ORDER
J.V. Gupta, J.
1. This order will also dispose of Civil Revisions Nos. 2414, 2389 and 2390 of 1988 as all these four petitions were disposed of by one order by the Rent Controller, dated 7-9-1988.
2. Landlord Col, Prem Singh Grewal filed these four ejectment applications, under Section 13-A of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act 1949 (as amended) against his four tenants separately. According to the landlord he was a specified landlord as defined. He retired from service with effect from 31-1-1980 and filed the present ejectment applications on 10-11-1986 alleging that earlier the property in dispute was converted into four portions and each portion was given at a monthly rent of Rs. 18/- plus house tax etc. to the tenants. The tenants started using verandah as shop whereas in the rear portionthey started residing. The landlord requires the same for his own use and occupation keeping in view his status and family requirement. He has no residential building at Patiala in the urban area concerned in his occupation. Rather as and when he comes to Patiala he puts up with his brother who has got a house here. Thus, he wants to keep the building for his own use and occupation.
3. The tenants on receipt of the notice, filed applications under Section 18-A of the said Act, supported by affidavits and other documents seeking permission to contest the petitions on the allegations that the application was not in accordance with law. The premises in question is a shop and cannot be vacated for residential purpose. In the ejectment application filed earlier by the landlord and his brother, regarding the premises in dispute, the same were described to be the shop. Even in the receipt regarding payment of rent issued prior to July, 1985, the premises were shown to be the shop. Moreover, the premises in dispute are situated in the area of shopping centre and there are about 20 shops of the landlord and his brother in this area. In these circumstances, the landlord was not entitled to ejectment under Section 13-A of the amended Act. The learned Rent Controller allowed the necessary permission to contest the ejectment applications, inter alia, on the ground whether the disputed premises is a residential building or not?'
4. After considering the entire evidence led by the parties, the learned Rent Controller found thus, 'I am clearly of the view that it stands proved on record that the premises in dispute are not solely used for trade, business rather those are used for trade and residence also.' In view of that finding ejectment orders were passed against the tenants vide impugned order dated 7-9-1988.
5. Learned counsel for the tenants-petitioners submitted that the finding of the Rent Controller that the premises in dispute are residential is wrong and illegal. According to the learned counsel, from the evidence on record, it could not be held that the premises are residential. The same were let out for business purposes as per rent note and,therefore, no ejectment order could be passed with respect to the demised premises under Section 13-A of the amended Act. In support of this contention reference was made to Hari Mittal v. B.M. Sikka, (l986) 89 (1) Pun LR 1 : (AIR 1986 Punj & Har 119) (FB) and Lal Chand v. Bal Kishan, (1987) 92 Pun LR 222. It was further contended that in any case under Section 13-A, second proviso, a landlord was not entitled 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, and that being so, the landlord could eject only one of the tenants from the demised premises. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the landlord submitted that on the appreciation of the entire evidence, it has been found that the premises are residential and that being a finding of fact should not be interfered with in revisional jurisdiction, in view of Sub-section (8) of Section 18-A of the Act. He further submitted that second proviso to Section 13-A of the Act is to be construed in the manner that it serves the purpose for which Section 13-A was introduced in the Act.
6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the relevant evidence on record.
7. The scope for interference by this Court in the revisional jurisdiction is given under Sub-section (8) of Section 18-A of the Act. It reads as under : --
'(8) No appeal or second appeal shall lie against an order for the recovery of possession of any residential building or scheduled building made by the Controller in accordance with the procedure specified in this section: Provided that the High Court may, for thepurpose of satisfying itself that an order madeby the Controller under this section isaccording to law, call for the records of thecase and pass such order in respect thereto asit thinks fit.'
Section 18-B further provides that 'Section 18-A or any rule made for the purpose thereof shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained elsewhere in this Act or in any other law for the time being in force.'
