JUDGMENT Tarlok Singh Chauhan, J. - Whether a specified landlord is entitled to seek eviction of his tenant from "non-residential building" by invoking Section 15 (1) of the Himachal Pradesh Urban Rent Control Act, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as ''Act'' in short) is one of the moot questions, that arises for consideration in this appeal. 2. In view of the nature of the order I propose to pass, it is not necessary to delve into the facts of the case, in detail. 3. Suffice it to state that the petitioner, who admittedly is a tenant, in a non-residential building belonging to the respondent/landlord filed an application under Section 16(4) of the Act for grant of leave to contest the petition filed by the respondent under Section 15 (1) of the Act. It was averred that the petitioner had received summons in the rent petition and intended to contest the same on the following grounds - Firstly, the petition filed by the respondent/landlord was not maintainable under the provisions of Section 15(1) of the Act since the premises were non-residential and commercial one and as such, the provisions of Section 15(1) of the Act were not applicable. Secondly, it was averred that the respondent is owner in possession of residential house nearby by the shop in question and the respondent is having sufficient accommodation having three bed rooms set on ground floor and having two rooms set on the first floor of said building. It was further averred that besides this, the respondent is having 787 sq. mts. of land out of which 448 sq. mts. is vacant and is situated adjacent to the shop in question. It was thus averred that since the respondent is having sufficient space and accommodation for carrying out any type of business, hence petition filed by him is not maintainable. 4. The respondent contested the petition by filing reply, wherein preliminary objections qua cause of action, maintainability etc. were taken. On merits, it was admitted that the respondent has residential accommodation at a distance of 100 mts. from his commercial shop in question, but it was submitted that the landlord needs the premises/shop occupied by the petitioner bonafidely for his personal occupation and for his business being a specified landlord. were taken. On merits, it was admitted that the respondent has residential accommodation at a distance of 100 mts. from his commercial shop in question, but it was submitted that the landlord needs the premises/shop occupied by the petitioner bonafidely for his personal occupation and for his business being a specified landlord. It was further submitted that he is not occupying any commercial shop owned by him or by his family members in the urban area of Solan nor has occupied any such premises within last five years. He admitted that there is a vacant land/space adjoining to the shop, but the same is being used by him for ingress and egress to his residential accommodation and, therefore, cannot be forced to occupy that space by raising new construction. It was further averred that the residential accommodation and vacant plot cannot be equated with commercial shop. It was further submitted that the respondent has recently retired from service and special provision has been enacted to facilitate the retired person to acquire his property/shop to earn his livelihood after retirement. It was lastly submitted that since there is no merit in the application for leave to defend, therefore, the same be dismissed. 5. The learned Rent Controller after hearing both the parties dismissed the application vide order dated 5.7.2018 by relying upon the judgment rendered by a coordinate bench of this Court (Hon''ble Mr. Justice Dharam Chand Chaudhary) in Dr. Anil Bansal vs. Dinesh Kohli , (2018) 1 RCR(Rent) 23. 6. It is vehemently contended by Mr. Ramakant Sharma, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Ms. Soma Thakur, Advocate, that the findings recorded by the learned Rent Controller are clearly erroneous and perverse inasmuch as it has failed to take into consideration that the provisions of Section 15 of the Act are only applicable to "residential building" and not "non-residential building" as held by this Court (Hon''ble Mr. Justice Devinder Gupta, as his Lordship then was) in B.N. Gupta vs. Gang Ram , (1994) AIR H.P. 126. He would further contend that later judgment of this Court in Dr. Anil Bansal''s case (supra) is per incuriam as it has failed to take into consideration the judgment rendered in B.N. Gupta''s case (supra) and there otherwise being a conflict in both the judgments, therefore, it is a fit case to be referred to a larger bench. He would further contend that later judgment of this Court in Dr. Anil Bansal''s case (supra) is per incuriam as it has failed to take into consideration the judgment rendered in B.N. Gupta''s case (supra) and there otherwise being a conflict in both the judgments, therefore, it is a fit case to be referred to a larger bench. It is further contended by him that entitling a specified landlord to get possession of non-residential building under Section 15(2) of the Act would automatically amount to discrimination between the ordinary landlords and specified landlords, which was never the intention of the legislature. He would further argue that the bill, whereby the Act was introduced, conferring right to recover immediate possession of the premises on certain categories of persons, was brought about in order to enable a person, who had to vacate Government accommodation allotted