Punjab National Bank vs Pritam Singh and Another

H.S. Bedi, J.—One of the arguments raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the Hon''ble Supreme court while deciding SLP No. 4216 of 1988 Dev Brat Sharma v. Dr. Jagjit Mehta (1990)108 P.L.R. 637 had observed that the ration of the judgment raised in the Full Bench decision of this Court in Hari Mittal v. B.M. Sikka (1986) 89 P.L.R. 1 would not strictly be applicable in the present case, as its ratio was only applicable to the Union Territory Chandigarh Unless it would further be shown that the building in question of which the eviction is sought on the ground of personal necessity, arising out of a change of use is situated in a residential area as per sanctioned scheme. As this aspect of the matter was not taken note either by the Rent Controller or by the Appellate Authority and relying solely on Hari Mittal''s case, the matter has been decided against the petitioner, I deem it appropriate that a report be called for from the Rent Controller, who after making such investigation as necessary, would submit a report to the effect as to whether the demised promises are situated in a residential or commercial area and also whether there is a scheme duly framed under the Punjab Municipal Act or some other statute. The report be submitted by 7.4.1995. Case to come up on 18.4.1995. The parties are directed to appear before the Rent Controller on 6.2.1995.