A building continuously let out for non-residential purposes can be treated as a non-residential building for eviction under the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949.

RAKESH KUMAR JAIN, J. - The tenants are in revision against the orders of the learned Courts below by which they have been ordered to vacate the shop forming part of old building No.4642/37 (new No.9489/37), situated at Abadi Sarwarpura, Sultanwind Road, Amritsar which is in their possession @ Rs.500/- per month and is being used for paint business.

2. The landlord sought eviction of the tenants, inter alia, on the grounds of non-payment of rent w.e.f. 01.01.2001 till date and use and occupation of his son Barinder Singh who intended to start business of grocery. While contesting the eviction petition, the tenants paid arrears of rent on the first date of hearing and as such, the ground of non-payment of rent was over and the personal need of the landlord was denied. On the pleadings of the parties issues were framed to which both the parties led their oral as well as documentary evidence. The learned Courts below passed the eviction order while deciding the only issue of personal necessity. The tenants had argued that the necessity of the landlord is no more in existence as his son Barinder Singh had already shifted to United States of America where he has been married and settled. The learned Appellate Authority did not accept this contention as it was found to be beyond pleadings.

3. Thus, the only question raised in this revision petition by learned counsel for the petitioners/tenants is that the demised premises (shop/shed) being part of the residential house, is a residential building which cannot be got vacated for the non-residential purposes.

In this regard, learned counsel for the petitioners has relied upon the following judgments:

i) Harjit Singh V. M/s Daya Ram Sat Narain, 2003(1) P.L.R. 579;

ii) Bachan Lal V. Yogeshwar Lal Mehta, 2006 (3) P.L.R. 865;

iii) Raj Kumar Gambir V. Kanwar Sain Jain, 2003(2) P.L.R. 356; &

iv) Pritpal Singh V. Devinder Kumar & another, 2008(3) P.L.R. 342;

On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent/landlord has relied upon the following judgments:

i) Lal Chand V. Bal Kishan, 1987(2) P.L.R. 222;

ii) Dr. Jagjit Mehta V. Dev Brat Sharma, 1988(1) P.L.R.154;

iii) Gurbax Singh V. Kuldeep Singh, 1990 (1) P.L.R. 704;

iv) K.G. Industries and others V. Joginder Singh, 1992 (2) P.L.R. 256;

v) Raghbir Seth and another V. Ram Swarup, 1993(2) P.L.R. 487;

vi) Ram Gopal V. Sher Singh, 1995 (2) P.L.R. 445;

vii) Sudarshan Kumar Bhatia V. Dharam Pal Sharma, 2009(1) P.L.R. 600;

viii) Anima Biswas V. Gurbachan Singh, 2010 (4) R.C.R. (Civil) 688;

ix) C.R. No.6132 of 2009 titled as `Arun Kumar V. Shri Ashok Kumar Chhabra’ decided on 29.07.2010;

x) C.R. No.3406 of 1996 titled as Dev Raj V. Ram Parkash’ decided on 24.09.2010; and

xi) C.R. No.7915 of 2010 titled as `Sh. Satpal Chadha V. Satish Kumar and another’ decided on 22.02.2011.

4. In this case, there is no dispute about the relationship of landlord and tenants between the parties. It is an admitted fact that the demised premises is a shop which was let out on 13.07.1988 and is being got vacated for business (non-residential purpose) and the only objection raised by learned counsel for the petitioners is that since the demised premises though a shop is a part of the residential building, therefore, it is also a residential building which cannot be got vacated for non-residential purposes.

5. In order to appreciate the controversy, which has been raised by the tenants, it is relevant to refer to the definition of `building’ which is defined in the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 [for short “the Act”]. Section 2(a) defines “building”, Section 2(d) defines “nonresidential building”, Section 2(g) defines “residential building” and Section 2(h) and Schedule I define “Scheduled building”. According to Section 2(a) of the Act, “building” means any building or part of a building let out for any purpose whether being actually used for that purpose or not, including any land, godowns, out houses or furniture let therewith, but does not