to him to seek relief on urgent basis on his retirement. This was because of a rule having been introduced in the Allotment of Government Residences (General Pool) in Himachal Pradesh Rules, enjoining upon the person in occupation of allotted Government accommodation to vacate such residential accommodation or in default to incur some penal obligations, in case the Government servant happens to own in his own name or in the name of his wife or dependent child a residential accommodation within the same urban area and it was for this reason that a detailed special procedure for expeditious disposal of applications was provided to cut short the abnormal delays, which normally occur in case eviction of a tenant is sought under general provisions and, therefore, benefit of such provision could not be extended to landlord vis-a-vis non-residential building or commercial building/premises. 7. On the other hand, Mr. Sudhir Thakur, Advocate, would contend that now that the eviction can be sought under Section 14 of the amended Act from the non-residential building, therefore, the provisions of Section 14 of the Act have essentially to be read into Section 15 of the Act and thus, no infirmity much less illegality can be found with the order passed by the learned Rent Controller. 8. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the material placed on record. 9. 8. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the material placed on record. 9. At the outset, in order to appreciate the controversy in question, certain definitions as contained in Section 2(b), (e), (h) and (i) of the Act need to be noticed, which read thus: (b) "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, godowns, out houses or furniture let out therewith, but does not include a room in a hotel, hostel of boarding house; (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 purposes, separately, to more than one person, the portion thereof let out for the purpose of residence shall not be treated as nonresidential building. 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; (h "residential building" means any building which is not a non-residential building; (i) "specified landlord" means a person who is entitled to receive rent in respect of a building on his own account and who is holding or has held an appointment in a public service or post in connection with the affairs of the Union or of a State. 10. Section 14 of the Act is the general provision specifying therein various grounds available to landlord to seek eviction of a tenant, whereas Section 15 of the Act deals specifically with the right of the specified landlord to recover immediate possession of the premises. 11. 10. Section 14 of the Act is the general provision specifying therein various grounds available to landlord to seek eviction of a tenant, whereas Section 15 of the Act deals specifically with the right of the specified landlord to recover immediate possession of the premises. 11. Section 15(1) enables a person, who being in occupation of a residential premises allotted to him by the Central Government, State Government or any local authority to seek eviction of his tenant immediately, in case by any general or special order, he is called upon to vacate the allotted accommodation or in default to incur certain obligation on the ground that he or his spouse or dependent child owns, within the urban area concerned a residential accommodation. 12. Section 15(1) of the Act reads as under: "15(1} Where a person who being in occupation of any residential premises allotted to him by the Central Government, the State Government or any local authority is required by, or in pursuance of, any general or special order made by the Central or State Government or local authority, as the case may be, to vacate such residential accommodation, or in default, to incur certain obligations, on the ground that he or his spouse or dependent child owns, within the urban area, residential accommodation there shall accrue; on and from the date of such order, to such a person notwithstanding anything contained elsewhere in this act or in any other law for the time being in force or in any contract (whether express or implied), custom or usage to the contrary, a right to recover immediately the possession of any premises let out by him: Provided that nothing in this section shall be construed s conferring a right to the person, who himself or whose spouse or dependent child owns, within the urban area, two or more dwelling houses, to recover the possession more than one dwelling house, and it shall be lawful for such person to indicate the dwelling house, the possesion of which he intends to recover." 13. As regards Section 15(1) of the Act, it confers a right on a specified landlord to recover immediate possession of one residential set for his own occupation, which right can, be exercised by him at any time within one year prior to or within one year after the date of retirement, in case, he or his spouse does not own or possess any other ''suitable accommodation'' in the local area in which he intends to reside or start his business. 14. 