The profession of a Chartered Accountant is distinct from business or trade, and a building used solely for the purpose of such profession cannot be considered a non-residential building under the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949.

1. The landlord petitioner has filed this revision against the order of Appellate Authority Ludhiana, dated November 26, 1977, whereby the order of the Rent Controller, dismissing his application for ejectment, has been maintained.

2. The premises in dispute is a portion of a residential building known as Lakshmi Vishnu Bhawan situated on Kailash Cinema Road, Civil Lines, Ludhiana. Vide rent note dated 26th July, 1962 (Exhibit A1) the premises in dispute, consisting of three rooms i.e. one office room on the first floor and two rooms on the second floor with bath, latrin, kitchen and store etc., was given on rent on a monthly rent of Rs. 138/-. The application for ejectment has been filed by the landlord-petitioner on the ground that he bona fide requires the premises for his own use and occupation. In the written statement filed on behalf of the tenant a plea was taken that the premises in dispute are not a residential building as it is being solely used for business and therefore the land lord is not entitled to get the premises vacated on the ground of his personal occupation. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed :-

1. Whether the petitioner bona fide requires the building in dispute for his residence ?

2. Whether the premises are residential ?

3. Whether the notice served upon the respondent is invalid ?

On issue No. 1 the learned Rent Controller came to the conclusion that from the evidence of the landlord the plea of bona fide necessity for his own occupation is not established. On issue No. 2 he came to the conclusion that the premises are non-residential building as the same have never been occupied by the tenant for his residence and he using the same solely for the purpose of his business i.e. for running his office as a Chartered Accountant. On appeal, the learned Appellate Authority has confirmed the finding of the Rent Controller on issue No. 2 and in view of that finding, he did not record any finding on the question of bona fide requirement of the premises by the landlord. Feeling aggrieved against this order of the Appellate Authority, the landlord has come up in revision to this Court.

3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at great length. The main question which requires determination in this case is whether the premises which were let out to the tenant to run his office as Chartered Accountant become non-residential building as contemplated under Section 2(d) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). In order to determine this question certain provisions of the Act are necessary to be reproduced here. Section 2(d) of the Act defines "non-residential building" and reads thus :-

"Non-residential building means a "building" being used solely for the purpose of business or trade : Provided that residence in a building only for the purpose of guarding it shall not be deemed to convert a "non-residential building" to a "residential building."

Section 2(g) defines "residential building" which is to the following effect :-

"Residential building" means any building which is not a non-residential building."

Section 2(h) of the Act defines "scheduled building" and it reads thus :-

"Scheduled building" means a residential building which is being used by a person engaged in one or more of the professions specified in the schedule to this Act, partly for his business and partly for his residence."

Here reference to Sections 11 and 19 of the Act is also relevant and they read as under :-

"11. Conversion of a residential building into a non-residential building. - No person shall convert a residential building into a non-residential building except with the permission in writing of the Controller."

"19. Penalties. - (1) If any person contravenes any of the provisions of Sub-Section (2) of Section 9, Sub-Section (1) of Section 10, Section 11 or Section 18, he shall be punishable with fine which may extend to one thousan