JUDGMENT
H.S. Bedi, J.
1. The present petition has been filed by the tenant Prem Chand against the order of the Appellate Authority, reversing the order of the Rent Controller, and ordering the ejectment of the petitioner from the premises in dispute.
2. The ejectment was sought primarily on the ground that as the accommodation on the first floor of the building which was in the possession of the landlord was inadequate for the purposes of a large family, he was entitled to eject the tenant from the ground floor.
3. In the reply filed by the tenant-petitioner, it was submitted that the landlord was in possession of two rooms on the first floor and one on the second floor alongwith kitchen and this was sufficient accommodation for the need of the family and that the premises on the ground floor which was in occupation of the tenant had been let out for the purposes of being used as a godown and were, infact, being used as such.
4. The Rent Controller framed the following issues:-
1. Whether the respondent is liable to the ejectment on the ground mentioned in the petition? OPA.
2. Relief.
5. Having decided issue No.l against the landlord and holding that his need was not bonafide, the ejectment application was dismissed. The appeal filed by the landlord was, however, allowed by the Appellate Authority, who held that the premises in the possession of the petitioner were in the nature of a residential building as per the evidence and had been let out for that purpose alone and the change of user by the tenant from residential to commercial without the consent of the Rent Controller as envisaged under Section 11 of the East Punjab Rent Restriction Act, 1949, was not permissible in view of the judgment of this Court reported as Bata India Ltd, formerly Bata Shoe Company (Private) Ltd v. Karam Chand 1987 (2) R.L.R. 85, Shri Han Mittal v. Shri B.M. Sikka , (1986-1)88 P.L.R. 1 and subsequently followed by Ajit Singh v. Bhupinder Singh (deceased) , (1992-2) 102 P.L.R. 195.
6. Mr. Puran Chand, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has urged that from the evidence adduced, it was clear that the premises had been rented but exclusively for the purposes of a godown and as such, the respondent was not entitled to recover the same on the ground of personal necessity, he has pointed out that even the landlord’s own witness Krishan Dutt Sharma AW-2 had specifically stated that the demised building was a commercial one situated in Krishna Mandi, Morinda. He has also referred to Ex.R3 and Ex.R4 which are the house tax assessments which speak to the commercial nature of the property on the ground floor and further that even prior to the letting out of the premises to the present petitioner, the same had been let out to the Marketing cum Processing Society, Morinda also for use as a godown. It has also been pointed out that the room on the ground floor had no window, ventilator or facility of bath room or a kitchen and as such could not be used for anything other than a godown. In this view of the matter, it has been urged that the judgments with regard to the change of user without the consent of the Rent Controller as required by Section 11 of the Act, were not applicable to the facts of the case as the building had been let out from its very inception for the purpose of being used as a godown and it was being used as such even on the date of the ejectment application.
7. Mr. Viney Mittal, learned counsel appearing for the respondent has, however, reiterated the arguments accepted by the Appellate Authority.
8. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and find merit in the stand of the petitioner.
9. There is over-whelming evidence already referred to above on record to show that the room in question had been Set out solely for the purposes of being used as a godown and this has been borne out equally by the witnesses produced by the landlord. As a matter of fact, the very nature of the building suggests that the room on the ground floor was being used as a godown and nothing else. It is common knowledge that in the State of Punjab, buildings in the mandis have godowns or shops on the ground floor and residences on the upper floors. This appears to be the situation in the present case as well. The judgments cited by the learned counsel for the respondent do not advance his case whatsoever and would be relevant only if it was found that a building which had been let out for residential purposes was now being used as a commercial one. 1 have already held on a consideration of the evidence that the building was rented out for commercial purposes from the very inception of the tenancy and as such, could not be got vacated from the tenant on the ground of personal necessity of the landlord.
9. For the reasons recorded above, the present petition is allowed, the order of the Appellate Authority is set aside and the ejectment application of the landlord is dismissed with no order as to costs.