14. Section 15(2) of the Act reads as under: "(2) Where a specified landlord, at any time within one year prior to or within one year after the date of his retirement or after his retirement but within one year of the appointed day whichever is later, applies to the Controller, along with a certificate from the authority competent to remove him from service indicating the date of his retirement and his affidavit to the effect that he or his spouse does not own and possess any other suitable accommodation in the local area in which he intends to reside or to start his own business, to recover possession of one residential building for his own occupation, there shall accrue, on and from the date of such application to such specified landlord, notwithstanding anything contained elsewhere in this Act or in any other law for the time being in force or in any contract (whether expressed or implied), custom or usage to the contrary a right to recover immediate possession of such residential buidling or any part or parts of such building if it is let out in part or parts: Provided that in case of death of the specified landlord, the widow or widower of such specified landlord and in the case of death of such widow or widower, mother or father or a child or a grandchild ora widowed daughterin-law who was dependent upon such specified landlord at the time of his death shall be entitled to make an application under this section to the Controller- (a) in the case of death of such specific landlord before the appointed day, within one year of the said day; (b) in the case of death of such specified landlord after the appointed day, but before the date of his retirement, within one year of the date of his death; (c) in the case of death of such specified landlord after the appointed day and the date of his retirement, within one year of the date of such retirement; and on the date of such application the right to recover the possession of the residential building which belongs to such specified landlord or his spouse at the time of his death shall accrue to the applicant: Provided further that nothing in this section shall be so construed as conferring a right, on any person to recover possession of more than one residential building inclusive of any part or parts thereof if it is let out in part or parts: Provided further that the Controller may give the tenant a reasonable time for putting the specified landlord or, as the case may be, the widow, widower, child, grandchild or widowed daughter-in-law in possession of the residential building and may extend such time not exceeding three months in the aggregate. Explanation - For the purposes of this section, the expression "retirement" includes the voluntary retirement but does not include resignation, discharge or dismissal from service." 15. Section 16 of the Act prescribes the special procedure applicable for the disposal of applications, where eviction is sought under summary provisions, namely, Section 14(3)(a)(iii) by a landlord, who is a member of Armed Forces and under Section 15 of the Act. Section 16 (8) provides that no appeal shall lie against an order for the recovery of possessing of any premises made by the Controller in accordance with this summary procedure. It further provides that the High Court may, for the purposes of satisfying itself that an order made by the Controller under this section is according to law, call for the records of the case and pass such orders in respect thereto as it thinks fit. 16. Now, adverting to the issue involved in B.N. Gupta''s case (supra), it would be noticed that the landlord therein had purchased the building in which premises in question were located in its top floor in the year 1973. It was a four storied building with one room in its basement, which admittedly was a godown. Two floors of the building were below the level of main Boileauganj Bazaar and were referred to as basement-I and basement-II. The floor facing the Boileauganj Bazaar was the ground floor and there was also one floor above that, which was the top floor of the building, was in occupation of the tenant, from which eviction was sought. Although, admittedly the premises were residential premises, but this Court still considered the question with regard to the applicability of Section 15 of the Act to the non-residential building in view of the expression used in Section 15(2) of the Act. The words "he intends to reside and start his own business" were considered in detail in this case and it was held that these words cannot be read to mean that the residential premises occupied by the tenant on eviction is intended to be used for the purpose of starting a business. It postulates a situation, where the landlord, after retirement intends to start a business or reside or reside and start a business at a particular place, where the residential building, occupied by the tenant is located and he has no suitable accommodation available to him. It postulates a situation, where the landlord, after retirement intends to start a business or reside or reside and start a business at a particular place, where the residential building, occupied by the tenant is located and he has no suitable accommodation available to him. The provisions of Section 15(2) of the Act cannot be construed to mean that though he is already having residential accommodation at Shimla, since he intends to start business in the building, therefore, for that purpose he requires the accommodation occupied by the tenant or in other words that though he is already in occupation of a residential building, but in a part thereto, he intends to start business, therefore, the same is not a suitable accommodation for him, therefore, he is entitled to seek tenant''s eviction. The Court further proceeded to hold that this right conferred cannot mean that though he is already in occupation of a residential accommodation owned by him