IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.1524 of 1992 Date of decision:26.05.2009 Joginder Singh ...Petitioner versus Ajay Pal ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.KANNAN Present: Mr. S.K.Gupta, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. R.S.Randhawa, Advocate for the respondent. ----- 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 petition filed under Section 13-A of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, by a retired officer of Indian Air Force, was dismissed on the ground that the property in the occupation of the tenant was not residential premises and that the letting itself had been only for running an industrial activity by the tenant in the name of Punjab Tractors Limited. It was shown in evidence that 5 HP connections be also installed by the landlord at the time of letting and even the purpose of letting in the Rent Note clearly showed that the demised property was a shed with two rooms. There was neither a kitchen nor a bathroom in the premises. The Rent Controller found that the Act that enabled the landlord to obtain eviction under the special provisions of Civil Revision No.1524 of 1992 - 2 - Section 13-A was extended only for residential premises or scheduled building and it was not applicable for non-residential premises. 2. The landlord would state that one of the witnesses Pheru Ram had admitted in evidence that there are 2000/3000 houses in the Mohalla where people lived in Nai Abadi Santokh Pura. This was explained by the respondent by stating that it was in the vicinity of the demised premises and the demised property itself was situate only in an industrial area. The other attempt made on behalf of the landlord was that the property was described in the Rent Note as Bakia Nai Abadi Mohalla Santokh Pura Bill Mukbal Industrial Area, with specific boundaries referring to the names of other owners. It is incomprehensible as to how that description supports the plea of the property as a residential building. 3. Here the purpose of letting was non-residential and the feature of the property also showed that it was not a residential building. The view taken by the Rent Controller for dismissing the petition cannot be interfered in revision. 4. The revision petition is accordingly dismissed. (K.KANNAN) JUDGE 26.05.2009 sanjeev