Translate
Text Highlighter

Bookmark

PDF

Share

Report a problem
AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Case Number
Attorney(S)
  • Rajan Gupta
  • R.K.Aggarwal
  • Arvind Thakur
Judges
  • Ashok Bhan, J.
Acts
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Click here to upload
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Case Number
Attorney(S)
  • Rajan Gupta
  • R.K.Aggarwal
  • Arvind Thakur
Judges
  • Ashok Bhan, J.
Acts
See more information ...
Smart Summary

Judgment Summary

Factual and Procedural Background

The landlord, Ramesh Kumar Khosla, sought ejectment of the tenant, Hem Raj, under Section 13-A of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949, claiming personal need to occupy a room in a residential house in Kapurthala Town. The landlord alleged he retired on July 1, 1988, was living in rented accommodation in Jalandhar, owned no other residential house, had purchased the property in 1986 for self-occupation, and required the disputed room as a baithak for his residence.

The tenant disputed the claim, asserting the room had been let for commercial purposes (a tailoring shop) from the start of the tenancy. The Rent Controller framed four issues: (1) whether premises were required by the petitioner (landlord) for his own use; (2) whether the disputed shop is commercial; (3) whether the tender by the respondent was valid; and (4) relief.

Before the Rent Controller, the landlord did not press issue No. 3, which was decided in the tenant's favour. Issues No. 1 and 2 were taken together and, on findings that the room was an integral part of the residential building and the landlord's need was bona fide, the Rent Controller allowed the petition and ordered ejectment of the tenant. The tenant filed the present revision.

Legal Issues Presented

  1. Whether the disputed premises are required by the landlord for his own bona fide use and occupation under Section 13-A of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949.
  2. Whether the disputed premises, although used for commercial purposes by the tenant, are nevertheless an integral part of the residential building (and therefore subject to the provisions restricting conversion without Rent Controller's permission).
  3. Whether, as a consequence of the above, the tenant is liable to be ejected despite having used the premises for a tailoring business.

Arguments of the Parties

Landlord's Case / Arguments

  • Sought ejectment under Section 13-A for bona fide personal use and occupation (to reside with wife, children and elderly parents).
  • Alleged retirement from service and current residence in rented accommodation at Jalandhar; purchased the Kapurthala property in 1986 for self-occupation.
  • Claimed the dispute room is an integral part of the residential building and therefore the landlord can seek possession despite the tenant's commercial use, because conversion to non-residential use without Rent Controller's permission is impermissible under Section 11.
  • Relied on precedent (Full Bench and Supreme Court) holding that residential buildings let out for non-residential purposes remain residential unless conversion is authorized, and that a specified landlord may seek ejectment for personal need.

Tenant's Case / Arguments

  • Contended the room was let for commercial purposes from the beginning and used as a tailoring shop.
  • Argued the landlord already had sufficient accommodation and therefore did not genuinely require the premises for personal occupation; specifically, the landlord's brother Vijay Kumar was occupying the premises.
  • Relied on two Single Judge judgments to contend that where residential portions were converted into shops and let out, the landlord cannot obtain ejectment under Section 13-A (citing Dr. Jagjit Singh Mehta v. Dev Brat Sharma and Lal Chand v. Bal Kishan).

