Appeal No 5086 of 1985
From the Judgment and Order dated 3111985 of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Civil Revision No 1847 of 1984
AB Rohtagi RC Mishra and Dr Meera Aggarwal for the Appellant
MS Gujaral and RS Sodhi for the Respondents
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by  VERMA J
The appellant Gulraj Singh Grewal took the suit premises situate in Ludhiana on monthly rent of Rs 800 from respondent No 1 Dr Harbans Singh in March 1980
Respondent No 2 Dr Ravinder Singh is son of respondent No 1 Dr Harbans Singh
Both the respondents are medical practitioners
The respondents filed a petition for eviction of the appellant tenant on three grounds namely personal need of the respondents under Section 133 a i a change of user under section 132 ii b and impairment of value and utility of the rented building under section 132 iii of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act 1948
The appellant contested the petition denying the existence of any of these grounds for eviction
The Rent Controller dismissed the petition holding that none of the three grounds had been proved
On appeal by the respondents the appellate authority held that the personal need of respondent No 2 Dr Ravinder Singh one of the landlords was proved and the ground of change of user of the rented building by the appellant had also been proved
The third ground relating to impairment of value and utility of the rented building was rejected
The appellate authority further held that the building though let out for residential purpose was used by the appellant a consultant engineer partly for his profession on account of which it had become 153 a scheduled building  as defined in Section 2h of the Act and therefore the ground for eviction based on personal need was not available for evicting the tenant from a scheduled building
However an order of eviction was made on the ground of change of user of the rented building
The appellant then preferred a revision to the High Court which has been dismissed the findings and order of eviction made by the appellate authority
Hence this appeal by special leave
The submissions of Shri Avadh Behari learned counsel for the appellant are several
The first contention is that there was no change of user by the appellant tenant to justify the order of eviction on that ground
The second submission is that the finding on the question of personal need of the landlord is erroneous
The last submission is that no order of eviction can be made on the ground of personal need contained in section 133 a i a in respect of a scheduled building  since that ground is available for eviction only from a residential building  as defined in section 2g of the Act a scheduled building  defined in section 2h of the Act being a different kind of building
In reply Shri MS Gujral learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the order of eviction is justified and there is no ground to interfere in this appeal
His submission is that a scheduled building  defined in section 2h continues to be a residential building  as defined in section 2g so that the ground for eviction based on personal need contained in section 133 a i a is available in the present case
He also submitted that the finding of fact relating to personal need of the landlord is not open to challenge
His submission in the alternative is that in case a scheduled building  is not residential building  then the ground of change of user is available since the building was let out for residential purpose and its user has been changed unilaterally by the tenant without the consent of the landlord
The first question for our decision is whether learned counsel for the appellant is right in contending that a scheduled building  is not a residential building  for the purpose of the ground of eviction contained in section 133 a i a  In case it is held that this ground for eviction of the tenant is available in the present case and the finding of fact on the question of personal need of the landlord is not open to challenge the order of eviction can be sustained on this ground alone and it is unnecessary to decide the question relating to the ground of change of user contained in section 132 ii b of the Act
We would therefore consider 154 this question first
Admittedly the appellant is a consultant engineer and the suit premises a building as defined in section  a of the Act was let out to him solely for residential purpose
He has been using it as his residence while a part thereof is used by him as his professional office without the consent of the landlord
It is on the basis of use of a part of the building as appellant s office that the appellant claims it to be a scheduled building  as defined in section 2h of the Act
Apart from the question of change of user which is a separate ground for eviction the question is whether the suit premises being treated as a scheduled building the ground for eviction contained in section 133 a i a is not available that ground being available only in respect of a residential building  as defined in section 2g of the Act
The contention of learned counsel for the appellant is that the word scheduled  which occurred along with residential  in section 133 a i of the Act having been omitted by the amendment made in the principal Act in 1956 the obvious legislative intent is to exclude a scheduled building  from the scope of that provision with the result that the grounds for eviction contained in section 133 a i of which personal need of the landlord is one are not available for eviction of a tenant from scheduled building  thereunder after that amendment
