Appeal No 853 of 1966 Appeal by special leave from the order dated November 16 1964 of the Punjab High Court Circuit Bench at Delhi in Civil Revision No 531 D of 1961
M C Misra and M V Goswami
for the appellant
Harbans Singh for the respondent The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Shah J
The appellant Miss Sanyal has since 1942 been a tenant of a house in Western Extension Area Karol Bagh New Delhi a part of which is used for a Girls  School and the rest 537 for residential purposes
The respondent Gian Chand purchased the house from the owner by a sale deed dated September 19 1956 and commenced an action in the Court of the Subordinate Judge 1st Class Delhi against the appellant for a decree in ejectment in respect of the house
Numerous grounds were set up in the plaint in support of the claim for a decree in ejectment but the ground that the respondent required the house bona fide for his own resi dence alone need be considered in this appeal
The Trial Court dismissed the suit and the Senior Subordinate Judge Delhi dismissed an appeal from that order holding that the house being let for purposes non residential as well as residential a decree in ejectment could not be granted under section 131e of the Delhi and Ajmer Rent Control Act 1952
The High Court of Punjab Delhi Bench in a revision petition filed by the respondent held that on the finding recorded by the First Appellate Court a decree in ejectment limited to that portion of the house which was used for residential  purposes by the tenant could be granted and remanded the case to the Rent Controller for demarcating those portions which were being used for residence and to pass a decree in ejectment from those specified portions of the house
Against that order the tenant has appealed to this Court
It is necessary in the first instance to read the material pro visions of the Delhi  Ajmer Rent Control Act 1952
The expression premises is defined in section 2g of the Act as any building or part of a building which is or is intended to be let separately for use as a residence or for commercial use or for any other purpose and includes
 Section 13 of the Act which grants protection to tenants against eviction provides insofar as it is material  1
Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any other law or any contract no decree or order for the recovery of possession of any premises shall be passed by any Court in favour of the landlord against any tenant including a tenant whose tenancy is terminated Provided that nothing in this sub section shall apply to any suit or other proceeding for such recovery of possession if the Court is satisfied ethat the premises let for residential purposes are required bona fide by the landlord who is the owner of such premises for occupation as a residence for himeslf or his family and that he has no other suitable accommodation Explanation For the purposes of this clause residential premises  include any premises which having been let for use as a residence are without the consent of the landlord used incidentally for commercial or other p urposes
 538 it is clear that section 131 imposes a ban upon the exercise of the power of the Court to decree ejectment from premises occupied by a tenant The ban is removed in certain specific cases and one such case is where the premises having been let for residential purposes the landlord requires the premises bona fide for occupation as a residence for himself or the members of his family and he has no other suitable accommodation
It is plain that if the premises are not let for residential purposes cl
e has no application nor on the express terms of the statute does the clause apply where the letting is for purposes residential and nonresidential
In the present case the First Appellate Court held that the house was let out for running a school and for residence
The High Court held that where there is a composite letting it is open to the Court to disintegrate the contract of tenancy and if the landlord proves his case of bona fide requirement for his own occupation to pass a decree in enjectment limited to that part which is being used by the tenant for residential purposes
In so holding in our judgment
the High Court erred
The jurisdiction of the Court may be exercised under section 131e of the Act only when the premises are let for residential purposes and not when the premises being let for composite purposes are used in specific portions for purposes residential and non residential
The contract of tenancy is a single and indivisible contract and in the absence of any statutory provision to that effect it is not open to the Court to divide it into two contracts one of letting for residential purposes and the other for non residential purposes and to grant relief under section 131e of the Act limited to the portion of the demised property which is being used for residential purposes
The learned Judge purported to follow the decision of his Court in Motilal and another vs Nanak Chand and others1
It was held in that case that in cases governed by the Delhi  Ajmer Rent Control Act
1952 if the premises are in well defined parts and have been let out for residential and commercial purposes together the rule as to eviction regarding the portion that has been used for residence will govern the residential portion of the same and similarly the rules of eviction regarding the commercial premises will govern the commercial portion of the same as laid down in the Act
In the view of the Court even if there be a single letting for purposes residential and non residential if defined portions of the premises let are used for residential and commercial purposes it must be held that the letting out was of the commercial part of the building separately for commercial purposes and of the residential part of the building for residential purposes
We find no warrant for that view either in the Delhi  Ajmer Rent Control Act or in the general law of landlord and 1 539 tenant Attention of the learned Judge in that case was invited to a judgment of this Court in Dr Gopal Das Verma vs section K Bhardwaj and another1 but the Court distinguished that judgment on the ground that the facts of that case disclosed that they had no applicability to the facts of the case in hand
Now in Dr Gopal Das Verma s1 case the premises in dispute were originally let for residential purposes but later with the consent of the landlord a portion of the premises was used for non residential purposes
It was held by this Court that where premises are let for residential purposes and it is shown that they are used by the tenant incidentally for commercial professional or other purposes with the consent of the landlord the landlord is not entitled to eject the tenant even if he proves that he needs the premises bona fide for his personal use because the premises have by their user ceased to be premises let for residential pur poses alone
It was therefore clearly ruled that if the premises originally let for residential purposes ceased because of the consent of the landlord to be premises let for residential purposes alone the Court had no jurisdiction to decree ejectment on the grounds specified in section 131e of the Act
The rule evolved by the Punjab High Court in Motilal s case1 is inconsistent with the judgment of this Court in Dr Gopal Das Verma s1 case
If in respect of premises originally let for residential purposes a decree in ejectment cannot be passed on the grounds mentioned in section 131e if subsequent to the letting with the consent of the landlord the premises are used both for residential and nonresidential purposes the bar against the jurisdiction of the Court would be more effective when the original letting was for purposes non residential as well as residential
It may be recalled that the condition of the applicability of section 131e of the Act is letting of the premises for residential purposes
In this case the letting not being solely for residential purposes in our judgment the Court had no jurisdiction to pass the order appealed from
We may note that a Division Bench of the Punjab High Court in Kunwar Behari vs Smt
Vindhya Devi1 has held in construing section 14i3 of the Delhi Rent Control Act 59 of 1958 material part whereof is substantially in the same terms as section 131e of the Delhi  Ajmer Rent Control Act that where the building let for residence is the entire premises it is not open to the Court to further sub divide the premises and order eviction with respect to a part thereof
In our view that judgment of the Punjab High Court was right on the fundamental ground that in the absence of a specific provision incorporated in the statute the Court has no power to break up the unity of the contract of letting and attribute incidents and obligations to a part of the subject matter of the contract which are not applicable to the rest
1  3 AIR 1966 Punjab 481 2 540 In our view the order passed by the High Court of Punjab remanding the case for determination of the residential portion of the house occupied by the appellant and for passing a decree in ejectment in respect of that part is without jurisdiction and must be set aside
The appeal is allowed and the decree passed by the Senior Subordinate Judge is restored
The appellant in this appeal did not appear before the High Court to assist the Court
In the circumstances there will be no order as to costs of this appeal


Summary:
Under section 131e of the Delhi and Ajmer Rent Control Act 1952 the jurisdiction of the court to evict a tenant may be exercised in favour of a landlord who wants the premises bona fide for his own residence only when the premises are let out for residential purposes and not when the premises being let out for composite purposes are used for residential and non residential purposes
The owner of a house let it out to the appellant for her residence and for running a school
The respondent purchased the house and filed a suit for eviction of the appellant
The suit was dismissed but the High Court in revision held that a decree in ejectment limited to that portion of the house which was used for residential purposes by the tenant could be granted and remanded the case for demarcating that portion and passing a decree
In appeal to this Court HELDThe order of the High Court was without jurisdiction and should be set aside
540A The contract of tenancy was a single and indivisible contract and in the absence of any statutory provision to that effect it was not open to the Court to divide it into two contracts one of letting out for residential purposes and the other for non residential purposes and to grant relief under the section in respect of that portion of the property which was being used for residential purposes
538E Dr Gopal Das Verma vs section K Bhardwaj  Anr
1962 2 SCR 678 followed
Kunwar Behari vs Smt
Vindhya Devi AIR 1966 Punj
approved
Motilal and Anr
vs Nanak Chand  Anr 1964 Punj
LR 179 overruled