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent Rule or Principle Cited For Application by the Court
Hari Mittai v. B.M. Sikka (Full Bench) Held that a residential building let out for non-residential purposes by the landlord without written permission of the Rent Controller under Section 11 remains a residential building and the landlord is entitled to seek ejectment under Section 13-A for bona fide personal requirement. The court treated this Full Bench holding as authoritative and applied it to conclude that the disputed room, being an integral part of the residential building despite commercial use, did not become a non-residential building and therefore the landlord could seek ejectment for personal use.
Surjit Singh v. Harbans Singh Held that a landlord cannot convert a residential building into a non-residential building without permission of the Rent Controller under Section 11, and that where a residential building is let out for non-residential purposes, the landlord may still be entitled to eject the tenant under Section 13-A. The court relied on this decision to reinforce the proposition that statutory permission is required for conversion and that non-residential use by the tenant does not necessarily defeat the landlord's right to possession for residence.
Dr. Jagjit Singh Mehta v. Dev Brat Sharma (Single Judge) On facts where structural changes converted rooms into shops forming part of a long line of shops with no door or ventilator to the residential portion, the court held such shops were independent commercial premises and landlord could not claim ejectment for personal residential use under Section 13-A. The present court distinguished this authority on factual grounds: in Dr. Mehta the premises were structurally converted into shops forming a shopping centre with no internal connection to the residence, whereas in the present case doors and a ventilator connected the disputed room to the residential accommodation.
Lal Chand v. Bal Kishan (Single Judge) The Single Judge observed that letting out shops solely for business did not necessarily require written permission under Section 11 and thus suggested the Full Bench ratio might not apply in such circumstances. The present court noted this contrary view but did not follow it; instead the court preferred the Full Bench and Supreme Court authorities which require permission under Section 11 for conversion and support the landlord's right to eject where premises remain integrally residential.
Kamal Arora v. Amar Singh (Supreme Court) The Supreme Court held that mutual consent between landlord and tenant cannot convert a residential building into a non-residential building if statute (including provisions like Section 11) prohibits such conversion; where building lies in residential zone, conversion inter vivos would be violative. The court treated this Supreme Court decision as persuasive (though factually in Chandigarh under the Capital of Punjab (Development and Regulation) Act, 1951) and used it to support the principle that residential buildings cannot be converted into non-residential use by mutual consent; this reinforced the conclusion that the landlord could seek possession.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court's analysis proceeded in a sequential, fact-focused manner:

  1. Findings of fact by the Rent Controller that were undisputed: the demised room is part of a residential house, abutting a road with a deorhi and courtyard, with another room at the back, similar construction above, and the disputed room has two doors opening into the deorhi and courtyard plus a ventilator opening into the house. The tenant's long-standing commercial use (tailoring) was also not disputed.
  2. The central question was whether a room used commercially could nonetheless be treated as part of a residential building and hence subject to the landlord's right under Section 13-A. The court accepted the Rent Controller's conclusion that the room was an integral part of the residential building because of the physical connections (two doors and a ventilator) to the main residential accommodation.
  3. The court evaluated the tenant's factual challenges: (a) that the landlord already had sufficient accommodation, and (b) that the landlord's brother was occupying the premises. The court rejected these contentions: it accepted the landlord's claim of limited accommodation (three rooms plus two courtyards) and family needs (wife, children and elderly parents), finding the landlord's need bona fide; and it found no persuasive evidence that the landlord would not move into the premises if vacated merely because his brother currently occupied them.
  4. On the law, the court relied on the principle (supported by a Full Bench and the Supreme Court) that a residential building does not cease to be residential merely because it has been let out for non-residential purposes without the requisite permission under Section 11 of the Act. Therefore, the landlord, a specified landlord under Section 13-A, remains entitled to seek ejectment for personal occupation.
  5. The court considered and distinguished contrary Single Judge authorities (notably Dr. Jagjit Mehta), observing that where structural alterations created shops forming a shopping centre with no internal connection to the residential portion, a different conclusion followed; those factual findings were not present here. The court also noted another Single Judge decision (Lal Chand) which took a different view on the need for permission when letting shops, but the court preferred the Full Bench and Supreme Court authorities.
  6. Consequently, applying the facts (integral physical connection of the room to the residential building) to the legal principle that conversion without permission under Section 11 is not effective to defeat the landlord's right, the court concluded the tenant was liable to be ejected and the landlord's prior success before the Rent Controller was justified.

Holding and Implications

PETITION DISMISSED

Direct effect on the parties:

  • The tenant's revision challenging the Rent Controller's order was dismissed as without merit, thereby upholding the Rent Controller's finding in favour of the landlord and the order for possession/ejectment.
  • The tenant was given two months to vacate the premises, conditional upon paying all arrears of rent up to date (if due) to the landlord or depositing the same with the Rent Controller after informing the landlord within one month of the order.

The opinion does not purport to create or announce a new legal precedent; it applies existing Full Bench and Supreme Court authority and distinguishes contrary Single Judge decisions on factual grounds.

Disposition: Petition dismissed with no order as to costs; tenant granted two months to vacate subject to rent arrears condition.

Show full summary ...

    Hem Raj v. Ramesh Kumar Khosla .