To buttress this argument learned counsel referred to section 4 of the principal Act and Section 13A inserted therein by an amendment made in 1985 wherein the expression scheduled building  is expressly used in addition to the expression residential building  and the separate definition of scheduled building  in section 2h while defining residential building  in section 2g in the principal Act from the very inception
The question is whether this contention can be accepted
Before dealing with the above question it would be appropriate to dispose of the challenge made to the finding of fact of landlord s personal need on which this question arises
The finding on this question of fact recorded by the appellate authority has been affirmed by the High Court
Can this finding be reopended now Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the personal need found proved is only of respondent No 2 son of respondent No 1 who did not enter the witness box and as stated in an affidavit filed in this 155 Court even he is carrying on his profession at a place about 25 kms away from Ludhiana
In our opinion this finding of fact is unassailable
The High Court has clearly observed that no meaningful argument could be advanced on behalf of the appellant to challenge this finding of the appellate authority
Respondent No 1 who is the father of respondent No 2 has supported and proved the need of respondent No 2 who also is a landlord
The fact that for want of suitable accommodation in the city of Ludhiana respondent No 2 is at present carrying on his profession at some distance from Ludhiana is not sufficient to negative the landlord s need
In these circumstances the non examination of respondent No 2 also when respondent No 1 has examined himself and proved the need of the landlord is immaterial and at best a matter relating only to appreciation of evidence on which ground this finding of fact cannot be reopened
This is more so when no serious challenge to this finding was made in the High Court
We must therefore proceed on the basis that the personal need of the landlord is proved to make out the ground of eviction contained in section 133aia of the Act in case that ground of eviction is applicable to the suit premises treating it as a scheduled building
In order to fully appreciate the arguments of learned counsel for the appellant the legislative history would be useful
The Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act 1941 was enacted to restrict the increase of rents on certain premises situated within the limits of urban areas in the Punjab
That Act was primarily to control the increase of rents and did not relate to eviction of tenants
Then came the Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act 1947 which was enacted to restrict the increase of rent of certain premises situated within the limits of urban areas and the eviction of tenants therefrom
Provision was made in Section 4 of the Act for determination of fair rent for which purpose non residential building  residential building  and scheduled building  were treated as three different categories prescribing different formula for each of these three categories
For this reason separate definition of each of them was given in section 2 containing the definitions
However for the purpose of eviction in section 13 3 a residential building or a scheduled building  were clubbed together and treated similarly by providing the same grounds for eviction while a non residential building  or rented land  were clubbed together and provided for separately
The scheme of the Act clearly shows that a residential building  and a scheduled building  were treated as different categories only for the determination of fair rent but were treated alike while prescrib 156 ing the grounds for eviction of a tenant therefrom
The definition of scheduled building  in section 2h of that Act also took care to provide that a scheduled building  means a residential building which was being used partly for a specified purpose
In this manner the definition of a scheduled building  given in the Act was in consonance with the scheme of the Act treating it differently from a residential building  for the purpose of determination of fair rent and similarly for eviction of the tenant
Then came the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act 1948 which repealed the 1947 Act and replaced it
The same scheme was retained in the 1949 Act which is the principal Act for our purpose
It is the relevant provisions of this Act as amended from time to time which are material for deciding the point raised by the appellant
The East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act 1948 East Punjab Act No 111 of 1948 was amended by the Amendment Acts of 1956 1957 1966 and 1985 whereby section 13 of the principal Act was amended and in 1985 the new section 13A was inserted
It is the amendments made in section 13 at the principal Act providing for eviction of tenants which are material for our purpose
The material provisions of the Act including the amendments made in section 13 from time to time are mentioned hereafter
In the principal Act as originally enacted the material provisions are as under  2
Definitions
