K.Kannan, J.

1. I. Scope :

The above revision petition comes up for hearing after a report that has been obtained pursuant to the directions issued by this Court in an elaborate order dated 23.04.2003 to an application filed by a "specified landlord" under Section 13A complaining of subletting by the tenant and also requiring the premises for his bona fide use and occupation.

II. No prohibition or zoning or schedule for use for non-residential purpose in a residential area : (on facts)

2 The plea taken by the tenant was that the shop in occupation of the tenant was a non-residential building and the landlord was not entitled to secure eviction for a residential purpose. The Rent Controller found the plea of subletting to be not true but still held the requirement of the landlord to have been established, considering the fact that the demised shop premises was a part of an integral whole of residential building situated over a residential locality and hence held that the demised premises was required to be vacated. The directions of this Court became necessary to find out whether the demised premises was in any particular specification of zoning relating to the locality used for non-residential purposes. The interim order of this Court calling for report directed three questions to be answered :-

"1. Whether the building constructed by the landlord is in pursuant to a sanctioned plan by a competent authority or the scheme duly framed by a competent authority ?

2. The character of the building has been defined to be residential or can be used for a mixed purpose.

3. If no such constraints as aforesaid are applicable upon the premises, is the building existing or existed at the time of being let out, in the hub of the commercial area/centre."

3. The Rent Controller has filed the report which reads as follows :-

"......this court is constrained to hold that there was neither any sanctioned plan nor there was any necessity for the same nor any scheme has ever been framed by any competent authority. But originally as is clear from the statements of the witnesses of both the parties and documents placed on record, this shop in dispute was integral part of residential house as it has been constructed originally. But at the time when the shop was let out, the property in dispute was under the control of Gram Panchayat and cannot be said to be situated in the hub of commercial area......"

4. From the reading of report, it is evident that there are particularly no zoning requirements in Amritsar and therefore, it is not possible to state that in a residential area, a tenant could not have been inducted for a non- residential use of a tenant or vice versa.

III. Full Bench Decision in Hari Mittals case explained :

5. Before me, the contention of the learned Senior Counsel for the revision petitioner is the decision of the Full Bench in Hari Mittal v. B.M. Sikka, 1986(1) RCR(Rent) 92 : (1986-1) 89 PLR 1 dealt with a property falling within the jurisdiction of Chandigarh Administration where there are specified areas for residential and non-residential purposes. By consideration of the said decision, it could be seen that if a building is in a residential area and even if it is used for a nonresidential purpose, it must be considered only as a residential building for attracting the provisions of Section 13A. For a proper appreciation of the rival contentions of the parties, it becomes essential to reproduce Section 13-A of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 :-

"13-A. A right to recover immediate possession of residential or scheduled building to accrue to certain persons. - Where a specified landlord at any time, within one year prior to or within one year after the date of his retirement or after his retirement but within one year of the date of commencement of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction (Amendment) Act, 1985, whichever is later, applies to the Controller along with a certificate from the authority compete