Law: West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance (VI of 1959)

Section: 2(d),2(g),13(3),13(a)

West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance (VI of 1959)-----   -----Ss. 2(d), 2(g) & 13(3)(a)-"Non-residential building"-Definition --Building used "solely' for purpose of business or trade-House let for composite purpose viz., partly for business and partly for residence-- Not "non-residential building"-Landlord entitled under S. 13(3)(a) to have tenant evicted from entire building for his own personal residence.   Dakshinamoorthy v. Thulja Bai A I R 1952 Mad. 413; Harnam Singh v. Jamal Pirbhai P L D 1951 P C 61 and Macmillan & Co. Ltd. v. Rees (1946) 1 All E R 675 held not applicable.   Date of hearing: 8th February 1965.     JUDGMENT   The facts giving rise to this second appeal from an order of the Rent Controller, Sialkot, are few and simple. Pir Muhammad, respondent, owns a house in Sialkot city, which he leased out to Mirza' Muhammad Amin Baig at a rental of Rs. 70.00 per mensem for a period of two years under an arrangement that the ground-floor shall be used as business premises and the upper-floor for residential purpose. After the expiry of the lease, -the respondent filed an application under section 13 of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as the Ordinance) for the eviction of the appellant on the ground that he needed the house for his personal occupation. The petition was opposed and rejected by the Rent Controller on the finding that it was a non-residential building and could be got vacated only for a business purpose and not for personal residence of the respondent.   2. On appeal by the respondent, the learned District Judge has held the property to be of a composite nature and directed that the appellant should deliver possession of the residential premises to the respondent who owned no hou3e of his own in the City of…