In this Act unless there is anything repugnant in the subject o r context a building  means any building or part of a building let 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 include a room in a hotel hostel or boarding house xxx xxx xxx d non residential building means a building being used solely for the purpose of business or trade xxx xxx xxx g residential building means any building which is not a 157 non residential building h scheduled building means a residential building which is being used by a person engaged in one or more of the professions specified in the Schedule to this Act partly for his business and partly for his residence xxx xxx xxx 4
Determination of fair rent 1 The Controller shall on application by the tenant or landlord of a building or rented land fix the fair rent for such building or rented land after holding such inquiry as the Controller thinks fit
2 In fixing the fair rent under this section the Controller may first fix a basic rent taking into consideration xxx xxx xxx 3 In fixing the fair rent of a residential building the Controller may allow
If the basic rent xxx xxx xxx 4 In fixing the fair rent of a scheduled building the Controller may allow if the basic rent xxx xxx xxx 5 In fixing the fair rent of a non residential building or rented land the Controller may allow if the basic rent xxx xxx xxx 11
Conversion of a residential building into a nonresidential building No person shall convert a residential building into a non residential building except with the permission in writing of the Controller 13
Eviction of tenants
1 A tenant in possession of a building or rented land shall not be evicted therefrom in execution of a decree passed before or after the commencement 158 of this Act or otherwise and whether before or after the termination of the tenancy except in accordance with the provisions of this section
2 A landlord who seeks to evict his tenant shall apply to the Controller for a direction in that behalf
If the Controller after giving the tenant a reasonable opportunity of showing cause against the applicant is satisfied i   iithat the tenant has after the commencement of this Act without the written consent of the landlord a   b used the building or rented land for a purpose other than that for which it was leased
or iiithat the tenant has committed such acts as are likely to impair materially the value or utility of the building or rented land or the Controller may make an order directing the tenant to put the landlord in possession of the building or rented land and if the Controller is not so satisfied he shall make an order rejecting the application  Provided that the Controller may give the tenant a reasonable time for putting the landlord in possession of the building or rented land and may extend such time so as not to exceed three months in the aggregate
3 a A landlord may apply to the Controller for an order directing tenant to put the landlord in possession i in the case of a residential or a scheduled building if a he requires it for his own occupation 159 b he is not occupying another residential or a scheduled building as the case may be in the urban area concerned and c he has not vacated such a building without sufficient cause after the commencement of this Act in the said urban area ii in the case of a non residential building or rented land if a he requires it for his own use b he is not occupying in the urban area concerned for the purpose of his business any other such building or rented land as the case may be and xxx xxx xxx 19
Penalties
1 If any person contravenes any of the provisions of sub section 2 of section 9 sub section 1 of section 10 section 11 or section 18 he shall be punishable with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees  The East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Amendment Act 1956 Punjab Act No 29 of 1956 amended section 13 in the following manner 2
Amendment of section 13 of East Punjab Act III of 1949
In clause a of sub section 3 of section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act 1949 hereinafter referred to as the principal Act i a In sub clause i the words or a scheduled shall be omitted
b In sub paragraph b the words or a scheduled and the words as the case may be shall be omitted
ii a In sub clause ii the words a non residential building or  shall be omitted
b In sub paragaph b the words building or and the words Was the case may be  shall be omitted 160 c In sub paragraph c the words a building or shall be omitted
iiiFor sub clause iii the following shall be substituted namely iiiIn the case of any building or rented land if he requires it to carry out any building work at the instance of the Govern ment or local authority or any improvement Trust under some improvement of development scheme or if it has become unsafe or unfit for the human habitation iv In sub clause iv for the words any building where they first occur the words any residential building shall be sub stituted
v In the second proviso for the words a residential a scheduled or non residential building or rented land  the words a residential building or rented land shall be substituted
Section 13 was again amended by the Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Amendment Act 1957 Punjab Act No 21 of 1957 as under 2
Amendment of section 13 of the East Punjab Act No 111 of 1949
