ORDER T.S. Doabia, J. Shri A.M. Naik and Shri J.P. Shrivastava counsels for the Petitioner. Shri B.D. Jain counsel for the Respondents. Heard. The Rent Controlling Authority has rejected the application preferred by the Petitioner on the ground that in the application prayer made is that the premises were required for residential purposes whereas the property has been let out for non-residential purposes. For this reliance is being placed on an earlier suit said to have been filed by the present Petitioner and his mother. On the reading of the plaint it becomes clear that the property is residential as well as non-residential. It is accordingly argued that the Rent Controlling Authority has gone wrong in not exercising jurisdiction in the matter. It is argued: (i) That, no opportunity was given to the Petitioner to prove as to whether he was party to the earlier litigation; (ii) Whether, the petition could be dismissed when the property is used for both residential and non-residential purposes i.e. it is composite in nature; (iii) It is categorically pointed out in para 5 of the plaint that Defendant is in occupation of the ground floor as well as first floor is used for residential purposes. It is accordingly argued that property being composite the requisite relief could be given in the present petition. Reliance is being placed on the decision given by this Court reported as Jagjit Kumar v. Jagdish Chandra, 1982 JLJ 319 . It was held that even though landlord requires part of the accommodation let out and that requirement is for the purpose of which the accommodation was let out, landlord may become entitled to seek eviction from the entire accommodation, provided the other conditions are satisfied. The conclusion was that if the tenancy is composite then decree for eviction can be passed for whole of the premises. The aforementioned judgment squarely covers the proposition put up by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner. The Respondent's counsel has not been able to refute the reasoning given by the aforementioned judgment. This petition is allowed. The matter is remanded back to the Rent Controlling Authority who would redecide the matter on merit. The petition is pending since 1995. An effort would be made to conclude the trial and give a decision as early as possible preferably within this year. The parties would appear before Rent Controlling Authority on 4th of August, 1997. The matter is remanded back to the Rent Controlling Authority who would redecide the matter on merit. The petition is pending since 1995. An effort would be made to conclude the trial and give a decision as early as possible preferably within this year. The parties would appear before Rent Controlling Authority on 4th of August, 1997. The Respondents who remained unserved and were proceeded ex parte before the Rent Controlling Authority need not be served again.