JUDGMENT P.K.Palli, J.: This is the tenants revision petition laying challenge to the order dated January 22,1997 whereby petition under Section IS of the . Himachal Pradesh Urban Rent "Control Act, Hied by the specified landlord stands allowed resulting in the order of eviction of the tenants from the premises in question. The parties," here-in-after in this judgment, shall be referred to as-landlord and tenants. 2. The demised premises consist of raven rooms besides kitchen, toilet, Verandah and a store and are situated in the Town of Mandi. It is further an admitted position that these premises arc b occupation of the tenants on rent of Rs. 6UU/- per month. The tenancy is said to be created in the year 1981. It is further not disputed that a school is being run in the premises with the name "Mandi Public High School". It is further not disputed that the landlord has retired as Assistant Engineer on December 31, 1994 and there is sufficient evidence placed on record to this effect. He is, thus, a specified landlord. 3. Pt. Shiv Ram Sharma, petitioner No. 1 in this petition, is the Chairman of the said school whereas Satish Saxena is its secretary and petitioner No.3 is Mandi Public School through its Secretary. The landlord sought ejectment of the tenants on the ground that he and his wife do not own and possess any other accommodation in the local area of Mandi Town and he intends to reside in the premises in question. 4. After obtaining permission "contest the petition, the tenants, contested the petition on the ground that the premises in question were leased out for the purpose of running school by the petitioner, Hoshiar Singh and M.L. Chaudhary. It has been admitted by the tenants that M.L. Chaudhary and Hoshiar Singh have in the year 1992 informed the tenants that they had transferred their ownership in favour of the present landlord. It was disputed by the tenants that the premises ace non-residential and were let out for that purpose. Earlier to the opening of the school, the premises were with the Government of Himachal Pradesh where the office of the Block Development Officer was functioning. 5. The Rent Controller on the basis of the certificate Ext. PW-1 /H issued by the Additional Secretary HP. Earlier to the opening of the school, the premises were with the Government of Himachal Pradesh where the office of the Block Development Officer was functioning. 5. The Rent Controller on the basis of the certificate Ext. PW-1 /H issued by the Additional Secretary HP. Public Works Department coupled with the statement of the landlord, has returned a finding that the present respondent is a specified landlord in respect of the demised premises. 6. On die basis of the Jamabandi ExlPW-1/A of the year 19X5-86 coupled with the registered sale deed Ext. PW-l/B, it has been found that the premises in question were sold to the landlord in the year 1988 and the tenants were duly informed about this transfer by the previous landlords-.. 7. Issue No.2, as to whether the premises are residential and whether the petitioner is entitled to the possession of the premises in dispute, also stands answered in favour of the landlord. The premises have been held lo be residential and the petition filed by the landlord stands allowed. 8. Mr. B.K. Malhotra, learned counsel appearing for the tenants, while opening his address of arguments, contends that, the Rent Controller has gone wrong in holding that the premises in question are residential. According to him, the premises were let out to the present tenants in the year 1981 by the then landlord for the purposes of running a school. The present landlord has purchased these premises in the year 1988 and he is debarred from agitating that the premises are residential and are required by him for the purpose of his residence. In support of the arguments, reliance is being placed on the definition of "non-residential building" as given in the H.P. Urban Rent Control Act. 1987. It reads as under: "2. In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires :- (a) to (d) ** ** ** (e) "Non-residential building" means a building being used- (i) Mainly for the purpose of business or trade; or (ii) Partly for the purpose of business or trade and partly for the purpose of residence, subject to the condition that the person who carried on business or trade in the building resides therein: Provided that if a building is let out for residential and non-residential building. Explanation. Explanation. Where a building is used mainly for the purpose of business or trade, it shall be deemed to be a non-residential building even though a small portion thereof is used for the purpose of residence;" 9. A distinction is sought to be made with the definition as given in the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949. Under that Act in Section 2(d) non-residential bi1:ding has been defined like this : "2. Definitions.—In this Act, unless there is anything repugned in the subject or context: (a) To(c) ** ** ** (d) "non-residential building " means a building-being used solely for the purpose of business or trade: Provided that residence in a building only for the purpose of guarding it shall not be deemed to convert a "non-residential, building" to a "residential building"; 10. Mr. Malhotra, thus, contends that under the Himachal Act, non-residential building" is a building that is being used mainly for the purpose of business or trade whereas under the Punjab Act, It is a building’ which is being used solely for the purpose of business or trade. 