The definition of "building" in Section 2 of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent & Eviction) Act, 1973 is subject to contextual limitations, and the word "building" as used in Section 13(3)(a)(iii) of the Act includes the integrated larger building as a whole, rather than the part thereof demised to a particular tenant alone.

S.S.Grewal, J.

1. This revision petition is directed against the order of the Appellate Authority Karnal, dated 18th November, 1991 whereby the order of Rent Controller dated 23rd of May, 1990 was set aside and eviction of Kewal Krishan (hereinafter referred to as the tenant) from the demised premises was ordered under Section 13 of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent & Eviction) Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the Act).

2. Smt. Bhagwanti (hereinafter referred to as the landlady) too has filed revision petition No. 338 of 1992 challenging the concurrent finding of the Courts below that the rate of demised premises from the inception of the tenancy was Rs. 60/- per month. As common questions of law and fact are involved and both these revision petition arise out of the same orders passed in the same proceedings by the Courts below, both these petitions shall be disposed of by one judgment.

3. In brief facts relevant for the disposal of this petition, are that according to the averments made in the application for ejectment moved by the landlady the tenant is in occupation of the demised premises, in north-eastern corner of residential house shown in red colour in the plan attached with the ejectment application on monthly rent of Rs. 150/- under her. The eviction of the tenant was sought, firstly, on the ground of non-payment of arrears of rent for the period August, 1984 to February, 1986, secondly, on the ground that the demised premises were required by the landlady for her personal use and occupation and that of her other family members consisting of two married sons, their families, one unmarried daughter, and, one, unmarried son, all of whom, are, living together in the same house, and, the accommodation already with the landlady was insufficient for her and other family members; thirdly, on the ground that the demised premises had become unfit for human habitation. The landlady wants to replace the roof with lintle as the old roof consisting of wooden beams was likely to fall at any time.

4. The tenant in his written reply took up preliminary Objections that the petition was filed with mala fide motive to pressurise the tenant to agree to excessive increase of rent. On merits the tenancy in the demised premises was admitted. It was denied that the rate of rent was Rs. 150/- per month. Rather it was pleaded that the rate of rent in fact was Rs. 60/- per month and the landlady wrongly claimed and alleged that the rent was Rs. 150/- per month. On the first date of hearing arrears of rent at the rate of Rs. 150/- per month for the period August, 1984 to February, 1986 amounting to Rs. 2,850/- along with interest and costs, as assessed by the Rent Controller were tendered, and, ground of non-payment of rent was given up by the landlady. The tenant, however, pleaded that he was entitled to recover excess payment made by him. Regarding the ground of personal necessity it was pleaded that no such ground exists as the demised premises are part of commercial building which has been constructed for non-residential purpose and is being used as such, since the inception of the tenancy. It was also pleaded that the demised premises being a shop, no ground of personal necessity to eject the tenant was available to the landlady. It was also denied that the demised premises were unfit for human habitation and that there was no need to replace the roof which was pucca one and the same was not likely to fall. The other averments made in the ejectment application were denied. The landlady in her replication denied the averments made in the written statement and reiterated those made in the petition.

5. From the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed:-

1. Whether the respondent is liable to be evicted from the demised premises as alleged? O.P.P.

2. What is the rate of rent of the premises in question O. P. Parties.

3. Relief.

The Rent Controller decided both issues No. 1 and 2 in favour of, the tenant, wherea