JUDGMENT Anil Kshetarpal, J. (Oral) - The tenant, who has been ordered to be evicted by the Rent Controller as well as the Appellate Authority, has filed the present revision petition under Section 15 (5) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as 'the 1949 Act') with a prayer to set aside the orders of his eviction. 2. This Bench has heard the learned counsel representing the petitioner at length and with his able assistance perused the paper book. 3. The learned counsel representing the petitioner contends that the rented premises is a commercial shop which cannot be ordered to be vacated for residential purposes. While referring to Section 2(d) which defines the term 'Non Residential Building', he contends that the purpose for which the eviction of the petitioner has been sought falls within the scope of residential building, therefore, a non-residential building cannot be ordered to be vacated for the residential purposes. In support thereof, he relies upon the judgments passed in State Bank of Patiala vs. S.Zulzuaoar Singh Virk and others, 2003 (1) R.C.R. (Rent) 670 and Dinesh Kumar vs. Ram Singh and others, 2006 (1) R.C.R. (Rent) 182. 4. Before analyzing the arguments of the learned counsel representing the petitioner, it becomes necessary to notice certain facts. 5. The respondent (landlord) in the present case is a social/charitable/religious trust. It is running a marriage palace. This property consists of various halls/rooms/temple/open courtyard apart from 10 shops abutting the road which are integral part of the building. It has been stated that with the passage of time, the existing space is not sufficient. It is claimed that the trust faces difficulties in holding functions, meetings, seminars, medical or educational camps and classes and marriage functions in the said property. In the modern times, the building and its rooms are insufficient to hold functions, therefore, the said building requires reconstruction/renovation according to the need of the time. The eviction petition has been filed against all the shopkeepers by the Trust. Two previous revision petitions filed by the tenants of the respondent trust were dismissed on 19.02.2021. 6. At this stage, it is appropriate to take a note of the definition of the expression 'building', 'Non Residential Building', 'Rented land' 'residential building' and 'scheduled building'. Section 2 of the 1949 Act, defines the aforesaid expressions in the following manner:- 2. Definitions. Two previous revision petitions filed by the tenants of the respondent trust were dismissed on 19.02.2021. 6. At this stage, it is appropriate to take a note of the definition of the expression 'building', 'Non Residential Building', 'Rented land' 'residential building' and 'scheduled building'. Section 2 of the 1949 Act, defines the aforesaid expressions in the following manner:- 2. Definitions. - In this Act, unless there is anything repugnant in the subject or context:- (a)"building" means any building or part of a building let for any purpose whether being actually used for that purpose or not, including any land, godowns, out-houses, or furniture let therewith, but does not include a room in a hotel, hostel or boarding-house; (b) XX XX XX (c) XX XX XX (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"; [(dd) XX XX XX (e) XX XX XX (f) "rented land" means any land let separately for the purpose of being used principally for business or trade; (g) "residential building" means any building which is not a non- residential building: (h) "scheduled building" means a residential building which is being used by a person engaged in one or more of the professions specified in the [Schedule I] to this Act, partly for his business and partly for his residence; [(hh) XX XX XX (i) XX XX XX (j) XX XX XX 7. In substance, the argument of the learned counsel is that the building in question i.e. the shop falls within the expression 'Non Residential Building', whereas, the purpose for which his eviction has been ordered falls in the definition of 'Residential Building'. While buttressing his argument, he submits that any building which is not a 'Non Residential Building' falls within the expression 'Residential Building'. 8. As already noticed, the respondent is a social/religious and Charitable Trust. In old cities, such spaces are used primarily for conducting marriage functions apart from other activities. In fact, the literal meaning of the name of the Trust when translated in the English language, is 'Marriage Palace'. It has been stated that for conducting various functions, the double storied building is insufficient and the existing halls and the rooms need re-construction. In old cities, such spaces are used primarily for conducting marriage functions apart from other activities. In fact, the literal meaning of the name of the Trust when translated in the English language, is 'Marriage Palace'. It has been stated that for conducting various functions, the double storied building is insufficient and the existing halls and the rooms need re-construction. Apart from conducting marriage functions of the poor and needy persons, this premises is also let out for holding various other events as well. It has been stated that the aforesaid space is not sufficient for holding meetings/ seminars, medical and educational camps and classes etc. These purposes do not exclusively fall within the scope of a residential building. The building is being used for multiple purposes. But in any case, it is not a residential building. Holding marriage functions or educational camps, medical camps and classes cannot be said to be residential purposes. 