Ashok Bhan, J.
1. Ramesh Kumar Khosla, respondent in his capacity as specified landlord (hereinafter referred to as the landlord') sought the ejectment of Hem Raj, petitionertenant (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 atJalandhar 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 his 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 Mittal v. B.M. Sikka., (1986-1)89 P.L.R. 1 (F.B.) 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 Arora v. Harbans Singh, (1989-1)95 P.L.R. 6, 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. Jagjit Mehta v. Dev Brat Sharma, (1988-1)93 P.L.R.154, 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 in Dr. Jagjit Mehta's case (supra) were totally different.
10. The learned counsel thereafter; relied upon another judgment, Lal Chand v. Bal Kishan, (1987-2)92 P.L.R. 222, 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 teamed Single Judge in this case did not apply the ratio of Full Bench Judgment of this Court in Hari Mittal case (supra) by holding 'While letting out shops for solely the purposes of business it was not necessary to ure 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-residental building.' As against this, counsel for the landlord rolled upon the judgment of the Supreme Court reported as Kamal Arora v. Amar Singh and others, 1985(2) R.C.R.466, in which it was field 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 in 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.