vil Appeal No 1248 of 1967
Appeal by certificate from the judgment and order dated April 7 1966 of the Punjab High Court at Chandigarh in Letters Patent No 296 of
section K Mehta K R Jagaraia and M Qamaruddin for the appellants
H K Puri R L Roshan and section K Dhingra for respondents Nos
3 5 9  10
199 The Judgment of the Court was delivered by ALAGIRISWAMI J
This is an appeal by certificate against the judgment of a Division Bench of the Punjab High Court in a Letters Patent Appeal
The question for decision in this appeal depends upon the interpretation of clause ccc added to the proviso to sub section 1 of section 60 of the Code of Civil Procedure by Punjab Relief of Indebtedness Act 7 of 1934 as amended by Punjab Acts 12 of 1940 and 6 of 1942 exempting from attachment One main residential house and other buildings attached to it with the material and the sites thereof and the land immediately appurtenant thereto and necessary for their enjoyment belonging to a judgment debtor other than an agriculturist and occupied by him  Provided that the protection afforded by this clause shall not extend to any proper ty specifically charged with the debt sought to be  recovered
 The facts giving rise to this appeal are as follows
The appellants are two brothers and their sons
They constituted a firm called Jahangiri Mal Kalu Ram
On 19 11 1956 they were declared insolvents and the Official Receiver took possession of all their properties including the building in dispute
On 21 11 1956 the appellants filed an objection petition under section 60 of the Code of Civil Procedure read with section 4 of the Provincial Insolvency Act in respect of taking the possession of the building in dispute basing this upon clause ccc above referred to
The Official Receiver contended that the property in dispute is not a residential house but a shop and that the back portion of the building which consists of a kitchen and raised platform etc for placing water was given in trust to the petitioners for residential purposes at the time of taking the possession of the shop
The creditors also contended that the property in dispute is a shop and not a residential house even though the appellants were admitted to be using the back portion of the shop as their residence
The Trial Court held that  the entire building consists of two distinct units the one opening in the chowk of themandi being distinct business premises as a shop while theother structure on the back thereof is exclusively a residence hours 
The unit which is a shop has the main hallwhich has two
apartments on account of the arched columns inthe middle and the kotha immediately behind the said half
I consider this kotha to be an integral part of the shop because there is no indication at the spot that it was an essential part of the residen tial house
To the contrary the staircase leading from the hall on to the roof of that kotha and the steps from the roof of that kotha leading to the roof of the hall and to the room on a portion thereof show that the said kotha is an integral part of the shop itself
The two units being the 200 property of the same persons naturally we would expect connecting doors between these two units
He therefore upheld the objection petition of the appellants in respect of the portion BCDE in the plan and the upper storey thereon and dismissed it in respect of the rest of the building
On appeal by the insolvents the learned District Judge of Hissar held that there was no manner of doubt that the building in question is the main residential house of the insolvents and allowed the appeal
On appeal by the creditors a learned Single Judge observed Accepting the
finding of the Insolvency Judge that the shop has a separate access of its own it cannot be denied that the residential portion is connected with it
The shop is in the ground floor and there is an opening in the Mandi but it is connected with the residential portion on the same floor
The other portion of the building is entirely devoted to residential purposes
 In the result he held It is only a portion of the ground floor which has been used for shops
In my opinion the view adopted by the lower appellatecourt is in conformity with the intent and language of theLegislature and is also in accord with the authorities of this Court
 On a further appeal under the Letters Patent the Division Bench purporting to follow the Full Bench decision of that Court in Ude Bhan  Ors
vs Kapoor Chand  Ors
1 where it was held that if out of the main residential house belonging to a non agriculturist judgment debtor a portion is let out by him to a tenant the whole house could not be said to be in his occupation allowed the appeal and set aside the judgments
of the I earned Single Judge as well as the District Judge and restored the order of the Insolvency Judge
We have carefully considered the facts of this case and are in agreement with the view of the learned District Judge as well as the learned Single Judge of the High Court that the building is a single one with a portion of it in the down stairs being used as a shop
That portion opens on the chowk Mandi Dabwali and there is another opening for regular entrance from a public street
There is no evidence that any portion of the upstairs is being used for the purpose of the shop
Therefore there is no warrant for the finding of the Insolvency Judge that the building is in two distinct portions
Indeed the learned Judges of the Division Bench did not differ from the finding of the first appellate court and the second appellate court on this point
They seem to accent this finding and proceed on that basis
Their reasoning was that if a portion of the main residential house of a judgment debtor ceases to enjoy immunity from attachment in case that portion is let out by the judgment debtor to a tenant it 1 ILR 1966 2 Punjab 400
201 would necessarily follow that the
shop portion of a building the other part of which is being used for residential purpose would not be exempt from attachment
It appears to us that this conclusion does not follow from the judgment of the Full Bench or from the language of the statute
It is obvious that what clause ccc exempts is the main residential house
There is no doubt that the building is the main residential house of the insolvents
The judgment of the Full Bench proceeds on the basis that when a portion of even a main residential house is let out to a tenant by the judgment debtor that portion is not occupied by him and as occupation of the residential house by the judgment debtor is one of the requirements of the statute is order to qualify for exemption from attachment the portion let out cannot be said to be occupied by the judgment debtor and therefore does not qualify for exemption
Therefore the decision of the Full Bench gives no guidance in interpreting the question that has to be considered in this case
The question for decision in this case is whether if a portion of the residential house is occupied by the judgment debtor himself for the purposes of a shop that portion ceases to be part of the residential house
