In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Civil Revision No. 5520 of 2004(O&M) Date of Decision:October 26, 2009 Suresh Kumar ---petitioner versus Satish Kumar ---Respondent Coram: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE GURDEV SINGH *** Present: Mr.Rajinder Goyal, Advocate, for the petitioner Mr.R.K.Gupta, Advocate, for the respondent. *** GURDEV SINGH, J. (Oral) This revision petition by Suresh Kumar petitioner-landlord has been directed against order dated 13.9.2004 passed by learned Rent Controller, Kaithal, vide which he allowed the application filed by Satish Kumar-respondent-tenant for permission to contest the petition filed by the petitioner under Section 13A of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 (in short “the Act”), on the ground that the building in question was non-residential and the provisions of Section 13-A of the Act are applicable only to residential buildings, by not relying upon the judgments cited by the petitioner-landlord ( Harbilas Rai Bansal v. The Civil Revision No. 5520 of 2004(O&M) -2- State of Punjab 1996(1) PLR 227). Heard learned counsel for both the sides. In support of the revision, it was argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that this Court in Ved Parkash Gupta v. State of Haryana and another reported as (1997-2) PLR 775 has held that the word 'residential' in sub clause (a) of clause (3) of Section 13 of the Act is liable to be struck down and it is to include the non-residential building also. Once it has been so held then the residential building as used in Section 13- A of the Act sub clause (1) is to be read as residential as well as non residential buildings. In these circumstances, the order of learned Rent Controller cannot be sustained and is liable to be set aside. On the other hand, it was argued by learned counsel for the respondent that Section 13 A of the Act is a special provision which is confined to only residential buildings and not to the buildings which are being used for commercial purposes. He placed reliance on Gurcharan Singh vs. Gurnam Singh reported as 2007-1 PLR 114. He prayed for dismissal of the revision petition. The crucial question which arises for the decision of this revision petition is whether the word 'residential' as used in Section 13-A of the Act is to be read as residential and non-residential in view of the judgment of this Court in Ved Parkash Gupta's case (supra). This question already stands answered in Gurcharan Singh's case (Supra). It has been held by this Court that if the premises were commercial in nature, the provisions of Section 13-A of the Act are Civil Revision No. 5520 of 2004(O&M) -3- not applicable. The provisions of Section 13 (3)(a) of the Act cannot be read in the provisions of the said Section. The ejectment application under Section 13-A of the Act cannot be filed in respect of non-residential buildings and is confined only to residential building. There is no merit in the revision petition and the same is hereby dismissed. Parties are directed to appear before the Rent Controller, Kaithal on 3.12.2009. Learned Rent Controller, Kaithal shall decide the ejectment application within a period of one year. (GURDEV SINGH) JUDGE October 26, 2009 PARAMJIT