H.S.Bedi, J.

1. The petitioner Dharam Pal Daulay, moved an application under Section 13-A of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, claiming that he being a specified landlord., was entitled to seek eviction of his tenant from a residential building. The respondent-tenant put in appearance and was granted permission to contest the application It was asserted by the tenant in the written statement that the premises in dispute which was merely one room out of many and had been let out as a shop and, therefore, the building being non-residential an eviction application under Section 13-A of the Act, was not maintainable.

2. The Rent Controller framed the following issues :-

1. Whether the petitioner is a specified landlord ? OPA.

2. Whether the petitioner requires the tenanted premises for his use and occupation ? OPA.

3. Whether the petitioner is not maintainable ? OPR.

4. Relief?

3. Issue No. 1 was decided in favour of the applicant and it was held that he was a specified landlord, whereas the finding on Issues No. 2 and 3 was that the building in dispute being a non-residential one could not be got vacated under section 13-A of the Act. On the basis of these findings,