Mr. Rakesh Kumar Jain, J.: - The tenants are in revision against the order of eviction passed by the learned Rent Controller dated 06.09.2010 on an application filed by the landlord under Section 13-A of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 [for short “the Act”] in respect of a shop and godown which forms part of a residential house bearing Municipal No.5095, situated in Tehsilwali Gali, Bathinda.

2. In brief, the landlord filed a petition under Section 13-A of the Act alleging therein that he is the owner of the demised premises which fell to his share in a family partition and was let out to the petitionerstenants for commercial purposes and since he has retired from the service, therefore, he requires the demised premises for his personal use and occupation.

3. The tenants filed an application under Section 18-A of the Act which was allowed on 16.12.2008 and were granted permission to file written statement. In reply, the ownership of the landlord and tenancy were admitted. It was admitted that the demised premises forms part of the residential house, but it was contested that an application under Section 13-A of the Act is not maintainable in respect of a commercial property as under the said provisions, the landlord could recover possession only of a residential building or a scheduled building for his own use and occupation. However, the learned Rent Controller allowed the eviction petition.

4. At the time of notice of motion on 29.11.2010, this Court had passed the following order:

“Mr. Arun Jain, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Sunil Sharma, Advocate, appearing on behalf of the petitioners, has referred to the headnote of the impugned judgment and has stated that one room in the front along with the store abutting it, in a residential building was let out for commercial purposes. Learned counsel has further stated that right from the inception of tenancy, the tenanted premises was used for commercial purposes, hence, Section 13-A of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as, ‘the Act’) cannot be invoked. In support of this contention, learned counsel has relied upon ‘Anima Biswas v. Gurbachan Singh’ 2010(2) RCR 417; `Group Captain (Retired) Satish Parshad Garg v. Chander Bhan and another’ [2010(5) Law Herald (P&H) 4288] : 2010(2) HLR 267; `Krishan Kumar v. Shiv Kumar Suri’ 2010(2) HLR 270; `Nahar Singh v. Surjit Singh’ 1989(2) RCR 20; `Gurbax Singh v. Kuldeep Singh’ 1990 (1) RCR 700; and `Sudarshan Kumar Bhatia v. Dharam Pal Sharma’ [2009(1) Law Herald (P&H) 760] : 2009(1) RCR 279.

Learned senior counsel, very fairly has also brought to my notice two judgments of this Court, viz. ‘Bachan Lal v. Yogeshwar Lal Mehta’ [2006(3) Law Herald (P&H) 2105] : 2006 (2) RCR 395 and ‘Harjit Singh v. M/s Daya Ram Sat Narain’ 2003(1) RCR 270, wherein a contrary opinion was expressed. It was held that if the shop is an integral part of the residential house, then section 13-A of the Act can be pressed into service. Learned counsel has further stated that a similar controversy, arising out of a case pertaining to the State of Haryana, has been referred to a Larger Bench. It is stated that in Civil Revision No.3690 of 2007 titled as ‘Vinod Kumar Jain v. M/s Harindra Scientific Works’, 2011(3) Law Herald (P&H) (DB) 2775a reference has been made to the Larger Bench by a Single Bench of this Court on 14th December, 2009. Learned counsel has stated at bar that still that reference is pending and has not been decided. Learned senior counsel has further stated at bar that section 13-A of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 and section 13-A of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 are same. Learned counsel has further stated that while making reference, the Single Bench of this Court has relied heavily upon ‘Harbilas Rai Bansal v. The State of Punjab’ 1996(1) PLR 227, to notice the contention that the distinction between residential and non-residential bu