or his wife, but the same is not adequate for his requirement since he intends to have more accommodation for his residence. In that eventuality, the legislature has provided a general right to a landlord under Section 14(3) of the Act, where a landlord has to allege and prove that he requires the residential accommodation for his own occupation; he is not occupying any other residential building owned by him and has not vacated such a building within the last five years of the filing of the petition for eviction. While considering his claim, the Controller has to satisfy himself about the bona fides of the claim. As regards the landlord already in occupation of the residential building, it was held that he is not entitled to the benefit as contemplated in second proviso of Section 15 of the Act and it was observed that in a case where the landlord is already in occupation of a residential building either owned by him or by his spouse within the local area, he cannot, in view of the second proviso of Section 15 be said to have acquired any right to seek tenant''s eviction and on that ground, the eviction petition will not be maintainable. Here, it shall be profitable to refer to the observations contained in paras 20 to 35, 39 and 40 of judgment, which read thus:- 30. Here, it shall be profitable to refer to the observations contained in paras 20 to 35, 39 and 40 of judgment, which read thus:- 30. The necessary conditions, as can be noticed on the bare reading of Sub-section (2) of Section 15 of the Act, which a specified landlord is required to satisfy before an order of eviction is passed against a tenant are that : (a) he or his spouse does not own or possess any other suitable accommodation in the local area in which he intends to reside or start his business; (b) possession is not sought from more than one residential building. 31. The words, ''he intends to reside or start his own business'' cannot be read to mean that the residential premises, in occupation of the tenant, on eviction is intended to be used for the purpose of starting a business. It postulates a situation, where the landlord, after retirement intends to start a business or intends to reside or intends to reside and start a business at a particular place, where the residential building, which is in occupation of a tenant is located and he has no suitable accommodation available to him. For example, in case a Government servant, who during his service is residing outside Shimla might say that after retirement, he intends to settle down at Shimla or intends to start his business at Shimla and at Shimla he or his spouse has no other suitable accommodation other than the one in occupation of the tenant. In that case, landlord will be entitled to seek the tenant''s eviction under Section 15(2) of the Act. The provisions cannot be construed to mean that though he is already in occupation of a residential accommodation at Shimla, since he intends to start business in the building, therefore, for that purpose he requires the accommodation in occupation of the tenant or in other words that though he is already in occupation of a residential building, but in a part of the building, he intends to start business, therefore, the same is not a suitable accommodation for him, therefore, he is entitled to seek tenant''s eviction. Suitability has to be seen from the view point of the landlord in the light of his intention to settle down at a place or to start a business or to reside there after retirement and start business, which in any case has to be at a place other than the place where he at the time of filing petition is already residing. Eviction can also be sought under Section 15(2) of the Act by showing that he is not occupying a premises owned by him or his spouse at Shimla but he is residing in an accommodation on rent at Shimla and on retirement the said accommodation will not suit him, since he cannot now pay exorbitant rent of the tenanted premises. It can be demonstrated with another example that where a landlord though during his service has been residing at different places but in a case he expresses his intention that after retirement, he wants to reside or he has intention to start his business, at Shimla and in Shimla he or his spouse does not possess any other suitable accommodation for residence, in that case, a right accrues to him on the date of filing of the application to seek tenant''s eviction. 32. The second proviso to Section 15 has to be '' read in such a manner so as to harmonise the provisions contained in Sub-section (2), which says that it shall not be construed as conferring a right to any person to recover possession of more than one residential building. In case a landlord happens to be in occupation of a residential building within the local area concerned, owned and possessed by him or his spouse, it cannot be construed that under Section 15(2), a right has been conferred on him to seek tenant''s eviction from one more additional residential set in the garb of fulfilling his intention that he intends to reside therein. 