11. As I read the definition under the Himachal Act,. I further find that a non- residential building would also mean a building which is being used partly for the purpose of business or trade and partly for the purpose of residence. It is further subject to the condition that the person who carries on business or trade in the said building, resides therein. Exactly on these tines a proviso is added to the definition, as given in the Punjab Act to the effect that residence in the building for the purpose of guarding it shaft not be deemed td convert a non-residential building to a residential building. 12. The definition of residential building in both the Acts is the same and means any building which is riot a non- residential building. As I look at the definition, the confusion being created, is not even remotely attracted. Mr. Malhotra further contends that once he is able to, establish that the building in question is a non-residential building, the provisions of Section 15 would not be attracted and the ejectment petition filed by the landlord deserves to be dismissed oh this short ground alone. The emphasis is being laid by Mr. Malhotra on the words "being used" as given in the definition. The emphasis is being laid by Mr. Malhotra on the words "being used" as given in the definition. According to the learned counsel, it is the present user of the building that has to be taken note of at the time of ordering ejectment and. not the purpose for which the building was initially built or was let out. 13. In further support of these submissions, learned counsel relies upon I.L.R. (1975) Himachal Series 670, (Prem Chand vs. Beni Madhav) which has been further approved by the learned Division Beach of this Court in I.L.R. (1976) Himachal Series 802, (Balak Ram vs. B.N. Gupta). 14. According to the learned counsel, even if the building was initially a residential one, the same has been converted into a non-residential one by the landlord himself by change of the user, in the given situation, the provisions of Section 12 of the Act shall have no effect. Section 12 of the Act bars the conversion of a residential building into a non-residential building except with the permission in writing of the Controller. The Section starts with the words "no person shall convert." 15. The specified landlord within one year prior to or with in one year after the date of his retirement has a right to apply to the Rent Controller indicating the date of his retirement along with his affidavit to that effect incorporating the ingredients given in the statute that he intends to reside in the premiums and for the purpose he is entitled to recover possession of one residential building for his own occupation. This right is given to the specified landlord to recover immediate possession of such residential building. It has been too well-settled by now that the procedure prescribed is of a summary nature and the tenant; is given the right to contest only if the Controller grants permission 10 the tenant to contest. 16. Section 16 of the Act lays down special procedure for disposal of the application and under subjection (7) of Section 16 while holding an enquiry in the proceedings, the practice and procedure of a Court of Small Causes is to be followed. Under sub-section (8), no appeal or second appeal is provided against the order made by the Controller. 16. Section 16 of the Act lays down special procedure for disposal of the application and under subjection (7) of Section 16 while holding an enquiry in the proceedings, the practice and procedure of a Court of Small Causes is to be followed. Under sub-section (8), no appeal or second appeal is provided against the order made by the Controller. The High Court may, for the purposes of satisfying itself that an order made by the Controller under the section is according to law, call for the records of the case and pass such orders in respect thereto as it thinks fit. 17. Nir.K.D. Sood, learned counsel appearing for the specified landlord, in reply to the arguments advanced by Mr. Malhotra, contends that conversion of a building from a residential to a non-residential is a distinct and separate ground available to the landlord for seeking ejectment of the tenant. Trust u also being laid on the language employed in Section 12 of the Act where no person is permitted to convert a residential building into a non- residential except with the written permission of the Controller. 18. Mr. Sood further submits that the distinction being emphasised by Mr. Malhotra between the Himachal Act and the Punjab Act in respect of non-residential building," is without any substance and the building even if it is being used for the purpose of running a school and the landlord by acquiesance or otherwise has accepted this position, ho is .not debarred from recovering it immediate possession being a specified landlord. Learned counsel, in support of his arguments, further relies upon 1985(2) RCR 466, (Kamal Arora vs.. Amar. Singh and others); AIR 1987 SC 2179, (Vinod Kumar Arora vs. Smt. Surjit Kaur): 1986 (Supp) SCC 481, (Kamal Arora vs Amar Singh and others); 1984 (I) RCR 182, (Jagjit Singh Cheema and others vs. G.S. Sardana and another), 1990(1) RCJ 607, (Dr. Subhash Chander vs. Gaini Joginder Singh); 1990(2) RCJ, 431, (Dev Brat Sharma vs. Dr. Jagjit Mehta): 1986 (Supp) RCR 143, (Kissan Machines Stores (P) Ltd.. Patiala through Gian Chand and anr. vs. Bhaneshwar Dayal); 1987 (1) RCR 363. (Dr. Dina Nath vs. Smt. Santosh Kaur and others); and AIR 1969 SC 1344, (Malini Naickar vs. Seth Manghraj). 