The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation and application of the provisions of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 and the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent Act and Eviction) Act, 1973, particularly regarding the right of eviction of the tenant from a non-residential building on the ground of bona fide personal use and occupation.

Hemant Gupta, J.

1. The respondent-landlord has filed an ejectment petition against the petitioner-tenant in September, 1991 to seek his ejectment in-teralia on account of non-payment of rent and cease to occupy etc. However, the landlord amended the ejectment petition in July, 1998 to seek the eviction of the tenant on the ground that the landlord requires the premises for his own use and occupation. It was pleaded that, the present premises in occupation of the landlord are insufficient for accommodating the doctors, in-door patients, laboratories, other staff members and the building in question is required by the petitioner for its hospital. The number of indoor and outdoor patients is about 500 per day and the present building in its possession is most insufficient. The landlord also pleaded that it has not vacated any premises after the enactment of East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949. The landlord sought amendment of the petition after the Honble Supreme Court set aside the amendment in the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, whereby the right to evict the tenant from non-residential building on account of bona fide personal use and occupation in an judgment reported as Harbilas Rai Bansal v. The State of Punjab, (1996-1)112 P.L.R. 227 (Supreme Court). Following the said judgment provisions of Haryana Urban (Control of Rent Act and Eviction) Act, 1973 were held to be discriminatory by Division Bench of this court so as to deny the eviction of the tenant from a non-residential building on account of bona fide personal use and occupation, in a judgment reported as State of Haryana v. Ved Parkash Gupta and Anr., (1999-1) 121 P.L.R. 482.

2. At the out set, the learned counsel for the petitioner has raised an argument that such judgment of the Division Bench does not lay down correct law. In Harbilas Rai Bonsais case (supra) the Supreme Court has struck down the provisions of Amending Act whereas, the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent & Eviction) Act was introduced in the year 1973. The Legislature has provided separate grounds of eviction in respect of different category of building. The classification of the building whether residential or non-residential is well defined and cannot be said that it is unintelligible classification. This aspect has not been considered to the Division Bench. However, I am unable to agree with the argument raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner. The Division Bench has considered the entire provisions of the Act and returned the finding of denial of right of eviction to the landlord from a non-residential building as discriminator) and therefore, struck, down being violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

3. On merits, the learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the order of ejectment passed by both the courts below is patently illegal, unjust and not sustainable in law and on the fact. That the landlord is required to plead and prove three essential ingredients to seek eviction of the tenant on the ground of bona fide personal use and occupation. Such ingredients are (i) that he requires the premises for his own occupation; (ii) that he is not occupying any other building in the urban area concerned: (iii) that he has not vacated such a building without sufficient cause after the commencement of 1949 Act in the said area. Reliance was placed on Full Bench Judgment of this Court reported as Banke Ram v. Smt. Sarasti Devi, (1977)79 P.L.R. 112 as well as Onkar Nath v. Ved Vyas, 1979(2) R.L.R. 226 (Supreme Court) and Chiranjit Rai Alipuria v. Madhuban Singh and Ors.,1984(2) Rent Control Reporter 343.

4. A perusal of the pleadings would show that the landlord has pleaded that the premises are required for its personal use and occupation and that the premises in occupation of the landlord are most insufficient for accommodation and that it has not vacated any premises after the enactment of East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act.

5. Bishan Sarup