It appears to us clear that it does not
In the circumstances and social conditions of this country it would be difficult to justify the conclusion that where a part of a residential house is used in connection with the business or profession of the owner of that house that portion ceases to be part of the residential house
As is well known very often a lawyer might have his office room in his house a doctor might have a consulting room in his house an advocate s library might occupy one of the rooms of his house
The room where the lawyer works or his library is located cannot be said to cease to be part of his residential house
The Punjab Court has taken the same view at least from the year 1951
In Agha Jafar Ali Khan V Radha Kishan1 it was held that where the whole building is being used for the purposes of residence the mere fact that there is a shop on the ground floor will not convert the building into something different from a residential house
The judgment of the Full Bench mentions that it is not clear in that case whether the shop portion of the building was in the possession of the judgment debtor or was rented out by him
A careful reading of the judgment shows that there was no question in that case of the shop portion of the building being in the possession of anybody except the owner
In Firm Ganga Ram vs Firm Jai Ram2 where the ground floor of a building with three floors was being used for commercial purposes and the first and the second floors for residential purposes it was held that the judgment debtor can claim immunity from attachment or sale with respect to the entire house under the provisions of section 601 clause ccc where it is the 1 AIR 1951 Punjab 433
2 AIR 1957 Punjab 293
202 only residential house belonging to them and occupied by them It is instructive to refer to a portion of the discussion The conditions in our country are such which admit of a composite user of the same building
A part of the same house is used for dwelling and the other part is meant for commercial or business purpose and sometimes even the later portion particularly after the business hours is used for dwelling 
Having regard to the mode of living of the people in this country their habits and customs it is not possible generally to designate a particular building as one which is used exclusively for a residential purpose in contradiction to a commercial purpose
On this basis residential building of a medical practitioner will not be exempt from liability to attachment or sale if in a portion he receives or treats his patient
_ Similarly where in his house an iron smith works on his forge a shoes maker maker shoes on his last a potter turns his wheel or any other artisan spreads his tools to make a living or a petty trader keeps his wares for sale according to the interpretation which the learned counsel for the respondent asks me to put on the words occurring in the Code the provisions will be powerless in extending any effective protection
This construction will result in defeating the very purpose of the law
 We completely agree with the learned Judge s observations
It is interesting to note that in Punjab Mercantile Bank Limited in liquidation Jullundur City vs Messrs General Typewriter Co Jullundur City Tak Chand J who gave the above judgment held that where the judgment debtor was residing in the greater part of the house two chabaras on the first floor let out to tenants were not exempt from attachment and sale
To the same effect is the judgment of the Full Bench relied on by the Division Bench in this case
Tek Chand J has kept clear in his mind the distinction between a case where a portion of the residential house is let out and a portion used by the owner himself though for a purpose other than residential
Such use does not make the residential house cease to be a residential house or the portion so used as not part of the residential house
1 8 1
203 There is no doubt that this was the main residential house of the insolvents and it was occupied by them
The facts of the case bring it squarely within the scope of the section and the whole building is therefore exempt from attachment
The appeal is therefore allowed the judgment of the Division Bench set aside and the judgments of the learned Single Judge and the learned District Judge are restored
The respondents will pay the appellants  costs
SBW Appeal allowed


Summary:
The appellants
two brothers and their sons constituted a firm
They were declared insolvent and the Official Receiver took possession of all their properties including the building in dispute
The appellants filed an objection petition under Sec
60 of the Code of Civil Procedure read with Sec 4 of the Provincial Insolvency Act in respect of taking possession of the building in dispute basing this upon cause ccc of the Proviso subsection 1
The Trial Court held that the entire building consists of two distinct units the one being distinct business premises as a shop while the other structure on the back thereof exclusively used a residential premises and therefore upheld the objection petition of the appellants in respect of the residential portion and the upper storey thereon and dismissed it in respect of the rest of the building on appeal the Dist
Judge and the Single Judge of the High Court held in favour of the appellants
On a further appeal under the Letters Patent
the Division Bench purporting to follow the Full Bench Decision of that Court in Ude Bhan and Ors
vs Kapoor Chand and Ors
allowed the appeal and set aside the judgments of the learned single Judge and restored the order of the Insolvency Judge
On appeal by certificate allowing the appeal HELD  1 If a portion of the residential house is occupied by the Judgment debtor himself for the purpose of a shop that portion does not cease to be part of the residential house
In the circumstances and social conditions in this country it would be difficult to justify the conclusion that where a part of a residential house is used in connection with the business or profession of the owner of that house that portion ceases to be part of the residential house
The Punjab High Court has taken the same view at least from the year 1951
The contrary view taken by the impugned judgment does not flow form the full bench judgment or the language of the Section 201D Ude Bhan  Ors
vs Kapoor Chand  Ors ILR 1966 2 Punjab 400 Agha Jafar Ali Khan vs Radha Kishore AIR 1951 Punjab 433 distinguished
Firm Ganga Ram vs Firm Jia Ram AIR 1957 Punjab 293 followed
Punjab Mercantile Bank Limited in liquidation Jullundur City vs Messers General Typewriter Co Jullundur City  referred to
2 There is no doubt that the building in question was the main residential house of the appellants and it was occupied by them
The facts of the  case bring it squarely within the scope of the section and the whole building is therefore exempt from attachment
2O3A