On 18-11-2000 the respondents filed an application for ejectment of the appellant from a house located in Gujranwala Urban Area. The ejectment was sought on the ground of default in payment of rent and bona fide personal requirement. The application was contested primarily with the contentions that since the house was let out for establishment of a factory, the petition is not competent. Issues were framed. Evidetice of the parties was recorded. The learned Rent Controller found that the respondent has not committed any default in payment of rent. However, he answered the issue pertaining to bona fide personal requirement in favour of the respondents and directed the appellant to vacate the house vide order dated 1-6-2002. A first appeal filed by the appellant was dismissed by a learned Additional District Judge, Gujranwala on 6-6-2003.
2. Learned counsel for the appellant argues with reference to the rent agreement Exh.R.2 that the respondents have themselves let out the house for commercial purposes and had authorized the appellant to get the commercial electricity connection in the said premises. He has also argued that the house is not suitable for residential purposes. Learned counsel for the respondents on the other hand, argues that admittedly the building was residential building and notwithstanding the user to which it was put, it can be vacated for the said use. He further contends that it has come on record that the respondents are occupying the rent premises and are not in possession of residential building owned by them.
3. I have examined the records with the assistance of the learned counsel for the parties. Now it is an admitted position on record and it is stated in the very agreement R-2 that the building is a house and on both sides are houses. This being so, the rule laid down in the case of Raja Qurban Khan v. Begum M.M. Sharif and another 1980 SCM R 590 is squarely attracted. It has been observed by their lordships at page 592 as follows:-- "Furthermore, the petitioner seems to be faced with another difficulty. And in that behalf reference may be made to section 11 and section 19 of the Rent Ordinance, 1959, which respectively run as under:-- " I I. No person shall convert a residential building into a nonresidential building, except with the permission in writing of the Controller." And "19-(1) If any person contravenes any of the provisions of subsection (1) of section 10, section 11 or section 18 he shall be punished with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees."
It seems to us that by enacting section 11 of the Ordinance in the form in which it appears, the Legislature had in view a public policy based on considerations of securing the peace and welfare of the citizens. It is hardly necessary to labour on the point to show that by the conversion of a residential building into a non-residential building i.e. To say for the purpose of trade or commerce, the problem of the acute shortage of house in this country would be not only further compounded but the same inevitably would lead to disturbing the peace of the citizens residing in residential localities. The fact that this is what the Legislature had really intended to achieve is proved by the absence of any corresponding provision in the Rent Ordinance prohibiting the conversion of a non-residential building into a residential building, as also that any person found to have contravened the provisions of section 11 (ibid) is liable to be tried under section 19 of the Ordinance and in the event of being found guilty he can be sentenced to a fine which may extend to one thousand rupees."
It will thus be seen that even if the landlord has acquiesced, law prohibits conversion of a residential building into non-residential building and as such notwithstanding user to which the house is put, it remained a residential building and as such if landlord makes out a case for its vacation on ground. Of personal bona fide need in terms of section 13 of the Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Ordinaticc, 1959, learned Rent Controller has the authority rather he is hound to pass an ejectment order. -
4. In the present case it stands admitted that the respondents are occupying rented residential premises. This being so, their bona fide need to occupy their own premises stands fully established. S.A.O. Is accordingly dismissed. However, the appellant is directed to hand over vacant possession of the said house to the respondents on or before 31-7-2004, failing which the ejectment order passed by the learned Courts below shall be executed.