IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 4805 of 2007 Date of decision: 17th December, 2008 Malkiat Electric Works and another … Petitioners Versus Joginder Singh Sagoo … Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA Present: Mr. Satinder Khanna, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Surinder Sharma, Advocate for the respondent. KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA, J. (ORAL) In the present case, Joginder Singh Sagoo landlord filed an eviction petition against Malkiat Electric Works through its proprietor Malkiat Chand. It was stated that at the rate of Rs.55/-, a shop was rented out to the tenant prior to year 1990. Tenant had not paid the rent w.e.f. 1st January, 1999. The ground taken for eviction of the tenant was that the premises is required for his personal necessity for residential purposes, as he is residing in one room along with his large family. Notice of the petition was issued. Written statement was filed, in which preliminary objections regarding locus standi, maintainability, mis- joinder and non-joinder of necessary parties were raised. It was further stated that a wrong site plan has been relied upon. On merits, it was stated that landlord was not the exclusive owner of the demised premises and there are other co-sharers also. However, relationship of landlord and tenant was admitted. Rate of rent was also admitted. It was stated that Karam Singh Sagoo, father of the landlord was the owner of the property. Civil Revision No.4805 of 2007 Property has been inherited by landlord along with other co-owners and the rent has already been tendered. It was submitted that the landlord is having a big house and other shops, which have been given to some other persons. Replication to the written statement was filed. Averments made in the petition were reiterated and that of written statement were denied. Rent Controller had drawn the issues. Landlord examined Faqir Chand PW-1, he himself appeared as PW-2 and also examined Rajinder Singh as PW-3. On behalf of the tenant, Dinesh Kamal was examined as RW-1, Rajinder Kumar as RW-2, Santokh Singh as RW-3 and Amarjit Singh as RW-4. Regarding non-payment of rent, it was held by the Rent Controller that on appearance, tenant had tendered the rent, therefore, this ground is not available. The Rent Controller noticed that as per the site plan (Ex.A-1), premises used by the landlord for residential purposes was only one room and a store. Rajinder Singh PW-2 further stated that the premises in occupation of the landlord were two rooms, one is being used as a store and the other room is used by the entire family for the purposes of cooking of food also. Landlord further stated that he is having two grown up sons and wife and accommodation is insufficient. Rent Controller held that it is proved that the landlord was having two grown up sons of marriageable age. The Rent Controller held that the landlord had not disclosed regarding family settlement. His sister Shanti Devi is living at Mumbai. He had earlier filed a suit against Balwinder Singh and others, in which he stated that Surjit Singh was addicted to vices and was dependent upon him. Therefore, it held that landlord was also claiming to be in possession of the share of Surjit Singh alias Ajit Singh in the estate left behind by his father Karam Singh Sagoo. Rent Controller further held that demised shop is being run for the 2 Civil Revision No.4805 of 2007 commercial purposes, therefore, is not required for the residential purposes. Aggrieved against the same, landlord had filed an appeal, in which this finding was reversed and it was held that the Court has to further look into whether the landlord was having sufficient residential accommodation with him or not. Appellate Court further held that from the evidence, it cannot be concluded that the landlord owns or possesses other residential buildings in the urban area. The Court further held that there is a misnomer in the submission that a non residential building cannot be got vacated by the landlord for residential purposes. Taking into consideration the size of the family that consists of wife, two grown up children and the fact that they are living in one room, the Court held that the demised premises is required for residential purposes. In the present case, shop on rent with the tenant and the accommodation available with the landlord are such, that can be interconnected. The very fact that one room of the residential house has been let out for the purposes of running a shop will not preclude the landlord, for all times to come, to get the premises vacated for residential purposes. The fact that commercial activities were being carried out from one room of the house will not change the character of the building. A residential premises cannot become a commercial for all times to come, therefore, landlord is well within his rights to claim possession of the room, which can be interconnected with the portion, where he is residing, on the ground of personal necessity. Counsel appearing for the petitioner has placed reliance upon ‘Harbilas Rai Bansal and another v. State of Punjab’ 1996(1) PLR 227, to state that before this judgment came, commercial property and vacant land could not be got vacated by the landlord, as the amendment barred the landlord to do so. He states that because in Harbilas Rai Bansal’s case 3 Civil Revision No.4805 of 2007 (supra), the amendment was held to be bad, being discriminatory, a right flows to the landlord to claim eviction of the tenant from the commercial land and the vacant land. Learned counsel further rely upon ‘Mahant Bachan Dass v. Amarjit Singh and others’ 1977 (1) RCR (Rent) 211, to contend that the premises let out for a specific purpose can be got vacated only for that specific purpose and for no other purpose. Counsel states that since premises was given on rent for a commercial venture, i.e. for a shop, the landlord can only get the same vacated for commercial purpose and not for residential purpose. Learned counsel contends that Mahant Bachan Dass’s case (supra) has relied upon a judgment rendered by Hon'ble Apex Court in ‘Attar Singh v. Inder Kumar’ 1967 Punjab Law Reporter 83, where this position of law was enunciated. There can be no quarrel with this proposition till the character of the property is determined. In the present case, admittedly a portion of the residential house has been let out to the tenant for carrying on commercial activities, i.e. for running a shop of electric motor rewinding. Therefore, since the room rented out form part of the residential premises, landlord can always get the tenant evicted for residential purposes. Findings of appellate Court below cannot be held to be perverse and the view taken by the appellate Court below is one view, which is possible. Hence, there is no merit in the present revision petition and the same is dismissed. At this stage, Mr.Satinder Khanna states that reasonable time may be granted to the petitioner to move out of the demised premises. I find merit in this contention. From today onwards, petitioner is granted two months’ time to vacate the premises, provided that he shall furnish an undertaking in the Court of concerned Rent Controller that he shall hand over peaceful vacant possession of the demised property to the landlord. 4 Civil Revision No.4805 of 2007 With these observations, present revision petition stands dismissed. [KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA] JUDGE December 17, 2008 rps 5