JUDGMENT R.L. Khurana, J.—The petitioner and the respondent before this Court are the landlord and tenant, respectively. They are being referred to accordingly hereinafter. 2. The tenanted premises, as per para 8 of the petition preferred by the landlord under Section 14 of the H.R Urban Rent Control Act, 1987 (for short: the Act) comprise of: (a) two shops, each of the size of 16 x 20 on the ground floor; (b) two residential rooms, a store, kitchen, bath and toilet on the first floor. 3. The above tenanted premises are located in House No. 47, Municipal Ward No 1, Bhooppur within the local limits of Paonta Sahib Municipal Area. According to the landlord the tenanted premises were let out to the tenant on a monthly rental of Rs. 400. 4. The landlord sought the ejectment of the tenant from the tenanted premises on the following grounds:— (i) Non-payment of rent with effect from May 1985. The arrears of rent till January 1996 were claimed to be Rs. 51,360; (ii) Bona fide requirement of the tenanted premises by the landlord for his own use and occupation; (iii) Change of user of the tenanted premises; and (vi) The tenant is guilty of such acts which are causing nuisance to the other occupiers of the buildings in the neighbourhood. 5. The tenant while resisting the eviction petition admitted the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. The extent of the tenanted premises is also not disputed. It was pleaded that three separate tenancies were created in his favour as under:— (a) One shop was let out to him in May 1976 at the monthly rental of Rs. 100; (b) Residential portion on the first floor was let out to him in August, 1976 on monthly rental of Rs. 125; and (c) Second shop was let out to him in August, 1981 on a monthly rental of Rs. 100. 6. Thus, the total rent payable in respect of the whole of the tenanted premises, which are both residential and non-residential, is Rs. 325 per month. The tenant denied the arrears of rent. He also desired that the tenanted premises are required bona fide by the landlord for his own use and occupation. Change of user and commission of the acts causing nuisance to the occupiers of the building in the neighbourhood were further denied. 325 per month. The tenant denied the arrears of rent. He also desired that the tenanted premises are required bona fide by the landlord for his own use and occupation. Change of user and commission of the acts causing nuisance to the occupiers of the building in the neighbourhood were further denied. An objection as to maintainability of the eviction petition was also raised. 7. On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed on 17.10.1996 by the learned Rent Controller (I), Paonta Sahib:— 1. Whether the respondent is in arrears of rent amounting to Rs. 51,360 w.e.f. May, 1985 to January, 1996 Rs. 400 per month rent as alleged? OPP 2. Whether the building in dispute is required by the petitioner for his personal use and occupation, as alleged? OPP 3. Whether the respondent has impaired the value and utility of the building in dispute as alleged? OPP 4. Whether the denting work being carried by the respondent in the premises in dispute causes nuisance to the occupiers of the building in the neighbourhood, as alleged? If so, its effect? OPP 5. Whether the rate of rent of disputed premises is Rs. 325 per month as alleged? If so, its effect? OPR 6. Relief. 8. While deciding Issue No. 1 in favour of the landlord and Issue No. 5 against the tenant, the learned Rent Controller came to the conclusion that rent payable in respect of the whole of the tenanted premises was at the rate of Rs. 400 per month and that the tenant was in arrears of rent since May, 1985 amounting to Rs. 51,360 as claimed by the landlord. The learned Rent Controller also came to the conclusion that one shop was let out to the tenant in May, 1976 at Rs. 125 per month; the residential portion was let out in August, 1976 at Rs. 150 per month and the second shop was let out in August, 1981 at Rs. 125 per month. Issues No. 3 and 4 were found by the learned Rent Controller against the landlord and it was held that neither there has been any change of user nor the tenant has impaired the value and utility of the tenanted premises nor the tenant was guilty of having committed such acts so as to cause nuisance to the occupiers of the building in the neighbourhood. Under Issue No. 2, the learned Rent Controller came to the conclusion that the residential portion was required bona fide by the landlord for his own use and occupation and that in so far as the two shops are concerned, the ground of bona fide requirement by the landlord for his own use and occupation was not available to him. Consequent upon such findings an order of ejectment in respect of the entire tenanted premises came to be passed in favour of the landlord and against the tenant on 30.8.1997 on the ground of non-payment of rent. It was, however, stipulated that in case the arrears of rent amounting to Rs. 51,360 along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum and cost assessed at Rs. 500 are paid by the tenant within the stipulated period of thirty days from the date of the order, he shall not be evicted from the tenanted premises on the ground of non-payment of rent. The learned Rent Controller also passed an order of ejectment against the tenant in respect of the residential portion on the ground of bona fide requirement of the landlord for his own use and occupation. 9. Feeling aggrieved by and being dissatisfied with the order dated 30.8.1997 of the learned Rent Controller, the tenant preferred an appeal before the learned Appellate Authority, Nahan. The learned Appellate Authority affirmed the findings of the learned Rent Controller as to arrears of rent and also as to the rate of rent. While affirming the findings of the learned Rent Controller that the requirement of the landlord for his own use and occupation was bona fide, the learned Appellate Authority set aside the order of eviction passed against the tenant in respect of the residential portion by holding that ejectment from a part of the tenancy could not be ordered. In coming to such conclusion, the learned Appellate Authority observed in para 20 of the impugned order as under:— "Therefore, if the landlord has filed a single petition by treating the three tenancies including the tenancy in respect of residential portion, as a single tenancy including two non-residential shops, to my mind, the tenant cannot be ordered to be evicted from the residential portion of the building alone." 10. Consequently, the appeal preferred by the tenant was partly allowed and the order of ejectment passed against the tenant in respect of the residential portion on the ground of bona fide requirement of the landlord for his own use and occupation was set aside. 