The provisions of Section 11 of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973, which prohibit the conversion of a residential building into a non-residential building without the permission of the Rent Controller, do not apply to property occupied by the landlord himself.

PREM CHAND JAIN, J.

1. Faqir Chand petitioner is occupying a portion of house No. 4497 situated in Bazaza Mohalla/Shivala Mohalla, Ambala Cantt, as a statutory tenant, on payment of rent at the date of Rs. 6.50 per month under the respondent, who filed a petition for eviction of the petitioner on the grounds of non-payment of rent and bona fide requirement for her own personal use and occupation. The petition was contested by the petitioner on various grounds. As arrears of rent were duly tendered, the ground of default in payment of rent was abandoned by the respondent. The only issue that survived, for decision was the bona fide personal requirement of the landlady. On consideration of the evidence led by the parties, the learned Rent Controller accepted the claim of the landlady and ordered ejectment of the petitioner vide his order dated 30th Jan., 1980.

2. Feeling aggrieved from the order of eviction the tenant preferred an appeal. The learned appellate Authority did not find any merit in the appeal and dismissed the same.

3. Still dissatisfied, the present petition has been filed by the tenant. Initially, the petition came up for hearing before M.R. Sharma J., on 14th Jan., 1981, when a contention was raised on behalf of the petitioner on the basis of a single Bench judgment of this Court in Tara Chand Chandari V/s. Shashi Bhushan Gupta, 1980 Cur LJ (Civ) 231: (AIR 1980 Punj and Har 302), that it was not open for a landlord to convert a residential building into a non-residential building and that as the landlady respondent after getting a portion of the building vacated from another tenant, had converted that portion into a tea-shop and dry-cleaning shop, the ejectment of the petitioner could not be ordered from the premises in dispute even if personal necessity of the landlady was proved. Finding some merit in the contention, notice of motion was issued. In response to the notice of motion, the respondent put in appearance. When the matter was heard by the learned Judge, a Division Bench judgment of this Court in Chattar Sain V/s. M/s. Jamboo Parshad, 1965 cur LJ 143, was cited for the proposition that with regard to residential building which was not occupied by a tenant, no permission was required by the owner for converting its user to non-residential building. Finding a conflict between the Judgments of Tara Chandani s case (supra) and Chattar Sain s case (supra) the learned Judge admitted the petition to a hearing by a Division Bench. It is in these circumstances that the matter has been placed before us for decision.

4. It was vehemently contended by Mr. Goyal, learned counsel for the petitioner, that in view of the provisions of section 11 of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973, (hereinafter referred to as the Act ) the landlady-respondent could not convert the portion of the building which she had got vacated from another tenant to a use which would make the building a non-residential building. It was further contended by the learned counsel that as, in the instant case, the landlady had admittedly converted the user of certain portion of the building to non-residential building, no ejectment order could be passed in her favour. In support of his contention, as earlier observed, reliance was placed mainly on Tara Chand Chandani s case (AIR 1980 Punj and Har 302) (supra).

5. After giving our thoughtful consideration to the entire matter, we find no merit in this contention of the learned counsel, as the same stands concluded against him by the judgment of the Division Bench in Chattar Sain s case (1965 Cur LJ 143) (supra) where on a similar point, on consideration of the relevant provisions of the statute, Jindra Lal, J. (as he then was) speaking for the Court, observed thus :-

"16. His main ground of attack is based on a combined reading of certain provisions of Sections 11, 13 and 19 of the Act. Section 11 provides that no person shall convert a residential building into a non-re