    Ashok Bhan, J.:— Ramesh Kumar Khosla, respondent in his capacity as specified landlord (hereinafter referred to as ‘the landlord’) sought the ejectment of Hem Raj, petitioner-tenant (hereinafter referred to as ‘the tenant’) from the demised premises which is a room of residential house situated in Kapurthala Town under Section 13-A of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) for his personal use and occupation. The case of the landlord was that he retired from service on July 1, 1988 as a Junior Commissioned Officer in the Army, that he was living in a rented accommodation at Jalandhar and did not possess any other residential house; that he required the demised premises for his bonafide personal use as a Baithak of his residential house. It was further averred that the room with the tenant was an integral part of the residential building which could be got vacated. Tenant filed bis written statement and controverted the claim of the landlord on the ground that the room in question was let out for commercial purposes and is being used as a shop for tailoring business of the tenant from the beginning of the tenancy. On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed:—

    “1. Whether the premises in dispute are required by the petitioner for his own use and occupation? OPA.

    2. Whether the disputed shop is a commercial premises? OPR.

    3. Whether the tender made by the respondent is valid? OPR.

    4. Relief.”

    2. Before the Rent Controller, issue No. 3 was not pressed by the landlord and the same was decided in favour of the tenant. Rent controller took issues No. 1 and 2 together for discussion. Both these issues were decided in favour of the landlord. It was held that the room in question though being used for a commercial purpose was nevertheless an integral part of the residential building; that the residential building cannot be converted into a non-residential building without taking permission of the Rent Controller under Section 11 of the Act; that the premises in dispute were required by the landlord for his own use and occupation bonafide. On the findings recorded, the petition was accepted and the landlord was ordered to be put in possession and the tenant was ordered to be ejected. Tenant has come in revision.

    3. Undisputed facts recorded by the Rent Controller which were not seriously challenged before me by either of the parties are that the demised premises is a part of the residential house abutting on the road or street with a Deorhi by its court-yard, at the back with another room at the end of the ground floor with similar construction on the first floor. The room under tenancy has two more doors opening into the deorhi and the court-yard besides a ventilator which opens into the house. There is no challenge to the claim of the tenant that the premises in question was let out to him for commercial purpose and further that he has been running his tailoring business from the very beginning. Further fact established is that the street in question wherein the demised premises is situated, exist a number of shops as well as residential houses which makes it to be a mixed locality containing residential houses as well as commercial premises or shops.

    4. In the back drop of these facts, it has to be decided as to whether the disputed premises is a commercial premises or a residential premises which could be got vacated by the landlord for his personal use and occupation under Section 13-A of the Act. Counsel appearing for the tenant did not challenge the finding recorded by the Rent Controller that the landlord was a specified landlord within the meaning of Section 13-A of the Act.

    5. I do not find any substance in the submission of the counsel for the tenant that the accommodation in possession of the landlord was sufficient for his needs. Landlord wants to reside in the house along with his wife, children and his old parents and the premises consist of only three rooms which are in his possession apart from the two court-yards. The parents of the landlord are old and invalid and can stay only at the ground floor. He has six brothers and two sisters who keep on visiting him from time to time. Under these circumstances, it cannot be held that the premises in possession of the landlord are sufficient. The need of the landlord is bonafide.

    6. Another argument raised by the counsel for the tenant was that the landlord was residing at Jalandhar and his brother Vijay Kumar was occupying the premises for his own use and occupation. Again, there is no force in this submission. Landlord in his petition has stated that he was living in a rented house at Jalandhar; that he wants to shift to Kapurthala and he had purchased the property in the year 1986 solely for the purpose of his self-occupation. Simply because Vijay Kumar, brother of the landlord is occupying the premises, it cannot be held that the landlord does not propose to shift to his house. There is hardly any evidence adduced that the landlord would not shift to the premises in dispute in case the same is vacated.

    7. The next question to be decided is as to whether the room being used for commercial purpose can be got vacated from the tenant. There is sufficient evidence on record to show that the demised premises comprising an outer room abutting on the road is an integral part of the entire building which is obviously residential in nature. The room in question abuts on the street, adjoins and opens into a Deorhi as well as a court-yard at the back. There are two doors which connects this room with the residential accommodation in question. A ventilator too opens into the house. From this it can be concluded that the room in question is an integral part of the residential building. A full Bench of this Court in Hari Mittai v. B.M Sikka,1 held as under:—

    The reference made by the learned Single Judge is answered in the affirmative and it is held that residential building let out for non-residential purpose by the landlord without obtaining the written permission of Rent Controller in terms of Section 11 of the Act would continue to be a residential building and the landlord would be entitled to seek ejectment of the tenant on the ground of his bonafide personal requirement.”