9. Originally, the landlord could get the possession of the residential as well as non residential building or rented land from the tenant for his bonafide requirement. However, after the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction (Amendment) Act, 1956, which came into force on 24.09.1956, the expression a 'non residential building' was omitted from Section 13(a)(ii) by Punjab Act No.29 of 1956. However, the Supreme Court in Harbilas Rai Bansal vs State of Punjab, 1996 (1) SCC 1 , set aside the aforesaid amended provision and restored the expression a 'Non Residential Building' in Section 13(a)(ii) of the 1949 Act. In other words, now the ground of bonafide necessity is available not only with regard to the residential building but also non residential building. 10. In State Bank of Patiala (supra), this court was dealing with a case where the premises was let out to the bank. The landlord claimed that the building(premises) was residential in nature. Without obtaining requisite permission of the Rent Controller as contemplated under Section 11 of the 1949 Act, the conversion of the residential building into a non residential building is not permissible. Hence, the petition for bonafide necessity of the residential building was dismissed on the ground that the building was let out for commercial activity, hence, it was a non residential building. The judgment passed by the Supreme Court in Attar Singh vs. Inder Kumar, AIR 1967 SC 773 was relied upon. Hence, the petition for bonafide necessity of the residential building was dismissed on the ground that the building was let out for commercial activity, hence, it was a non residential building. The judgment passed by the Supreme Court in Attar Singh vs. Inder Kumar, AIR 1967 SC 773 was relied upon. This court has carefully read the judgment in Attar Singh's case (supra). In that case, the rented land as defined in Section 2(f) was let out for firewood stall and subsequently, the landlord filed a petition for bonafide requirement to construct a residential house. The supreme Court held that such petition is not maintainable . Similarly, in Dinesh Kumar (supra) a 'Nohra' was let out by the landlord for residential purposes. In that case, the landlord filed a petition seeking eviction of the tenant from a residential building on the ground of bonafide requirement. He claimed that the property was let out for residential purposes but the tenant has installed a factory upon it. The Court found that the building was not a residential building, therefore, the landlord is not entitled to seek eviction of a non residential building for residential purposes. 11. As already noticed the facts of the present case are entirely different. The tenanted premises form a part of a larger building and primarily, the building is being used for non-residential purposes including organizing marriage functions, medical and education classes and camps, running shops etc. Thus, the building cannot be said to be a residential building. The rooms which are let out for social functions cannot be said to be for the purpose of residence. Hence, the aforesaid judgments shall have no application in the facts of the present case. 12. The argument of the learned counsel that any building which is not a non residential building falls within the definition of a residential building though attractive in first blush, however, is found without substance on a deeper analysis. At the cost of repetition, the major part of the building is being used for non residential purposes and therefore, it is a non-residential building falling within Section 2(d) of the 1949 Act. After the judgment of the Supreme Court in Harbilas Rai Bansal (supra), the ground of eviction based upon bonafide necessity is available to the landlord for the non residential building. 13. After the judgment of the Supreme Court in Harbilas Rai Bansal (supra), the ground of eviction based upon bonafide necessity is available to the landlord for the non residential building. 13. It may be noted here that in the judgment in Model Town Welfare Council Haryana vs. Bhupinder Pal Singh, 1973 AIR (P&H) 76, a Full Bench of this Court examined the word 'business' in terms of Section 2(f) of the 1949 Act. It was held that the word 'business' by itself is a word of art and is capable of being construed both in a wider as well as in a narrower sense depending upon the context in which it occurs. The Full Bench held that since the 'landlord' within the meaning of Section 2(c) of the 1949 Act can include an individual as well as a juristic person and there is no special restrictive definition of the word business in the Act, therefore, the expression used in Section 2(f) read with Section 13(3) (a)(ii) (b) of the 1949 Act must be interpreted in a wider sense and not in a narrower sense. The word 'business' does not necessarily mean business carried out with a profit motive but also includes within its scope a charitable organization working in the interest of public or a section of the public. The aforesaid judgment is applicable to the facts of the case. The Full Bench decided the case after taking into consideration the judgment passed by the Supreme Court in Attar Singh's case (supra). 14. Keeping in view the aforesaid discussion, no ground to interfere with the findings of fact is made out. 15. Dismissed. All the pending miscellaneous applications, if any, are also disposed of.