Lawyers Directory Listing
Chat with us free on WhatsApp — tell us your city and legal matter and our team connects you with the right lawyer. No form, no fee.
Second Appeal from Order No. 145 of 1962, decided on 8th February 1965.
Ss. 2(d), 2(g) & 13(3)(a)‑"Non‑residential building"‑Definition --Building used "solely' for purpose of business or trade‑House let for composite purpose viz., partly for business and partly for residence-- Not "non‑residential building"‑Landlord entitled under S. 13(3)(a) to have tenant evicted from entire building for his own personal residence.
Dakshinamoorthy v. Thulja Bai A I R 1952 Mad. 413; Harnam Singh v. Jamal Pirbhai P L D 1951 P C 61 and Macmillan & Co. Ltd. v. Rees (1946) 1 All E R 675 held not applicable.
Mehrajud Din Ch. for Appellant.
Sh. Ghulam Qadir for Respondent.
Date of hearing: 8th February 1965.
The facts giving rise to this second appeal from an order of the Rent Controller, Sialkot, are few and simple. Pir Muhammad, respondent, owns a house in Sialkot city, which he leased out to Mirza' Muhammad Amin Baig at a rental of Rs. 70.00 per mensem for a period of two years under an arrangement that the ground‑floor shall be used as business premises and the upper‑floor for residential purpose. After the expiry of the lease, ‑the respondent filed an application under section 13 of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as the Ordinance) for the eviction of the appellant on the ground that he needed the house for his personal occupation. The petition was opposed and rejected by the Rent Controller on the finding that it was a non‑residential building and could be got vacated only for a business purpose and not for personal residence of the respondent.
2. On appeal by the respondent, the learned District Judge has held the property to be of a composite nature and directed that the appellant should deliver possession of the residential premises to the respondent who owned no hou3e of his own in the City of Sialkot and retain the ground‑floor as business premises. In this second appeal by the tenant, it is maintained that the entire building was a non‑residential building and as such he was entitled to retain its possession. In the alternative, it is contended that under the Ordinance a property cannot be divided into separate portions for purposes of eviction. Authorities, namely, Dakshinarnoorthy v. Thulja Bai (A I R 1952 Mad. 413); Harnam Singh v. Jamal Pirbhai (P L D 1951 P C 61) and Macmillan &‑ Co. Ltd. v. Rees ((1946) 1 All E R 675), were cited in support of the argument, which on closer examination were found to have not much bearing on the facts of the present case.
3. In section 2 of the Ordinance a "non‑residential building" is defined as a building being used solely for the purpose of business or trade and a "residential building" means any building which is not non‑residential building. The house in question which was let for a composite purpose, namely, business and residence will, therefore, fall under the latte definition and under section 13(3)(a) the respondent could apply to the Rent Controller for the eviction of the appellant from the entire building.
4. For the foregoing reasons, this appeal has no merit and is dismissed; but in the circumstances, there shall be ho order as to costs. As requested by the appellant a further period of two months‑is allowed to him to deliver possession of the upper portion of the house to the respondent.
K. B. A. Appeal dismissed.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer