Civil Revision No.2392 of 2001 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.2392 of 2001 (O&M) Date of decision:04.02.2009 Dr. Hardev Singh Sandhu .............. Petitioner Vs. Smt. Kanta .............Respondent Present: Mr. P.K. Gupta, Advocate for the petitioner. None for the respondent. CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ? -.- K.KANNAN, J. (ORAL) 1. The Rent Controller dismissed the application of “specified landlord” who sought ejectment of his tenant on the ground that after his retirement from Government service on 30.11.1995, he required the building for setting up of his own clinic. The Rent Controller found the need to be genuine enough but still found that the petition was not maintainable since the expression used under Section 13-A of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 in respect of right to recover immediate possession was perceived to be available only for residential or scheduled building as accruing to certain persons. 2. The landlord is the revision petitioner before this Court. The only submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner is that the point which was taken up as not maintainable by the Rent Controller is squarely covered by a judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Harbans Lal Bansal Vs. State of Punjab (1996) 1 PLR 227. The Civil Revision No.2392 of 2001 (O&M) -2- judgment was rendered in the context of the similar language used under Section 13 (3) (a) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act. The Hon'ble Supreme Court while referring to this judgment held that landlord under the Act can seek eviction of a tenant held by him for a non-residential purpose on the ground that the landlord requires it for his own use. This point was specifically brought before this Court in Bhajan Lal Vs. Yogeshwar (2006) 2 RCR 295 that a portion of a residential building used by a tenant as shop would be attracted to the provisions of Section 13-A for the requirement of a “specified landlord” for eviction. The ground on which the Rent Controller dismissed the petition is not tenable in law and there had been evidence that property in the possession of the tenant was portion of larger building, which was used for residential purpose, the property in the hands of tenant must be taken as fully covered by the reach of Section 13-A of the Act. 3. The order of the Rent Controller dismissing the petition is set aside and petition for ejection is allowed. The civil revision is allowed but there shall, however, be no direction as to costs. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE February 04, 2009 Pankaj*