After clause c of sub paragraph i of paragraph a of sub section 3 of section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act 1949 the following shall be added namely  d it was let to the tenant for use as a residence by reason of his being in the service or employment of the landlord and the tenant has ceased whether before or after the commencement of this Act to be in such service or employment Provided that where the tenant is a workman who has been discharged or dismissed by the landlord from his service or employment in contravention of the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Ad 1947 he shall not be liable to be evicted until the competent authority under that Act confirms the order of discharge or made against him by the landlord 161 Thereafter the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Amendment Act 1966 Punjab Act No 6 of 1966 further amended section 13 of the principal Act as under 2
Amendment of section 13 of punjab Act 3 of 1949
In section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act 1949 i in sub section 3 a after sub paragraph i of paragrapha the following sub paragraph shall be inserted namely  i a In the case of a residential building if the landlord is a member of the armed forces of the Union of India and requires it for the occupation of his family and if he produces a certificate of the prescribed authority referred to in section 7 of the  that he is serving under special conditions within the meaning of section 3 of that Act
Explanation
For the purposes of this sub paragraph 1 the certificate of the prescribed authority shall be conclusive evidence that the landlord is serving under special conditions and 2 family  means such relations of the landlord as ordinarily five with him and are dependent upon him c in the first proviso in paragraph a for the words shall not be entitled the words shall not except under sub paragraph i a be entitled  shall be substituted and c after paragraph b the following new paragraph shall be added namely  c where an application is made under sub paragraph i a of paragraph a it shall be disposed of as far as may be within a period of one month and if the claim of the landlord is accepted the Controller shall make an order 162 directing the tenant to put the landlord in possession of the building on a date to be specified in the order and such date shall not be later than fifteen days from the date of the order and 2In sub section 4 for the words does not himself occupy it or if possession the words does not himself occupy it or if possession was obtained by him for his family in pursuance of an order under sub paragraph i a of paragraph a of sub section 3 his family does not occupy the residential building or if possession shall be substituted Then the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Amendment Act 1985 Punjab Act No 2 of 1985 further amended section 13 and inserted new section 13A in the principal Act as under Amendment of section 13 of Punjab Act 3 of 1949
In the principal Act in section 13 after sub section 4 the following sub section shall be inserted namely  4 A Where a tenant is evicted from a residential or scheduled building in pursuance of an order made under section 13 A and the specified landlord or as the case may be the widow widower child grandchild or widowed daughter in law of such specified landlord  a does not occupy it for a continuous period of three months from the date of such eviction or b within a period of three years from the date of such eviction of the tenant lets out the whole or any part of such building from which the tenant was evicted to any person other than the tenant such evicted tenant may apply to the Controller for an order directing that the possession of the building shall be restored to him and the Controller shall make an order accordingly  Insertion of new section 13 A in Punjab Act 3 of 1949
In the principal Act after section 13 the following section shall 163 be inserted namely Right to recover immediate possession of residential or scheduled building to accrue to certain persons
13 A
Where a specified landlord at any time within one year prior to or within one yea after the date of his retirement or after his retirement but within one year of the date of commencement of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Amendment Act 1985 whichever is later applies to the Controller alongwith a certificate from the authority competent to remove him from service indicating the date of his retirement and his affidavit to the affect that he does not own and possess any other suitable accommodation in the local area in which he intends to reside to recover possession of his residential building or scheduled building as the case may be for his own occupation there shall accrue on and from the date of such application to such specified landlord notwithstanding anything contained elsewhere in this Act or in any other law for the time being in force or in any contract whether expressed or implied custom or usage to the contrary a right to recover immediately the on of such residential building or scheduled building or any part or parts of such building if it is let out in part or parts  Provided that in case of death of the specified landlord the widow or widower of such specified landlord and in the case of death of such widow or widower a child or a grandchild or a widowed daughter in law who was dependent upon such specified landlord at the time of his death shall be entitled to make an application under this section to the Controller ain the case of death of such specified landlord before the commencement of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Amendment Act 1985 within one year of such