33. The right conferred under Sub-sections (1) and (2) of Section 15 is to recover immediate possession, in certain eventualities, namely, when the landlord is asked to either vacate or to incur liability to pay a penal rent or when he is faced with a situation that after retirement at a place where he has to start business or where he intends to reside, he has no other accommodation available to him for his residence. This right conferred cannot mean that though he is already in occupation of a residential accommodation owned by him or his wife but the same is not adequate for his requirement since he wants to have more accommodation for his residence. In that eventuality, the legislature has provided a general right to a landlord under Section 14(3) of the Act, where a landlord has to allege and prove that he requires the residential accommodation for his own occupation; he is not occupying any other residential building owned by him and has not vacated such a building within the last five years of the filing of the petition for eviction. While considering his claim, the Controller has to satisfy himself about the bona fides of the claim. 34. In a case where the landlord is already in occupation of a residential building either owned by him or by his spouse within the local area, he cannot, in view of the second proviso of Section 15 be said to have acquired any right to seek tenant''s eviction and on that ground the eviction petition will not be maintainable. 35. In such like situations, the claim of landlord in seeking additional accommodation over and above the accommodation already occupied by him within the urban area where he or his spouse possess any other accommodation would not be a bona fide act. The fact that there is no reference to the word ''bona fide requirement'' in Sub-section (2) of Section 15 of the Act does not absolve the specified landlord from proving that this claim for accommodation is bona fide or the tenant from showing or urging that it is not bona fide. It is absolutely necessary and otherwise also appears to be appropriate and reasonable that every claim for eviction against a tenant must be a bona fide one. Having regard to the context in which a provision appears and the object of statute in which the said provision is enacted, the Court should construe it in a harmonious way to make it meaningful. An attempt must always be made so as to reconcile the relevant provisions and to advance the remedy intended by the statute. See : Siraj-ul-Haq Khan v. Sunni Central Board of Waqf, U.P. , (1959) AIR SC 198. 39. An attempt must always be made so as to reconcile the relevant provisions and to advance the remedy intended by the statute. See : Siraj-ul-Haq Khan v. Sunni Central Board of Waqf, U.P. , (1959) AIR SC 198. 39. The object in conferring right to recover immediate possession under Section 15, as contained in the Act has been introduced with the sole purpose of avoiding unnecessary delay to certain categories of landlords under certain conditions, in seeking eviction of the tenant. Special procedure for achieving the said object has been provided for in Section 16 of the Act. In the absence of Section 15 and Section 16, even a specified landlord, in case of urgent and dire necessity, to seek tenants eviction would have to resort to the general provisions contained in Section 14, for which normally the time required in finalising the proceedings would be sufficiently long. It was in order to mitigate the hardship of certain categories of tenants that provisions were introduced but that action cannot be said to altogether absolve the landlord from proving the bona fides of his claim or in the tenant in urging and showing that the claim is not bona fide. There is enough indication in support of this construction because of the use of the words ''bona fide requirement'' under Section 16 of the Act, which says ''special procedure for disposal of applications for eviction on the ground of bona fide requirement under Section 14(3)(a)(iii) and Section 15''. Thus, even a claim of eviction aginst a tenant under Section 15(1) and Section 15(2) must be a bona fide one. Since the second proviso to Section 15 in clear terms slates that right conferred shall not be construed as conferring a right to recover the possession of more than one residential building. Similar words contained in the Delhi Rent Act were construed in Narain Khammans case , (1985) AIR SC 4 (supra) to mean that if such a person, who has been conferred a special right has other premises which he owns either in his own name or in the name of his wife, which are , available to him for his residential accommodation or into which he has already moved, he cannot maintain an application for eviction under summary remedy. There is no reason why similar interpretation be not put to the right conferred under Subsection (2) of Section 15 of the Act, namely, that if a specified landlord has in his possession other premises, which he owns either in his own name or in the name of his wife, which are available to him for his residence or into which he has already moved, he cannot maintain an application under Section 15 of the Act. 40. The word ''suitable accommodation'' cannot be read to mean sufficient accommodation, in case ground is made out that accommodation available is not sufficient. In that case, the landlord has to seek tenant''s eviction under Section 14(3) of the Act and not under Sub-section (2) of Section 15 of the Act, in view of the second proviso, which postulates within it the requirement that a specified landlord cannot recover possession of more than one residential building. 