19. Subhash Chander vs. Gaini Joginder Singh); 1990(2) RCJ, 431, (Dev Brat Sharma vs. Dr. Jagjit Mehta): 1986 (Supp) RCR 143, (Kissan Machines Stores (P) Ltd.. Patiala through Gian Chand and anr. vs. Bhaneshwar Dayal); 1987 (1) RCR 363. (Dr. Dina Nath vs. Smt. Santosh Kaur and others); and AIR 1969 SC 1344, (Malini Naickar vs. Seth Manghraj). 19. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties at length and on perusal of the record as well as the impugned order, I am of the opinion that there is no merit in this revision petition and the tame deserves to be dismissed. 20. Petition for ejectment was filed on January 28r 1994 wherein the landlord pleaded that he was retiring on December 31. 1994. The landlord has thus retired when the ejectment petition was pending before the Rent Controller. Vide order dated May 16, 1995. The Rent Controller granted permission to the tenants to contest the petition. This order was unsuccessfully challenged by the landlord before this Court and ultimately the reply came to be filed on May I. 1996. 21. Ext. PW-l/A is the jamabandi of the year 1985-86 where one Atma Ram is recorded to be owner in possession of the premises. Ext.PW-1/B is the sale deed dated January 20,1988 executed by above said Atma Ram in favour of the present landlord. Ext. PW-1/1 is the plan oHhe building and Ext. PW-I/C is the plan that was annexed to the sale deed. Ext. PX is the pass book of the bank account of the landlord and Ext. R-l is the letter written by the landlord to the bank that the rent henceforth be deposited in his account. Ext. R-2 is the letter from M.L. Chaudhary, Hoshiar Singh and the landlord to the Manager that the name of ML. Chaudhary and Hoshiar Singh be deleted from the pass book account as they have transferred their ownership in favour of Bhup Chand Sharm a. the landlord and henceforth he would operate the account exclusively. 22. PW-1 is the statement of the landlord in support of his case. He has proved the above said documents in his statement PW-2 are the statement of Surinder Chaudhary who at one point of time was a tenant in one of the suits of the premises in question. 22. PW-1 is the statement of the landlord in support of his case. He has proved the above said documents in his statement PW-2 are the statement of Surinder Chaudhary who at one point of time was a tenant in one of the suits of the premises in question. He has also stated that in one of the suits one Megh Singh Chauhan was residing and in the third suit the landlord was residing. 23. PW-3 is the statement of M.L. Chaudhary under whose supervision the premises in question were constructed. He is brother of the landlord. He has stated that there are three suites in the building and it has been used for the purpose of residence from the very inception. In cross - examination, he has, however, stated that the building was let out for the purpose of residence to Satish Sexena 24. PW-4 is the statement of one Pradeep who is son of Atma Ram from whom the present landlord has purchased this building. In his statement, PW-4 has stated that it is a residential house and was built for that purpose. It has also been said by him that one M.S. Chauhan and Surinder were residing in the building for some time and in the year 1973 one Hira Singh, Junior Engineer was also residing there along with them. It has been admitted by him in cross examination that B.D.O. Office was also functioning in the premises. 25. RW-I is the statement of Satish Saxena, Secretary of the school. According to him the premises were taken for the purpose of running a school from Hoshiar Singh, M.L, Chaudhary and the landlord in the year 1981. The rent was being paid to these persons and was deposited in -heir joint account He has admitted that he was informed in writing in the year 1992 that the property had been transferred to Bhup Chand and the rent thence -forth should be given to him. It is also said by him that the building has never been used by them for the purpose of residence and they are residing else- where. 26. RW-2 is the statement of one Anil Pun who is living in the neighborhood of Satish Saxcha, Secretary of the school. He has said that Satish Saxena is living in the neighborhood ever since he has attained the age of discretion. 26. RW-2 is the statement of one Anil Pun who is living in the neighborhood of Satish Saxcha, Secretary of the school. He has said that Satish Saxena is living in the neighborhood ever since he has attained the age of discretion. It is also said by him that Satish Saxena owns the house in which he is living. This is the total evidence led by the parties in the case. 27. The only question that is agitated before this court is as to whether the premises in question are non-residential or a residential building. The authorities, goes to establish that a residential building was raised comprising seven rooms, kitchen, toilet, Varandah and a store. It has further come in evidence that the landlord has been using it in the shape of three sets and besides (he landlord, other persons were also residing in the sets from time to time. At one point of time one Hari Singh was residing in the one of the suits and the other two suits were with the landlord Atma Ram and his family- Surinder Chaudhary, who has been examined as PW-2, was also occupying apart of the premises for the purpose of residence. One Megh Singh Chauhan was also a tenant at some point of time. Simply because at some point of time the office] of the Block Development Officer was functioning in the building, it cannot be said that it ceased to be a residential building. 