Partial conversion of user of a non-residential building for residential purposes, other than for the purpose of guarding it, constitutes a ground for eviction under Section 13(2)(ii)(b) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949.

Mehar Singh, J.

1. 1. The demised premises is a shop situate in Bazar Nauhrian in the urban area of Jullundur. It is the property of Niranjan Kaur applicant. It was let by her to Dr. Sri Ram Joshi respondent to be used by him as a clinic for the carrying on of his profession as a medical man.

2. Eviction of the respondent was sought by the applicant on various grounds, but the ground which has survived with the Appellate Authority, in its order of November 11, 1965, is under Section 13(2)(ii)(b) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (East Punjab Act 3 of 1949) that the respondent used the demised premises for a purpose other than that for which it was leased, the Appellate Authority having found as a fact and on the appraisal of the evidence on record that back part of the shop in question was used by the respondent for residential purposes. However, both the Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority dismissed the eviction application of the applicant of the applicant following Inder Singh v. Kalu Ram 1965 P.L.R. 58. In that case the tenant had leased the shop for the purpose of his trade as a barber and while he carried on his trade in the front part of the shop, he had started living, with his family, in its back part. Falshaw, C.J. held that the case did not fall under Section 13(2)(ii)(b) of the Act observing - "I am inclined to take the view that such a partial conversion is not covered by the provisions of the Act and I derive support for this view from the different ways in which clauses (a) and (b) of Section 13(2)(ii) have been phrased. Clause (a) reads `transferred his right under the lease or sublet the entire building or rented land or any portion thereof. While the words `or any portion thereof do not appear in clause (b). Obviously the omission is deliberate, and in my opinion the ejectment was rightly refused on this ground". It is the correctness of the decision in Inder Singhs case which is questioned in this revision application by the applicant and hence the correctness of the orders of the authorities below.

3. The demised shop comes within the definition of the expression `non-residential building in Section 2(d) of the Act, in which it is defined to mean business or trade and there is a proviso to this definition of the expression `non-residential building in clause (d) of Section 2 which proviso reads "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".

On the clear words of the definition of this expression the building, which is a `non-residential building has to be used `solely, for the purpose of business or trade. Obviously if it is not used solely for that purpose it would not come within the definition of the expression `non-residential building. In clause (g) of section 2 of the Act the definition of the expression `residential building is given to mean any building which is not a `non-residential building. It is evident from the definition of these two expressions that non-residential buildings are those that are used solely for the purpose of business or trade, and the remaining, for the purpose of the Act are residential building. It is further clear from the definition of the expression `non-residential building, read alongwith the proviso in clause (d) of Section 2, that such a building is solely to be used for purpose of trade or business and the only residence that is permitted by this provision in such a building to have it from being converted into a `residential building is residence, only for the purpose of guarding it. So that residence in a `non-residential building not for the purpose of guarding it, would not save it from being converted into a `residential building. The meaning of Section 2(d), with the definition of the expression `non-residential building, read with the proviso under it, is that such a building remains a non-residential bui