the ground that it is tenant under the respondent and Abdul Rashid Butt so that the respondent alone cannot maintain the application, that the premises are non-residential building under the use of it as a godown and for storing goods in connection with its business, and that the respondent does not bona fide require the premises for his own occupation. The petitioner-firm tendered arrears of rent by deposit before the Rent Controller, but as it raised objection to the claim of the respondent to the same, so it said that the amount be not paid. The Rent Controller found that the petitioner-firm is a tenant under the respondent, that the premises are residential building, that as rent is payable annually end was not due until March 31, 1958, the question of the invalidity of the tender made by the petitioner-firm did not arise, and that the respondent bona fide requires the premises for his own occupation, there being no suggestion that he is obtaining eviction of the petitioner-firm with a view to higher rent. The Rent Controller on June 15, 1959 made an order against the petitioner-firm directing it to deliver possession of the premises to the respondent within the time specified in the order.

3. On appeal the Appellate Authority maintained the findings of the Rent Controller except that it came to the conclusion that the rent not having been apportioned between the respondent and his vendor, there was no question of invalidity of tender and that the premises are used for business by the petitioner-firm, though not solely for that purpose, and for that reason it is residential building within Section 2 (g) of the Act. The Appellate Authority upheld the finding of the Rent Controller that the petitioner bona fide requires the premises for his own occupation. The appeal was dismissed on May 9, 1960.

4. This revision petition by the petitioner firm against the order of the Appellate Authority came first before a learned Single Judge and it appears that it was for all practical purposes conceded at that stage that the premises are residential building and it was upon this consideration that the learned Judge made a reference of the petition to a larger Bench on the question whether hadequacy or insufficiency of the accommodation with the landlord is or is not a ground admissible to him under Section 13 (3) (a) (i) of the Act, and particularly in view of the Division Bench decision Ramkishan Das V/s. Gordhan Das (1960) 62 Pun LR 670, in which the learned Judges have h