11. It is the admitted case of the parties that the entire arrears of rent in terms of the orders of the learned Rent Controller, stand paid and that ground of ejectment on account of nonpayment of rent, does not survive. 12. In the present revision petition at the instance of the landlord, the only question falling for determination is whether a single application, when the premises had been separately rented out, for the ejectment of the tenant on the ground of personal necessity and arrears of rent, is maintainable? 13. As stated above, it is the admitted case of the parties that three different portions were let out to the tenant on three different dates. On the first occasion one shop was let out in May, 1976. On the second occasion, one residential portion on the first floor was let out in August, 1976 and on the third occasion, a second shop was let out in August, 1981. 14. Section 2(b) of the Rent Act defines the term "building" as under: "building means any building or part of a building let out for any purpose whether being actually used for that purpose or not, including any land, go downs, out-houses or furniture let out therewith, but does not include a room in a hotel, hostel or boarding house." [Emphasis supplied] 15. Thus, as per the above definition, even a part of a building let out is to be treated as a "building". Since three separate tenancies were created in favour of the tenant in respect of three different parts of the building, each of such part separately let out would constitute a separate building within the meaning of Section 2(b) of the Rent Act. 16. Since three separate tenancies were created in favour of the tenant in respect of three different parts of the building, each of such part separately let out would constitute a separate building within the meaning of Section 2(b) of the Rent Act. 16. Dealing with the definition of the building under Section 2(a) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949, which is similar to the definition under Section 2(b) of the Act, it has been held by the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Smt. Satya Kumari v. Ajudhiya Parshad, 1982 (1) RCJ 237, that a part of building let out would be a "building" within the meaning of Section 2(a) of the Rent Restriction Act, 1949. 17. Similarly, the Madras High Court in R. Venkatesachary and others v. The judge, Court of Small Causes, Madras, AIR 1950 Madras 366 and In re A.S. Vijayaraghavalu Chetty, Petitioner, AIR 1952 Madras 40, has also held that where parts of the same building are let out separately; these parts would constitute "buildings" within the meaning of Madras Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1946. 18. Once it is held that each part of a building let out separately would constitute a "building" within the meaning of Section 2(b) of the Act, the findings of the Appellate Authority that there was a single tenancy including two non-residential shop and, therefore, the tenant cannot be ordered to be evicted from residential portion of the building alone, cannot be sustained. No question of bifurcation of the "building" let out is involved in the present case. Nor eviction of the tenant from residential portion, which is a separate building within the meaning of Section 2(b) of the Act,, would amount to eviction of the tenant from a part of the "building". 19. The question whether a single application for the ejectment of a tenant can be made in respect of the premises let out to him separately is no more res-integra in view of the pronouncement by the Honble Supreme Court in SM. Gopalakrishna Chetty v. Ganeshan and others, (1975) 2 Supreme Court Cases 408. In the said case, one single petition for eviction of the tenants was made with regard to two separate tenancies on the ground of demolition and reconstruction by the landlord. Gopalakrishna Chetty v. Ganeshan and others, (1975) 2 Supreme Court Cases 408. In the said case, one single petition for eviction of the tenants was made with regard to two separate tenancies on the ground of demolition and reconstruction by the landlord. One of the questions raised by the tenants was whether a single petition was maintainable to evict the tenants from two different tenancies one for residential purposes and the other for non-residential purposes. The Honble Supreme Court answered the question in the affirmative and held that such a single petition was maintainable. 20. Following the above ratio, the Madras High Court in T.N. Krishnamoorthy v. M/s. Jagat Textiles, Madurai Town, 1982 (1) RCJ 121, has held that a single petition can lie in respect of different tenancies provided it is in respect of the same building. 21. In the present case, admittedly, the three tenancies are in respect of different parts of the same building. Therefore, one single petition would be maintainable. 22. In Gobind Ram v. Godha Ram, 1979 (2) RLR 172, two rooms were let out to the tenant on two different dates vide separate rent notes. One single petition was filed by the landlord for eviction of the tenant on the ground of bona fide personal requirement. A learned Single Judge of the Punjab and Haryana High Court held: "The tenant is one and the landlord is one. It is immaterial whether the premises are rented out by one rent note or by several rent notes. When the entire premises are needed bona fide by the landlord for his personal use, the contention raised is wholly besides the point." 23. In so far as the question of bona fide requirement of the landlord is concerned, the two courts below have concurrently held that the need of the landlord is bona fide. Such concurrent findings on a pure question of fact have not been assailed by the tenant by way of cross-objections. Besides such concurrent findings cannot be interfered with in exercise of the revisional powers by re-appreciating the evidence. [See: Dr. Gyan Parkash v. Som Nath and others, 1996 (1) RCR 342 (SC)] and Lachhman Dass v. Santokh Singh, (1995) 4 Supreme Court Cases 201]. 24. For the foregoing reasons, the present petition is allowed. Besides such concurrent findings cannot be interfered with in exercise of the revisional powers by re-appreciating the evidence. [See: Dr. Gyan Parkash v. Som Nath and others, 1996 (1) RCR 342 (SC)] and Lachhman Dass v. Santokh Singh, (1995) 4 Supreme Court Cases 201]. 24. For the foregoing reasons, the present petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 25.5.1998 of the learned Appellate Authority is set aside and that of the Rent Controller dated 30.8.1997 ordering eviction of the tenant in respect of the residential premises let out to him in August, 1976 is restored. The tenant is directed to put the landlord in possession of such premises within two months from today, failing which the landlord shall be at liberty to enforce the order in accordance with law. No orders as to costs. Petition allowed. -