commencement bIn this case of death of such specified landlord after such commencement but before the date of his retirement within one yew of the date of his death 164 cin the case of death of such specified landlord after such commencement and the date of his retirement within one year of the date of such retirement and on the date of such application the right to recover the possession of the residential building or scheduled building as the case may be which belonged to such specified landlord at the time of his death shall accrue to the applicant Provided further that nothing in this section shall be so construed a  conferring a right on any person to recover possession of more than one residential or scheduled building inclusive of any part or parts thereof if it is let out in part or parts Provided further that the controller may give the tenant a reasonable period for putting the specified landlord or as the case may be the widow widower child grandchild or widowed daughter in law in possession of the residential building or scheduled building as the case may be and may extend such time so as not to exceed three months in the aggregate
Explanation
For the purpose of this section the expression retirement means termination of service of a specified landlord otherwise than by resignation Further by this Amendment Act of 1985 special procedure for disposal of applications under section 13A was prescribed and some other ancillary amendments were also made
The definitions in clauses a d g and h of Section 2 and the material part of section 4 quoted above remain the same in the principal Act as originally enacted even after these amendments section 13 in so far as it is material for the present case as it stands amended in the above manner now reads as under 13
Eviction of tenants 1 A tenant in possession of a building or rented land shall not be evicted therefrom in execution of a decree passed before or after the commencement of this Act or otherwise and whether before or after the termination of the tenancy except in accordance with the 165 provisions of this section or in pursuance of an order made under section 13 of the Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act 1947 as subsequently amended
2 A landlord who seeks to evict his tenant shall apply to the Controller for a direction in that behalf
If the Controller after giving the tenant a reasonable opportunity of showing cause against the applicant is satisfied i   ii that the tenant has after the commencement of this Act without the written consent of the landlord a   b used the building or rented land for a purpose other than that for which it was leased or iii that the tenant has committed such acts as are likely to impair materially the value or utility of the building or rented land or xxx XXK xxx 3 a A landlord may apply to the controller for an order directing the tenant to put the landlord in possession i in the case of a residential building if a he requires it for his own occupation b he is not occupying an other residential building in the urban area concerned and xxx xxx xxx i a in the case of a residential building if the landlord is a member of the armed forces of the Union of India and requires it for the occupation of his family and if he produces a certificate of the prescribed authority referred to in section 7 of the  that he is serving under 166 special conditions within the meaning of section 3 of that Act
XXK xxx xxx ii in the case of rented land if a he requires it for his own use b he is not occupying in the urban area concerned for the purpose of his business any other such rented land and c he has not vacated such rented land without sufficient cause after the commencement of this Act in the urban area concerned xxx xxx xxx iv in the case of any residential building if he requires it for use as an office or consulting room by his son who intends to start practice as a lawyer or as a registered practitioner within the meaning of that expression as used in the Punjab Medical Registration Act 1916 or for the residence of his son who is married if a his son as aforesaid is not occupying in the urban area concerned any other building for use as office consulting room or residence as the case may be and b his son as aforesaid has not vacated such a building without sufficient cause after the commencement of this Act in the urban area concerned xxx xxx xxx The main argument of learned counsel for the appellant is that omission of the words or a scheduled  after the word residential  in section 133 a i by the 1956 Amendment while using those words in addition to the word residential in section 13A subsequently inserted in 1985 is a clear indication that the ground of eviction contained in section 133 A i a of _personal need of the landlordis no longer available to landlords in general after the 1956 Amendment awn though a more expeditious remedy on that ground has been provided by 13A from 167 1985 to the category of specified landlords alone
The retention of the separate definition of scheduled building  in section 2h and use of that expression elsewhere in the Act including section 4 and section 13 is referred in support of this submission
The question is whether this construction is proper
In section 2 which contains the definitions clause a defines building 
Clause d then defines non residential building  to mean a building being used solely for the purpose of business or trade
Thus to be a non residential building it must be used solely for the purpose of business or trade
Clause g defines residential building  to mean any building which is not a non residential building
These definitions make it clear that all buildings are divided into two categories  non residential  and residential 
Buildings used solely for the purpose of business or trade are non residential  and the remaining buildings are all residential 
Accordingly no building to which the Act applies is outside the classification of non residential  and residential 
Then comes clause h which defines scheduled building  to mean a residential building which is being used partly for a scheduled purpose
The definition of scheduled building  in clause h itself makes it clear that it is a residential building as defined in clause g with the qualification that such a residential building is one which is used partly for a specified purpose
In other words scheduled building  as defined in clause h is merely a kind of residential building  as defined in clause g its characteristic being its part user for a scheduled purpose
The reason to defined scheduled building  separately in clause h is also evident from some provisions of the Act itself
The Act makes a distinction for the purpose of determination of fair rent between a residential building which is being used partly for a scheduled purpose and is therefore treated as a scheduled building  and the remaining residential buildings which are not so used
This is clear from the scheme of section 4 itself providing for determination of fair rent
This is also clear from the fact that from the definition of building  given in section 2a the only category excluded is a non residential building  as defined in section 2d for the purpose of section 2g and not also scheduled building  defined in section 2h and in section 2h a scheduled building is defined to mean a residential building used partly for a scheduled purpose
A separate definition of scheduled building  in clause h while making it 168 clear therein that it means a residential building used partly for a specified purpose does not therefore indicate that a scheduled building ceases to be a residential building or is a category of building separate from a residential building for the purpose of eviction of tenants in the scheme of section 13 of the Act
This is the only manner in which a harmonious construction can be made of these provisions
The question now is of the effect of the 1956 Amendment which omitted the words or a scheduled  in section 133 as indicated earlier
The Statement of Objects and Reasons of the Amendment Act of 1956 clearly says that the provision allowing eviction on the ground of personal need has been misused by certain landlords and according to the Act applicable to Delhi the tenants of industrial and commercial premises cannot be ejected on the ground of personal need while in the Punjab such tenants can be evicted therefrom also on the ground of personal need
To avoid hardship to such tenants it was considered necessary that the tenants of non residential property in the Punjab should be placed at par with tenants of such property in Delhi
Thus the object of this enactment was to equate the Punjab tenants with Delhi tenants and exclude the ground of landlord s personal need for eviction of tenants of non residential property
To achieve this object deletion was made of the words other than residential  from section 133 providing for eviction of tenants from buildings on the ground of landlord s personal need
Obviously in view of the definition of scheduled building  in section 2h being clear to indicate that scheduled building  is a residential building retention of the words or a scheduled  after residential  was considered superfluous while omitting the words non residential building  in other parts of section 133 relating to the ground of personal need for eviction of the tenants from buildings
Subsequently in section 13A when inserted by 1985 Amendment the word scheduled  was also used after residential  may be in view of the controversy like the present raised on the basis of the 1956 Amendment to avoid any such controversy therein
That does not however mean that section 13 which must be construed in the manner indicated by us should be read differently for that reason
In fact insertion of section 13A further reinforces the view we have taken
There would be no occasion to provide an expeditious remedy for eviction of tenants of a category of 169 landlords and to also provide for a special summary procedure for them unless the remedy of eviction on the ground of personal need was already available generally to the landlords in section 13
It is significant that section 13 was also amended by the 1985 Amendment by inserting sub section 4 A therein as a result of insertion of the new section 13A in the principal Act
Thus the 1985 Amendment itself shows that section 13A is not a separate and distinct provision but has to be read along with section 13 of the principal Act forming a part of the general scheme contained in section 13 for eviction of tenants on the ground of personal need from buildings which are not non residential
The construction we have made of section 133ai as it stood after the 1956 Amendment is the only construction which can be made to harmonise with the definitions in section 2 which continue to remain as originally enacted and the other provisions of the Act which have been referred
The contention of learned counsel for the appellant on this point is therefore rejected
