Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 820 (PNJ)

Punjab National Bank v. Jawahar Lal Wadehra

2006-03-01

HEMANT GUPTA

body2006
Judgment Hemant Gupta, J. 1. The challenge in the present revision petition is to the order passed by the Authorities under the East Punjab Urban Restriction Act, 1949, whereby an order of ejectment has been passed on the ground that the demised premises is required for bona fide use of the respondent-landlord. The respondent has sought ejectment of the petitioner from the premises bearing No. 236-A, Sarabha Nagar, Ludhiana. It has been alleged that an agreement was executed between the parties and the petitioner came to occupy the same as a tenant without any right over the roof and the staircase on a monthly rent of Rs. 2,000/-. The landlord sought the ejectment of the tenant on the ground that he is carrying out the business of cloth in Chaura Bazar, Ludhiana under the name and style of Paris Cloth House since long. He is living at Phillaur and is a daily commuter, and in view of his advancing age and health reasons, it is hazardous for him to do so as a lot of time is wasted in coming and going. He has pleaded that he has no residential building in the urban area nor he has vacated any such building without sufficient cause after the commencement of the Act. 2. In the written statement, the tenant alleged that the entire property was given on rent including staircase, roof and passage. In respect of bona fide requirement, it was pointed out that the landlord does not require the tenanted premises for his own occupation or for use of occupation of his family but the landlord is using pressure tactic to get increase in the rate of rent. It was stated that the landlord is neither in advancing age nor he is suffering from any disease. 3. Before the first learned Appellate Court, an argument was raised that the premises let out to the petitioner is a non-residential building. A reference was made to an agreement Mark P-2, wherein the building was referred to be used as an office and that the non-residential building cannot be got vacated for the bona fide personal use and occupation of the landlord. A reference was made to an agreement Mark P-2, wherein the building was referred to be used as an office and that the non-residential building cannot be got vacated for the bona fide personal use and occupation of the landlord. Though, the dispute between the parties revoke around the admissibility of the agreement Mark P-2 being an un-registered lease deed out keeping in view the fact that the landlord himself is not disputing execution of the agreement between the parties, the said agreement Mark P-2 can be taken into consideration at least for the purpose of finding out the purpose of letting out. 4. A perusal of the said agreement shows that the landlord has agreed to construct a new building according to the requirement of the tenant as per plan approved "for its use as office and/or residence for officers". In view of the said clause in the agreement, the building was not constructed exclusively for the non-residential purpose. 5. Before addressing his arguments on merits, learned Counsel for the petitioner has argued that the order passed by the lower Appellate Court on 14.10.2000, whereby his application for amendment of the written statement was declined, suffers from patent illegality. The petitioner has moved an application for amendment before the appellate authority so as to plead that the building let out to the petitioner is a non-residential building. It is the case of the petitioner that in spite of the fact that no specific issue was framed, the parties have led sufficient evidence on the question of nature of the building, therefore, the amendment was to facilitate the adjudication of all the questions arising between the parties. However, I do not find any merit in the argument raised by the learned Counsel for the petitioner. No doubt, it is correct that no issue was framed but still the petitioner has led evidence on the question of nature of the building. The learned Appellate Authority has discussed the entire evidence to return a finding that the premises led out to the petitioner is not a non-residential building, therefore, raising of the plea in the written statement is of no consequence as the matter has been adjudicated upon in respect of the nature of the building by the appellate Court in detail. 6. 6. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has referred to the various clauses of the agreement, Mark P-2, particularly Clauses 2, 7, 9, 11 etc. to contend that the building was to be constructed by the landlord for the purposes of banking including the strong room and, therefore, the premises let out to the petitioner was a non-residential building. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the respondent has relied upon Clauses 13 and 14 of the said agreement. Clause 13 contemplates separate electric meters to be provided for the office premises and residence and also power connection for banking hall and the residence. Clause 14 contemplates that main switches supplying electricity to the banking and residence shall be housed in a separate wall cupboard, which should be under the control of the Bank Manager. Keeping in view the description of the building in the opening paragraph of the agreement and the various specifications of construction, it leaves no ground of doubt that the building was constructed for the purposes of banking as well as for residence. In view of the provisions of law contained in Section 2(g) read with Section 2(d), the building let out to the petitioner is thus a residential building. 7. Learned Counsel has argued that the witnesses of the tenant have not been cross-examined in respect of the user of the building for the purpose of strong room as well as for banking purposes. It is not the case of the landlord that the building is not being used for banking purposes. Therefore, if the witnesses of the tenant have not been cross-examined, the said aspect is of no consequence and significance. 8. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has referred to many judgments to contend that the landlord has not produced any master plan of the town to show that the building was constructed in the residential area of the same was allotted for the purpose of residence. However, the said aspect is not relevant in view of the agreement between the parties which proves the nature of the building. The building was to be constructed as per the site plan for the purposes of office and residence of the officers. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has also agreed that there is no kitchen and it was constructed for the purpose of banking, thus it is a non-residential building. The building was to be constructed as per the site plan for the purposes of office and residence of the officers. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has also agreed that there is no kitchen and it was constructed for the purpose of banking, thus it is a non-residential building. But as found above the building was constructed as a composite building in terms of the agreement, therefore, I am unable to accept the pleas raised by the learned Counsel for the petitioner. 9. As per the evidence on record, the respondent was residing at Phillaur when the building was let out in the year 1975. He has pointed out that he runs his business at Ludhiana and is a daily commuter. Due to old age he finds it difficult to commute daily. The said aspect of the landlord that he is running a shop in Ludhiana, is not disputed by the petitioner. It is also not disputed that the landlord is residing at Phillaur and he has no residential building within the urban area of Ludhiana. Thus, the requirement shown by the landlord that he required the premises for his residential purpose on account of old age appears to be genuine. Such finding has been recorded by both the Courts as well as on the basis of appreciation of evidence. 10. In view of above, I do not find any patent illegality or material irregularity in the impugned order passed by the Courts below, warranting interference of this Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction. Dismissed with costs of Rs. 10,000/-. However, the petitioner is granted on months time to vacate the premises.