JUDGMENT
Ashok Bhan, J.
1. Raghbir Seth was the owner and landlord of the building in dispute. Raghbir Seth died during the pendency of the proceedings and is represented by his wife and two sons as his legal representatives. The revision petition has been filed through the legal representatives of Raghbir Seth and hereinafter they would be referred to as the petitioners.
2. On 31-11-1986 Raghbir Seth retired from Central Government service. The ground floor of the building had been let out to three tenants and admittedly the ground floor was being used for non residential purpose. There were three tenants on the ground floor. Another tenant, that is Deepak Puri was on the first floor and Som Nath was on the second floor (Barsati) First and second floors were being used by these tenants as residential premises. Raghbir Seth being specified landlord filed five separate ejectment petitions against the five tenants. The petition filed against Som Nath who was using the Barsati as residential premises on the second floor was ordered to be evicted on 19-9-1988. Similarly the ejectment of Deepak Puri was ordered who was a tenant of the residential building on the first floor. This revision petition has arisen out of the order passed against the petitioner-landlord regarding one of the tenants on the ground floor where the premises were being used as a non-residential building. Relying upon a Single Bench judgment of this Court in Sohan Lal v. Col. Prem Singh Grewal, (1989-2) 96 P. L. R. 139, the Rent Controller held that under Section 13-A of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), a specified landlord could get the building or a portion of the building vacated if different portions of a building were let out to different tenants then the landlord could not eject all the tenants from all the portions and he could seek ejectment of only one of the tenants from one part of the building at his choice. Rent Controller ordered that since the landlord had already got two portions of the same building vacated under Section 13-A of the Act, the present ejectment petition against the tenant-respondent would not succeed. The second ground of dismissal of this ejectment petition was that the building was a non residential and Section 13-A of the Act was applicable only to residential buildings. Petitioners being aggrieved against the order of Rent Controller have come in revision before this Court.
3. I have heard counsel for the parties at length.
4. So far as the first point is concerned that stands fully covered by the decision of this Court in Sohan Lal’s case (supra). The law laid down in Sohan Lal’s case (supra) has been re affirmed in a reference made to Division Bench of this Court as the correctness of the view taken in Sohan Lal’s case (supra) had been doubted by the learned Single Judge. The Division Bench judgment is reported as Smt. Zenobia Bhanot v. Surinder Sharma, (1992-2) 102 P. L. R. 663. In view of the law laid down by this Court in Sohan Lal’s case (supra), which stands affirmed by the Division Bench of this Court in Smt. Zenobia Bhanot’s case (supra), counsel appearing for the petitioners did not argue the first point.
5. Counsel appearing for the petitioners then argued that the building was residential in nature and not non-residential as held by the Rent Controller. I do not find any substance in this submission of the counsel for the petitioner. Ram Sarup while appearing as R.W.1 has stated that he is a partner of the firm M/s Malhi Ram Walaiti Ram and the firm was carrying on its business ; that the firm had taken the premises from Khushi Ram father of Raghbir Seth on rent; that the premises were being used as godown from the inception of the tenancy for the last more than 30/40 Years. Kanwar Lal RW 2 has stated that Ram Sarup was partner of firm Malhi Ram Walaiti Ram and the property was being used as godown. He has further stated that there are not ventilators or electric connection in the room in possession of the tenant respondent. Rajinder Kumar RW-3 has also stated that the premises were being used as godown for the last 30/40 years. From the evidence on the record it can be inferred that only the first and the second floor were being used for residential purposes and the ground floor was being used for commercial purposes. No doubt, Municipal Corporation, Ludhiana, issued a certificate Ex. A-3 that Kutcha Khushi Ram was a residential locality but this does not prove that the ground floor in that area was not being used for commercial purposes. Counsel for the petitioner argued that even if some part of the building was rented out to the respondent for commercial purposes still the building shall be treated to be as residential as a portion of the building was being used for residential purposes specially in view of the fact that the building was situated in a residential locality. It was also argued that residential building could not be converted into a non residential building except with the permission in writing of the Rent Controller under Section 11 of the Act and in the present case no such permission had been taken. I do not find any substance in the submission either. Right from the inception of the tenancy, the property is being used for commercial activities. First and second floor of the building were being used for residential purposes and the ground floor was being used for commercial purposes. The premises in dispute had been rented out as a shop and cannot be treated residential premises. The point in issue is not res inter ra (See Nahar Singh v. Surjit Singh, (1989-2) 96 P. L. R. 254., and Ram Sarup v. Barkat Singh, 1990 (2) R. C. R. 393. In Nahar Singh’s case (supra), it was held that when the building is constructed in such a manner that the portion abutting the road are rented out as shop could not be treated as residential premises. Similar view was taken in Ram Sarup’s case (Supra). In the present case, there are many tenants. Tenants on the ground floor had been inducted for running a shop. There were no bath rooms or ventilators in this portion and there was no electric connection either. The premises in dispute, could not be held to be residential, finding no merit in this revision petition, I dismiss the same. No costs.