A specified landlord can only evict one tenant from one part of the building at his choice. A building cannot be treated as residential if a portion of it is used for commercial purposes, even if the rest of the building is used for residential purposes.

Ashok Bhan, J.

1. Raghbir Seth was the owner and landlord of the building in dispute. Raghbir Seth died during the pendency of the proceedings and is represented by his wife and two sons as his legal representatives. The revision petition has been filed through the legal representatives of Raghbir Seth and hereinafter they would be referred to as the petitioners.

2. On 31-11-1986 Raghbir Seth retired from Central Government service. The ground floor of the building had been let out to three tenants and admittedly the ground floor was being used for non residential purpose. There were three tenants on the ground floor. Another tenant, that is Deepak Puri was on the first floor and Som Nath was on the second floor (Barsati) First and second floors were being used by these tenants as residential premises. Raghbir Seth being specified landlord filed five separate ejectment petitions against the five tenants. The petition filed against Som Nath who was using the Barsati as residential premises on the second floor was ordered to be evicted on 19-9-1988. Similarly the ejectment of Deepak Puri was ordered who was a tenant of the residential building on the first floor. This revision petition has arisen out of the order passed against the petitioner-landlord regarding one of the tenants on the ground floor where the premises were being used as a non-residential building. Relying upon a Single Bench judgment of this Court in Sohan Lal v. Col. Prem Singh Grewal, (1989-2) 96 P. L. R. 139, the Rent Controller held that under Section 13-A of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), a specified landlord could get the building or a portion of the building vacated if different portions of a building were let out to different tenants then the landlord could not eject all the tenants from all the portions and he could seek ejectment of only one of the tenants from one part of the building at his choice. Rent Controller ordered that since the landlord had already got two portions of the same building vacated under Section 13-A of the Act, the present ejectment petition against the tenant-respondent would not succeed. The second ground of dismissal of this ejectment petition was that the building was a non residential and Section 13-A of the Act was applicable only to residential buildings. Petitioners being aggrieved against the order of Rent Controller have come in revision before this Court.

3. I have heard counsel for the parties at length.

4. So far as the first point is concerned that stands fully covered by the decision of this Court in Sohan Lals case (supra). The law laid down in Sohan Lals case (supra) has been re affirmed in a reference made to Division Bench of this Court as the correctness of the view taken in Sohan Lals case (supra) had been doubted by the learned Single Judge. The Division Bench judgment is reported as Smt. Zenobia Bhanot v. Surinder Sharma, (1992-2) 102 P. L. R. 663. In view of the law laid down by this Court in Sohan Lals case (supra), which stands affirmed by the Division Bench of this Court in Smt. Zenobia Bhanots case (supra), counsel appearing for the petitioners did not argue the first point.

5. Counsel appearing for the petitioners then argued that the building was residential in nature and not non-residential as held by the Rent Controller. I do not find any substance in this submission of the counsel for the petitioner. Ram Sarup while appearing as R.W.1 has stated that he is a partner of the firm M/s Malhi Ram Walaiti Ram and the firm was carrying on its business ; that the firm had taken the premises from Khushi Ram father of Raghbir Seth on rent; that the premises were being used as godown from the inception of the tenancy for the last more than 30/40 Years. Kanwar Lal RW 2 has stated that Ram Sarup was partner of firm Malhi Ram Walaiti Ram and the property was being used as godown. He has further stated that there are not ventilators or electric con