28. Assuming that the premises were let out for running of the school and the landlord, including the present landlord, at that time had let it out for that purpose, it would not debar the landlord in the present case from seeking She ejectment of the tenants claiming the building to be a residential one and the same is required for the purposes of his own occupation, particularly when nothing has been brought of record to show that he or his spouse own and possess any other suitable accommodation in the local area where he intends to reside. 29. Section 12 of the Act, as noticed above in the earlier part of the judgment, does not permit any person to convert a residential building into a non-residential building except with the permission in writing of the Controller. The Section starts with the words "no person" which would include the landlord as well as the tenant. 30. 29. Section 12 of the Act, as noticed above in the earlier part of the judgment, does not permit any person to convert a residential building into a non-residential building except with the permission in writing of the Controller. The Section starts with the words "no person" which would include the landlord as well as the tenant. 30. Once the position is like this, the residential building shall not cease to be so nor the landlord would be debarred in seeking to recover its possession for his occupation even if the building has been permitted to be used for running the school in the present case. 31. The case law cited by die learned counsel for the tenants does not advance his line of arguments as die position has been made absolutely clear in this respect by the Honble Supreme Court. In the judgment reported in AIR 1987 SC 2179, ( Vinod Kumar Arora vs. Smt. Surjit Kaur) it has been ruled that where the parties have not obtained the consent in writing of die Rest Controller for converting the residential building into a clinic, the tenant cannot get over the embargo placed by Section 11 of the Punjab Act. This Section is premiere of Section 12 of the Himachal Act noticed above. In that case also the tenant had raised a plea that the hall had been taken only for non-residential purposes, i.e. for the running of a clinic. At he trial, the tenant shifted his stand to propound a different case that he was having his residence also in the premises. On analysis, it was found that even if the landlord had come to know soon after the lease was created that the tenant was using the hall to run a clinic, the same does not debar her from seeking ejectment for the purposes. of residence. 32. In that case it was further found that the provisions of Section 11 of the Punjab Act escaped notice of the statutory authorities. At page 2183 of this report, it has been further held that: "......even if the landlord and the- tenant had converted a residential building into a non-residential one by mutual consent, it would still be volatile of Section 11 of the East Punjab Rent Restriction Act and, therefore, the landlord cannot be de barred from seeking recover. of possession of the leased building for his residential needs." 33. of possession of the leased building for his residential needs." 33. In 1986(Supp)SCC481,(KamaI Aroravs. Amar Singh & Ors), the Honble Supreme Court has dealt with a case where a school was being run in a residential building. It was held that the landlord and the tenant even by their mutual consent could not convert the residential building into a non- residential. The landlord who had retired in that case, needed the premises for his residence and by order passed by the statutory authorities, the ejectment was ordered. A plea was sought to be raised in that case that the landlord fully well knew that the premises in question was to be used for non-residential purposes, i.e. for running of a school, and, thus he was estopped from .seeking possession on the ground o( bona fide personal requirement for residence. The provisions of the Capital of Punjab (Development and Regulation) Act, 1951 read with Section 11 of the Rent Act, were noticed. It was further found that the building was situated with the residential zone. 34. In 19S4 (1) RCR 182, (Jagjit Singh Cheema and others vs. (IS. Sardana & Ors.), the case that was being dealt, with was also in respect of a residential building which had been let out for the purposes of running a school. It was held that non-residential user of the building did not convert it into a non-residential building and the landlord was entitled to seek ejectment of the tenant on the ground of personal use occupation. From the pleadings and evidence it was found that the rented building was a residential building. as it was constructed as such. Simply because it had been rented out for running a school,-it did not cease to be a residential building on that ground alone and the landlords were certainly entitled to seek ejectment of their tenant on the ground of their personal use and occupation. 35. In the judgment reported in 1986 (Supp.) RCR 143, (Kissan Machines Stores vs. Bhaneshwar Dayal), the specified landlord sought ejectment of the tenant for bona fide requirement. On analysis, it was found that a residential building let out for non-residential purposes without the permission of the Rent Controller under Section 11 of the Punjab Act, would continue to be a residential building. On analysis, it was found that a residential building let out for non-residential purposes without the permission of the Rent Controller under Section 11 of the Punjab Act, would continue to be a residential building. The premises from where the ejectment was being sought, were, admittedly, being used for commercial purposes under the name and style of "Kissan Commercial Corporation, Patiala". The premises were being used as residence as well as the office. An argument was raised that since the premises were let out for commercial use, the same would fall within the definition of "non-residential building" and, therefore no eviction order could be passed on the basis that the landlord bona fide required the same for his own use and occupation. It was found that the argument was not available to the tenant in view of the Full Bench judgment of the Punjab & Haryana High Court in Hari Mittal vs B.M. Sikka, (1986 PLR 1). 