    8. Again in Surjit Singh… v. Harbans Singh…. Singh,2 it was held that the landlord cannot convert the residential building into a non-residential building without permission of the Rent Controller as required under Section 11 of the Act. It was also held that where a residential building is let out by a landlord for non-residential purposes, even then landlord is entitled to eject the tenant for his residence under Section 13-A of the Act.

    9. Counsel for the tenant relied upon a judgment of learned Single Judge of this Court, reported as Dr. Dr. Jagjit Singh Mehta… v. Dev Brat Sharma…. Sharma,3 to contend that where a portion of the residential building is converted into a shop and let out to the tenant, then the specified landlord cannot get the tenant ejected for his personal bonafide use under Section 13-A of the Act. I have gone through this Judgment and find that in this case, the learned Single Judge has recorded a finding that by making structural changes, the rooms were converted into shops. These shops form part of a long line of shops abutting Ladowali Road and it appeared to be a shopping centre. On facts, learned Single Judge came to the conclusion that there was no door or ventilator between the premises in dispute and the residential portion of the house in the rear. Under these circumstances, it was held that the shops in the said case were let out for commercial purposes which did not have any connection with the residential portion of the building. This judgment, thus, does not advance the case of the tenant much as the findings recorded on facts La Dr. Jagjit Mehta's case (supra) were totally different.

    10. The learned counsel thereafter, relied upon another judgment, Lal Chand v. Bal Kishan,4 to contend that where the rooms were let out for shops and the shops were an integral part of the residential building, even then the same cannot be got vacated. The learned Single Judge in this case did not apply the ratio of Full Bench Judgment of this Court in Hari Mittal's case (supra) by holding “While letting out shops for solely the purposes of business it was not necessary to secure the written permission of the Rent Controller under Section 11 of the Act. Such a permission is required only where a residential building is sought to be converted into a non-residential building.” As against this, counsel for the landlord relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court reported as Kamal Arora v. Amar Singh,5 in which it was held as under:—

    “Undoubtedly, the landlord let out the premises knowingly that it is being taken for running a school and admittedly the building is used for running a school, therefore, prima facie the leased premises would fall within the definition of a non-residential building. The High Court after examining the provisions of the Capital of Punjab (Development and Regulation) Act, 1951 read with Section 11 of the Rent Act held that statute prohibits conversion of residential building into non-residential by act inter vivos. It was said that the landlord and the tenant by their mutual consent cannot convert a residential building into a non-residential building because that would be violative of the provision of Section 11. And it is admitted that building is situated in a sector falling within the residential zone. In this factual situation, coupled with fact that the landlord has retired from service and genuinely needs the premises for his residence as found by all courts, we are not inclined to interfere with the judgment and order of the High Court.”

    11. Although the Supreme Court judgment is with reference to a building in Chandigarh where the provisions of Capital of Punjab (Development and Regulation) Act, 1951 are applicable, but their Lordships came to the conclusion that residential building cannot be converted into a non-residential building by the mutual consent of the landlord and the tenant because that would be violative of the provisions of Section 11 of the Act. The premises dispute, as already held in the earlier portion of the judgment, are an integral part of the residential building. Two doors from the disputed premises open in the main residential building. A ventilator also opens in the residential building. The building is required by the landlord who has retired from service genuinely for his residential purposes and, therefore, the tenant is liable to be evicted from the demised premises.

    12. This petition being without any merit is ordered to be dismissed with no order as to costs. Tenant is granted two months time to vacate the premises provided he pays all the arrears of rent upto date, if due, to the landlord or deposits the same with the Rent Controller after informing the landlord, within one month from this order.

    R.M.S-Petition dismissed.

    Use AI to get other relevant cases.
    Try AI Pro free for 7 days Upgrade to AI Pro

    Comments

    Hem Raj v. Ramesh Kumar Khosla .
    (Aug 23, 1994)