Ram Niwas vs Union of India and another

D.K. Mahajan, J.—The sole question in this petition for revision is whether the building, which has been rented out for the Post Office, ceases to be a non-residential building because in one of its rooms the Post Master lives with his family.

The landlord claimed eviction of the Union of India from the Post Office premises on the ground that the building was a residential building and that he needed it for his personal occupation. This contention had been negatived by the Rent Controller as well as by the Appellate Authority on the ground that the Post Office was located in this building and the work of Post Office was carried on for all the 24 hours of the day, in as much as there are telephone and telegraph facilities available to the general public. The landlord, who is dissatisfied with this decision, has come up in revision to this Court.

Mr. Sarin, learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the building in dispute is a residential building, because the Post Master with his family lives in room of the building. Non-residential building is defined in section 2(d) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949, in the following terms:--

"Non residential building" means a building being used solely for the purpose of business or trade :

It will appear from this definition that a non-residential building is one which is used solely for the purposes of business or trade. The statement of the Post Master is clear that he has to remain in the building 24 hours in order to receive telegrams and to attend to the telephone. No cross-examination was directed, when he appeared in the witness box, as to how he can go on working for 24 hours without any relief. Therefore, it is idle to suggest that the presence of the Post Master in the building for 24 hours is not possible. The fact that these facilities could only be available to the general public if some one was to live in the building led the rent Controller as well as the appellate Authority to the conclusion that the building was a non-residential building. The mere fact that the Post Master lives in the building, will not take it out of the category of a non-residential building because his living in the building does not alter the nature of the premises which are non-residential premises. The Post Office has to perform various functions, i.e. to receive and distribute mail, to receive and distribute telegrams, and to receive and send cut telephone calls, and for this the presence of a human agency is essential and the agency is the Post Master. He is an integral part of the business and cannot be separated from the Post Office business. Therefore, it is idle to suggest that the living of the Post Master alongwith his family converts that building into a residential building. The entire family of the Post Master is living in one room. Therefore, whether the Post Master lives just by himself or alongwith his family, is of no consequence. Even if he is to live alone, he has to have a room and if his family lives with him, I this will not alter the position.

Mr. Sarin draws my attention to the Proviso to section 2(d) of the Act and contends that residence only for the purpose of guarding the building is permitted and none other. This Proviso does not detract or in any way nullify the main provision, namely, as to whether the building is being solely used for the purposes of business or trade. If it is so, it is immaterial that some one resides in it particularly when without that residence, the business and trade cannot be carried on. In such a situation residence is an integral part for carrying on of the trade or business. The reason for the Proviso seems to be that the guarding of a building cannot be termed as part of the business. It was for this reason that the legislature had to provide that the residence of the guard in the building will not convert the same from non-residential to residential. As I have said that the living of the Post Master in the building is an essential part of the Post Office business and it cannot be severed from it, the same cannot be said to be a residential building.

For the reasons recorded above, thus petition fails and is dismissed. There will be no order as to costs.