8. Keeping in view the said provisions of Sub-section (8) of Section 18-A, I am of the considered view that from the evidence on record, it could not be successfully argued that the conclusion arrived at by that Rent Controller that the premises in dispute are residential building, is without any evidence or is wrong or illegal to the extent that it requires interference in revisional jurisdiction. Even if two views are possible, it does not entitle this Court to interfere in the said finding. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners, the premises were let out for business purpose. There are rolling shutters in front of the shop and no regular kitchen, bath room and latrine etc. have been provided therein. All the receipts up to July, 1985 are issued describing the property as a shop and even the tenants got licences under the Shops and Commercial Establishment Act, for doing trade business in the demised premises and thus, taking into consideration the entire facts and circumstances of the case, the demised premises could not be held to be the residential premises.
9. On the other hand, it has been brought on record that the names of the tenants are entered in the voters list on the address of the demised premises. The tenants have riot led any positive evidence that they are residing anywhere else. Mere statements that they are residing in a particular Mohalla was hot sufficient to locate their residence as such. Kehar Singh tenant even applied for the ration card at the address of the demised premises, The landlord duly made provisions for bath room, kitchen and latrine in the demised premises and according to the evidence led by the landlord, the tenants were residing in the rear portion whereas in the front portion, they were doing their business. Since the premises were being used for both purposes i.e. business as well as residence the building will fall within the definition of residential building as defined in Section 2(g) of the Act which provides 'residential building' means any building which is not a non-residential building. 'Non-residential building' means a building which is solely used for the purpose of business or trade. Since from the evidence, it has been concluded by_ the Rent Controllerthat the premises is not being used solely forbusiness or trade, the same will fall within thedefinition of residential building. As observedearlier, from the evidence on record it couldnot be said that the said finding of the RentController is without any evidence or theview taken by the Rent. Controller was notpossible on the evidence produced by theparties. In these circumstances the demisedpremises are held to be 'residential building'as defined under the Act and therefore, thelandlord was entitled to seek ejectment of histenants therefrom.
10. As regards the question as to whetherthe landlord is entitled to seek ejectment of the tenants of he could only eject one of the tenants which he may like to choose the second proviso to Section 13-A reads asunder.
'Provided further that nothing in thissection shall be so construed as conferring aright on any person to recover possession ofmore than one residential or scheduledbuilding inclusive of any part or parts thereofif it is let out in part or parts'.
Even if it be assumed for the sake of argument, that the whole building was let out in different parts to the different tenants, even then according to the said proviso, the, landlord could not recover possession of more than one residential building inclusive of any part or parts thereof if it is let out in part or parts. That being so, the landlord could only claimejectment of one of the tenants from one part of the building and not all the tenants from all parts, of the building. For ejecting the other tenants he will have to seek his remedy under Section 13 of the Act, in accordance with law. Since Section 13-A, is a special remedy to recover immediate possession of residential building given to certain persons who are specified landlords, it is to beconstrued strictly, Even under Section 13-A it has been provided that specified landlord has a right to recover immediate possession of such residential building or scheduled building or any part or parts of such building,f it is let out in part or parts. The second proviso reproduced above makes it furtherclear that the landlord is not entitled torecover possession of more than one residential building inclusive of any part or parts thereof if it is let out in part or parts.
11. Faced with this situation, the learned counsel for the landlord respondent submitted that in that situation he will like to seek ejectment of his tenant Ram Niwas who hasfiled Civil Revision No. 2389 of 1988, sincehe is putting in one corner of the entirebuilding as shown in the plan Exhibit AW5/B.In these circumstances, the said revisionpetition filed by Ram Niwas i.e. C.R. No. 2389of 1988 fails and is dismissed with no order asto costs whereas the other three revisionpetitions are allowed with no order as tocosts. However, Ram Niwas tenant is allowedtwo months time to vacate the premisesprovided all the arrears of rent, if any, areI deposited by him along with advance rent oftwo months with the Rent Controller within afortnight, with a further undertaking in writingthat after the expiry of the said period vacantpossession will be handed over to thelandlord.