Judgment:
V.K. Jhanji, J.
1. This, is landlord's revision directed against the order of the Rent Controller, Dhuri, by which petition of the landlord under Section 13-A of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restrictien Act, was dismissed.
2. The landlord-petitioner filed petition in the Court of Rent Controller, Dhuri, under Section 13-A of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) as amended by Act No. 2 of 1985, for the ejectment of his tenant (respondent herein). The petition was filed on the averments that the landlord petitioner was an employee of the Punjab National Bank, Dhuri, and retired from the service of the Bank in March, 1984. He thus claimed to be a 'specified landlord as defined under the amended ,ct and, therefore, he was entitled to get the premises vacated. In the petition, it was also stated that he has a large family consisting of his wife and married sons. The accommodation in their possession was stated to be not sufficient for their requirement.
3. Respondent No. 1 filed an application seeking leave to defend the petition. Leave to defend was allowed. Thereafter, respondent No. 1 filed written statement to the ejectment application. In the written statement, respondent No. 1 denied the claim of the petitioner of his being 'specified landlord'. It was also alleged that the petitioner is in possession of suitable accommodation. The premises in occupation of the tenant was stated to have been let out for the purposes of carrying on business on the ground floor and for the purpose of residence of its employees on the 1st floor. It was thus alleged that the purpose of letting out the building was commercial.
4. They Rent Controller dismissed the ejectment application after finding that the petitioner being an employee of the nationalised bank is not 'specified landlord as defined under the Act. However, the Rent Controller held that the building is residential and could be got vacated by the landlord for his personal necessity. This order is being challenged by way of this revision petition.
5. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the view that this revision petition deserves to succeed. The findings of the Rent Controller that the petitioner is not a 'specified landlord' being a retired employee of the nationalized bank cannot be sustained in view of the judgment of this Court in Vijay Kumar Bhambari of Chandigarh v. Ram Nath Bajaj, 1990 Hy. Rent R. 150; Vijay Kumar's case (supra) also relates to an employee of the Punjab National Bank and on consideration of the case law on the subject, this Court observed as under : -
'39. From a bare reading of the Act and its scheme, it is apparent that though the Bank is a corporate body created by a statute but, in fact it is the governmental functions which are feeing performed by it. Provisions have been designed to discharge the sovereign and legal functions of a State through the instrumentality or agency of the statutory corporate body, i. e. Banks. It would be delusional to hold that the Bank is not discharging the functions connected with the affairs of the State, the basic design of the Act being to administer for administrative reasons the governmental affairs through the corporate body created by the statute'.
Paced with this situation, the learned counsel for the respondent urged that the premises in dispute cannot be got vacated on the ground of personal necessity as letting of it was for non-residential purpose. I find no merit in this contention also. According to the written- statement filed by respondent No. 1 the premises were let out for composite purpose i. e. for the purpose of business as well as for the residence of its employees. Under Section 2 (b) of the Act, non- residential building' means 'a building being used solely for the purpose of business or trade'. Therefore the tenancy premises does not fall within the definition of 'non residential building' because under Section 2 (b) of the Act any 'non-residential building means a building used solely for the purpose of business or trade. The tenancy in this case was not created solely for the purpose of business or trade but was for the residence as well as for business, and, therefore, it is not open to the tenant to say that the premises in his occupation were let out solely for the purpose of business or trade, The decision relied upon by the counsel for the respondent in Dev Raj v. Jagjit Mehta, (1990-2) 98 P. L. R. 637., is distinguishable as in that case the tenancy was created only for the purpose of running of a clinic, and, therefore, it was held that the same cannot be got vacated on the ground of personal necessity. However, in the present case this is not the position.
6. Consequently, the revision petition is allowed, order of the Rent Controller is set-aside and the ejectment petition filed by the petitioner stands allowed. The respondents are allowed two months time to vacate the premises provided they pay/deposit the entire arrears of rent including those of two months in the court of Rent Controller within one month from today and file an undertaking that they shall vacate and hand over the vacant possession of the premises to the petitioner on the expiry of the aforesaid period.