17. The ratio in B.N. Gupta''s case was relied upon by a Single Judge of this Court in Jasjit Singh Sodhi vs. Maharaj Krishan Mahajan , (1996) 1 ShimLC 377 , for a limited purpose, for drawing distinction between the provisions of Section 14(C) of the Delhi Rent Control Act and Section 15(2) of the Act, which deal with the rights of the specified landlord to seek eviction and it was held as under: 10. Section 14C of the Delhi Act runs as under: 14-C(1) Where the landlord is a retired employee of the Central Government or of the Delhi Administration, and the premises let out by him are required for his own residence, such employee may, within one year from the date of his retirement or within a period of one year from the date of commencement of the Delhi Rent Control (Amendment) Act, 1988, whichever is later, apply to the Controller for recovering the immediate possession of such premises. (2) Where the landlord is an employee of the Central Government or of the Delhi Administration and has a period of less than one year preceding the date of his retirement and the premises let out by him are required by him for his own residence after his retirement, he may, at any time within a period of one year before the date of his retirement, apply to the Controller for recovering the immediate possession of such premises. (3) Where the landlord referred to in Sub-section (1) or Sub-section (2) has let out more than one premises, it shall be open to him to make an application under that Sub-section in respect of only one of the premises chosen by him. Mr. Matewal, in the background of the aforesaid precedent, has submitted that in the present case, the evidence examined during the trial established that the Petitioner was not occupying any part of the premises and, therefore, he was entitled for the occupation of the demised premises. It has further been submitted on behalf of the Petitioner that even if for arguments sake it is conceded that the Petitioner alongwith co-owners was in occupation of remaining portion, on the strength of Anand Swaroop Vohra''s case (supra), his petition has to be favourably considered. It is not so simple a matter, as has been contended on behalf of the Petitioner. 11. In order to appreciate the said submission, the provisions under the Act and the evidence examined, have to be appreciated and taken note of. 12. Section 15(2) of the Act, which is relevant in order to appreciate the controversy under reference, runs as under: 15(1)... 15(2) Where a specified landlord, at any time within one year prior to or within one year after the date of his retirement or after his retirement but within one year of the appointed day whichever is later, applies to the Controller, alongwith a certificate from the authority competent to remove him from service indicating the date of his retirement and his affidavit to the effect that he does not own and possess any other suitable accommodation in the local area in which he intends to reside to recover possession of one residential building, for his own occupation, there shall accrue, on and from the date of such application to such specified landlord, notwithstanding anything contained elsewhere in this Act or in any other law for the time being in force or in any contract (whether express or implied), custom or usage to the contrary a right to recover immediate possession of such residential building or any part or parts of such building if it is let out in part or parts... 13. There is some distinction between Section 14C of the Delhi Act and Section 15(2) of the Act. 13. There is some distinction between Section 14C of the Delhi Act and Section 15(2) of the Act. Under the Delhi Act, it has been very clearly mentioned that a particular landlord, who in the present Act has been defined as specified landlord, can get the eviction of his tenant within the stipulated time if the landlord required the premises let out by him for his own residence after his retirement. The words'' own residence'' are self explanatory, but on the other hand, under Section 15(2) of the Act, the specified landlord has to prove that he did not own and possess any other ''suitable accommodation''. The words ''suitable accommodation'' have not been defined under the Act. This distinction between the two provisions is writ large. These words ''suitable accommodation'' have been appreciated in, B.N. Gupta v. Ganga Ram , (1994) 2 ShimLC 142 wherein it has been held that in a case where the landlord is already in occupation of a residential building either owned by him or by his spouse within the local area, he cannot, in view of the second proviso of Section 15, be said to have acquired any right to seek tenant''s eviction and on that ground the eviction petition will not be maintainable. It has been observed in this very case that second proviso of Section 15 has to be read in such a manner so as to harmonise the provisions contained in Sub-section (2), which say that it shall not be construed as conferring a right to any person to recover possession of more than one residential building and in case a landlord happens to be in occupation of a residential building within the local area concerned, owned and possessed by him or his spouse, it cannot be construed that under Section 15(2), a right has been conferred on him to seek tenant''s eviction from one more additional residential set in the garb of fulfilling his intention that he intends to reside therein. In this reported case, the landlord admittedly was in occupation of some residential area in the same building. 18. The provisions contained in Section 15 of the Act were thereafter considered by another coordinate bench of this Court (Hon''ble Mr. Justice S.N. Phukan, Chief Justice, as his Lordship then was) in Dr. In this reported case, the landlord admittedly was in occupation of some residential area in the same building. 