The result of the above discussion is that the respondent landlord s personal need being found proved the ground of eviction contained in section 133 a i a is available and the order of eviction passed against the appellant can be sustained on this ground alone
The construction made by the High Court of Section 133 a i that it does not apply to a scheduled building is therefore erroneous
The only surviving question is the availability of the ground of change of user contained in section 132 ii b on which the order of eviction has been passed by the High Court
In view of the above conclusion reached by us that the ground in section 133aia is made out the consideration of this question in the present case appears unnecessary
We have considered and decided that question in a connected matter Bishamber Das Kohli Dead by Lrs
vs Smt
Satya Bhalla
However a brief reference to the general principle may be apposite
If the express terms of lease restrict the user solely for purpose of residence then use of any part thereof for even a scheduled purpose without the written consent of the landlord may amount to use of the building for a purpose other than that for which it was leased
That however is a question of fact in each case
In that case while the ground of eviction in section 133aia would remain available to the landlord 170 for eviction of the tanant in view of the express covenant against user of any part of the residential building even for a scheduled purpose
It may make available also the ground of change of user under section 132 ii b of the Act
In the present case it is unnecessary to go into this further question since the order of eviction can be sustained on the ground contained in section 133aia alone as already indicated
Consequently the appeal is dismissed with costs
Counsel s fee Rs 3000
UR Appeal dismissed


Summary:
The suit premises was let out by the appellant landlord to the respondent on a monthly rent of Rs 550 solely for residential purpose
In a part of the premises the respondent s husband a lawyer established his office and started using the same for that purpose
Teh appellant landlord riled a petition before the Rent Controller seeking eviction of the respondent tenant
The Rent Controller made an order of eviction of the respondent tenant on the ground of change of user under section 132 II b of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act 1940
The tenant s appeal was dismissed by the appellate authority against which a revision to the High Court was preferred
The Single Judge of the High Court allowed the revision and set aside the eviction order holding that the building let out as a residential building became a scheduled building  by use of a part thereof as lawyer s office by the tenants husband and therefore the ground of eviction was not available
Hence this appeal by the landlord by special leave contending that the ground of change of user contained in section 132 II b was clearly made out from the facts and the High Court erred In setting aside the order of eviction
172 The respondent tenant submitted that the landlord waived the ground of change of user by acquiescence to use of a part of the premises as lawyer s office that the ground in section 132iib was not available unless the change of user was of substantial if not the entire building and therefore mere use of a small part of the residential building as lawyer s office does not constitute such change
Allowing the appeal of the landlord this court HELD  101
Use of the building for a purpose other than that for which it was leased without the written consent of the landlord is a ground of eviction
Ile object dearly is that the parties must remain bound by the terms on which the building is let out including the condition relating to Its use for the purpose for which it was leased
In other words breach of the covenant regarding the kind of user of the building let out is the ground of eviction contained in section 132 ii b of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act
177A B 102
If the change in user of the building is of the kind that it makes the residential building let out for residential purpose alone change its character and become a scheduled building  as defined in section 2h of the Act without the written consent of the landlord the ground of eviction under section 132 ii b is made out
177C 103
This test is fully satisfied In the present case and the order of eviction was made by the Rent Controller and affirmed by the appellate authority on this basis
The High Court misconstrued the provisions to take the contrary view
177D Telu Ram vs Om Parkash Garg  approved
Sant Ram vs Rajinder Lal and Ors  Dr Sewa Singh vs Smt
Ravinder Kaur and another  distinguished
Even though a scheduled building continues to be a residential building as defined in section 2g a residential building of which even a part is used for a scheduled purpose becomes and is called a schedule building when user of the building is significant or the criterion
176F 202 Where user of a building is of significance a distinction is made In the Act between a residential building which is not a scheduled building and 173 that which is a scheduled building
This is so in section 4 of the Act dealing with determination of fair rent wherein fixation of rent is made on the basis of user and for that purpose a scheduled building  is treated differently from a residential building which is not a scheduled building
176G