V.K. Jhanji, J.
1. Petitioner filed ejectment application on the ground that he, being a specified landlord is entitled to eject his tenant under Section 13-A of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act (Hereinafter referred to as the Act). It was claimed in the petition that the building belonged to Hindu Undivided Family, which by way of family partition was partitioned and decree to that effect was also obtained from the Civil Court. According to him, after the partition, he is owner of the building to the extent to 1/2 share Permission from the Municipal Committee was sought to construct two rooms and a Deori in between. After construction, these rooms were let out as shops. One of the rooms, in family partitition, had fallen to his share.
2. Ejectment application was contested by the tenant who not only denied the status of the petitioner being a specified landlord but also stated that the room is a shop and was let out for the purpose of business and trade and, therefore could not be got vacated on the ground of personal necessity
3. The Rent Controller though found that the petitioner is a specified landlord, yet dismissed the ejectment application, as on record it was found that premises in occupation of the tenant is a shop and was let out for non residential purposes and hence cannot be got vacated for personal necessity. This order is being challenged by the petitioner here in this civil revision.
4. Mr. J. R. Mittal, Senior Advocate, learned counsel for the petitioner, in order to impugn the order of the Rent Controller contended that the petitioner has successfully established on record that the plot on which this building was constructed was primarily for residential purpose. He also submitted that this building as well as the buildings in the neighborhood were assessed for the purposes of house tax as residential buildings. Reference was also made to the ration cards and the voters' list produced on the record to show that the locality in which the shop is situated is residential. He, therefore, contended that even if it was let out for non-residential purposes, yet the landlord is entitled to eject his tenant on the ground of personal necessity because no permission of the Rent Controller was obtained under Section 11 of the Act. I am afraid to accept this contention of learned counsel for the petitioner.
5. Admittedly, on the road on which this shop is situated, front portion is being used for shops whereas the rear portion is being used for residence. The Rent Controller has also returned a finding that the shop in dispute is towards the railway road and in that line, there are a number of shops. In view of this finding, it can safely be gathered that the shop in dispute is an independent unit of a residential building which was let out for non-residential purpose and is being used as such till date. Learned counsel also admits that nothing has been brought on the record to show that there is a sanctioned Scheme either under the Municipal Act or under the Town Improvement Act. Such like controversy came up before the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 4216 of 1988, relevant portion whereof is reproduced as under :-
'In course of submission advanced at the bar reliance was placed on the Full Bench decision of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Had Mittal's case (1986-1) 89 P. L. R. 1. We find that this decision has followed the two judge Bench judgment of this Court in Kamal Arora v. Amar Singh's case. The provisions of the Punjab Municipal Act, 1911, were also placed before us. Under Section 192 of the Municipal Act building Schemes are contemplated and in case a building scheme is in force restriction on the nature of use is imposable, and consequences of violation thereof are also provided for.
We gather that in respect of the Jullundur City some portions have schemes under Section 192 in force while for other portions there is no such scheme. Applicability of the ratio in Hari Mittal's case would depend upon whether the house in dispute is located within an area covered by a scheme. Since that information is not available on the record, it would be necessary to gather information and the requirement would be with reference to (sic) when the tenancy was created. This question arises for determination with reference to Section 11 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949.
We direct that the Rent Controller shall receive evidence for parties and collect such other evidence as he considers necessary to provide satisfactory factual data to this Court after putting parties to notice of such material The report should be received within two months hence. The matter shall be called immediately thereafter. Both the parties are directed to appear before the Rent Controller on 5.3 1990 to take his orders Copy of this order be sent to the Controller immediately. This appeal shall be shown as a part-heard matter. Liberty to mention after the report is received.'
5. On receipt of the report of Rent Controller, Supreme 'Court dismissed the appeal after finding that the tenancy was created for non-residential purpose and building thus cannot be got vacated on the ground of personal necessity. This finding was given on the basis of the report of the Rent Controller, who after enquiry found that no such Scheme was in existence.
6. In the present case also, in absence of any sanctioned scheme either under the Municipal Act or under the Town Improvement Act, it cannot be hold that the user of the shop was restricted only for the purpose of residence. As I have already held that the shop in dispute is an independent unit and right from the construction and inception of tenancy is being used as such, therefore, it cannot be got vacated on the ground of personal necessity. Learned counsel for the petitioner also made a reference to a judgment in Vinod Kumar Arora v. Surjit Kaur, (1987-2) R. L. R. 660. The judgment cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner has no application to the present case because the said decision related to a building in the Union Territory at Chandigarh where user of every building is specified by law and, therefore, in that context, it was held that the residential building cannot be converted into-non residential.
7. Resultantly, the civil revision is dismissed with no order as to costs.