18. The provisions contained in Section 15 of the Act were thereafter considered by another coordinate bench of this Court (Hon''ble Mr. Justice S.N. Phukan, Chief Justice, as his Lordship then was) in Dr. B.L. Kapoor vs. Ram Kumar , (1996) 2 ShimLC 315 , wherein it was held that the legislature gave the privilege to the specified landlord for eviction of the tenant even for starting his own business if he has no other suitable accommodation for such business. This was besides the fact that the landlord had got his own residential building being a doctor he wanted to start his own E.N.T. Clinic, thus, he was entitled to get the privilege conferred on a specified landlord by Section 15(2) of the Act. It is apposite to refer to the relevant observations as contained in para 8 of the judgment, which reads thus:- 8. From sub-section (2) of Section 15 of the Act, I have no hesitation in holding that an application under the above sub-section can be filed by the specified landlord if he or his spouse does not own or possess any other suitable accommodation in the local area, in which he intends to reside or to start his own business. Therefore, the legislature gave the privilege to the specified landlord for eviction of the tenant even for starting his own business if he has no other suitable accommodation for such business. Though the landlord-petitioner has got his own residential building, being a doctor he wants to start his own E.N.T. Clinic, he is entitled to get the privilege conferred on a specified landlord by sub-section (2) of Section 15 of the Act. 19. Noticeably, ratio laid down in Dr. B.L. Kapoor''s case (supra) was followed by a Single Judge of this Court (Hon''ble Mr. Justice Deepak Gupta, as his Lordship then was) in Kumari Pushpa Chauhan vs. Shreedhar Sharma , (2007) 1 ShimLC 46 , wherein the specified landlord had sought eviction of the tenant on the ground that he needed the demised premises for setting up his own practice as a Veterinary Doctor and to establish a Veterinary Clinic and Hospital in the building, meaning thereby, eviction was sought under Section 15(2) of the Act from a non-residential building and after placing reliance on Dr. B.L. Kapoor''s case, the petition filed by the specified landlord was allowed. 20. Here, it would not be out of place to mention that the earlier judgment of this Court in B.N. Gupta''s case was not even brought to the notice of the Court in the above referred cases and apparently the ratio laid down in the aforesaid judgment is contrary to the one propounded in B.N. Gupta''s case. 21. I may now refer to the judgment in Dr. Anil Bansal''s case (supra), which otherwise forms the basis of decision assailed herein. Therein, the specified landlord had sought to recover the possession of the demised premises rented out to a tenant for not only residential purpose, but also to start his/her own business, as is evident from para 9 of the judgment, which reads thus: 9. In the case in hand learned Rent Controller has decided the question of maintainability of the petition raised under Issue No.2 first. Learned Rent Controller while interpreting the provisions contained under Sub Section (2) of Section 15 of the Act has concluded that a specified landlord can apply only for the recovery of the demised premises, if it is residential and not that of nonresidential premises. Admittedly, the demised premises is commercial, hence non-residential. The close scrutiny of the provisions contained under Sub Section (2) of Section 15 of the Act,however, make it crystal clear that a specified landlord can recover immediate possession of premises rented out to the tenant subject to he or his spouse is not having any other premises to reside or to start his own business, meaning thereby that a specified landlord within one year before his retirement or within one year thereafter can recover the possession of the demised premises rented out to a tenant business. 22. It is evidently clear from the judgments, referred to above, that there is apparent conflict in these judgments with regard to the applicability of Section 15(2) of the Act. 23. As far as B.N. Gupta''s case (supra) is concerned, the same clearly and unequivocally holds the provisions of Section 15(2) of the Act not applicable to non-residential building, whereas later three judgments in Dr. B.L. Kapoor, Kumari Pushpa Chauhan and Dr. Anil Bansal cases (supra) have taken a contrary view, wherein it has been held that Section 15(2) of the Act is applicable to both residential as well as non-residential building. 24. B.L. Kapoor, Kumari Pushpa Chauhan and Dr. Anil Bansal cases (supra) have taken a contrary view, wherein it has been held that Section 15(2) of the Act is applicable to both residential as well as non-residential building. 24. Now as regards the question of discrimination, I need no to go into the same as I do not intend to decide the lis finally in view of the conflicting views on the subject by different benches of this Court. Similar issues are not only pending but are likely to come up repeatedly before this Court, therefore, it is imperative that this issue should be resolved at the earliest by a larger bench. 25. Accordingly, the registry is directed to place the papers before the Hon''ble the Chief Justice for constitution of a larger bench and answering the following question: Whether a specified landlord is entitled to seek eviction of his tenant from "non-residential building" by invoking Section 15 (1) of the Act?