36. It was further held that the mere fact that the promises, which is a residential building for alt intents and purposes, is let out for commercial purposes, does not make the building a non-residential building unless necessary permission of the Controller is obtained. 37. Before parting, it has to kept in view that the power given to this Court under Section 16(8) of the Act is restricted in the sense that it docs not confer power to appreciate the evidence to satisfy itself as to the legality or propriety of the order passed by the Rent Controller. That power vests in this Court in respect of revision petitions filed under Section 24(5) of the Himachal Pradesh Urban Rent Control Act, 1987 which is perime -tria with Section 15(5) of the Punjab Act. 38. All what the High Court is required to see in petitions like this is whether the order made by the Controller is according to law or not. It. thus, follows that interference can only be made where on the face of it the order appears to be either without jurisdiction or in uttar abuse of jurisdiction is contrary to law or in violation of express provisions of the Act or the view taken is apparently so perverse and in the opinion of this Court; amounts to mis-carriage of justice. 39. In the judgment reported in 1987 (2) RCR 470, (Jagdish Singh Dairy Wala vs. Capl. Ranhir Singh Jally). 39. In the judgment reported in 1987 (2) RCR 470, (Jagdish Singh Dairy Wala vs. Capl. Ranhir Singh Jally). the Punjab & Haryana High Court had the occasion to deal with the premises situated at Ludhiana. In that case the petition for ejectment had been moved-by a specified landlord. The tenant besides raising a number of objections, raised a pica that the premises had been let out for .commercial purposes and were not residential. In para 6 of the said judgment, it has been held like this: "6. Even assuming that the house in dispute was let but to the petitioner for the business of dairy fanning that would not change its character. The building being a residential one it could not be converted into a non-residential building without the permission of the Rent Controller under Section 11 of the Act. inspite of its use for non-residential purpose it sill continue to be a residential building and the landlord would be entitled to seek ejectment of the tenant oh the ground of personal requirement. It has been authoritatively so held by a Full Bench of this Court in Hari Mittal v. B.M. Sikka, A"1R 1986 Punjab and Haryana, 119; 1986 (1) RCR 92.1, therefore, find no (ores in the first submission of the landlord counsel for the petitioner." 40. As I look at the provisions, a very valuable right has been provided to the specified landlord to seek ejectment of the tenant and recover immediate possession of his residential house so that he can live in comfort when he is already set in the evening of his life. The procedure prescribed is summary one. No appeal or second appeal is provided. 41. The statutory authorities have, thus, to keepp in mind the intent of the legislature of landlords. In the present case, the landlord has retired from service "m December 1994. The petition was filed in the month of January 1994, possible, with the hope that by the time the landlord retired, he would be in a position to get the ejectment of the tenant, and enter peacefully in his own home. The Rent Controller, in view of this special provision, have to deal with such cases with utomost care and speed. Intricacies of civil-procedures are’ not the least involved in the process. The Rent Controller, in view of this special provision, have to deal with such cases with utomost care and speed. Intricacies of civil-procedures are’ not the least involved in the process. Even the leave to contest has to be granted to the tenant carefully and on a prima facie case made out in that respect. 42., For the reasons given above, the revision petition does not call for any interference by this Court, the order passed by the Rent Controller is affirmed and the petition is ordered to be dismissed with costs which arc assessed at Rs. 3,000/-. - 43. However, in case the tenants give an undertaking within two weeks from today in the form of an affidavit that the premises in question shall be peacefully vacated without any further intervention by the Court in execution proceedings and further deposit/pay to the landlord up to date rent including the future rent along with statutory interest within the aforesaid period, the tenants arc granted a period of six months from today to vacate the premises and put the landlord in its possession. 44. In case the tenants fail to furnish the above said undertaking, the tenants are granted two months time to vacate the premises and put the landlord in possession of it, subject, however, on depositing up to date arrears of rent along with the statutory interest within two weeks from today. 45. The revision petition stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms.