SI ABIR AHMAD versus SHAM LAL AND ANR.

Citation: [2002] 1 S.C.R. 910 · Decided: 08-02-2002 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.S.M. QUADRI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
SI- ABIR AHMAD 
v. 
SHAI\! LAL AND ANR. 
FEBRUARY 8, 2002 
B 
[SYED SHAH MOHAMMED QUADRI AND S.N. VARIAVA, JJ.] 
Rent Control and Evictio1' : 
East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction (Extension of Chandigarh) Act, 
C 1974 (as amended in 1982)-Se.:tions I 3(3) (a) (i) (a), I I and 2(g) and (d)-
'Shop-cum-flat' premises-Ev1~tion petition on the ground of bondide 
requirement for residential pur,,oses-Entitlement of-Premises solely used 
for running a Hair Dressing Sa'oon-Recitals of letter of allotment, deed of 
conveyance and site plan showing that the premises was a non-residential 
D building-No provision in the dei ign plan/or bedrooms, bathroom or kitchen-
Held, the premises was not a ·esidential building but was part of a non-
residential building-Courts bdow were not justified in interpreting the 
expression 'shop-cum-flat' havi 1g regard to the dictionary meaning of the 
word 'flat '-Section I I of the Act prohibiting conversion of a residential 
building into a non-residential b ii/ding, has no application-Eviction petition 
E dismissed 
Interpretation of Statutes 
Expression 'shop-cum-flat'. --Interpretation of-Recourse to dictionaries-
Held. undoubtedly a useful guid. • provided appropriate meaning which fits in 
F the context is chosen. 
Words and Phrases: 
Expression 'shop-cum-flat -Meaning of 
G 
'residential building'; 'nw-residential building'-Meaning of in the 
context of Section 2(g) and (d) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction 
(Extension of Chandigarh) Act, 1974. 
Appellant was a tenant o • a portion of first floor of 'shop-cum-Oat' 
premises owned by respondents. Appellant had been using the premises solely 
H 
910 
.. 
• 
r 
l 
SHABIR AHMAD v. SHAM LAL 
911 
for the purpose of running a Hair Dressing Saloon from the very. inception A 
of the tenancy. Respondent-landlords filed eviction petition on the ground of 
bona fide requirement for residential purposes under Section 13(3)(a)(i)(a) of 
the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction (Extension to Chandigarh) Act, 1974 
(as amended in 1982). Appellant contested the eviction petition inter alia on 
the ground that the tenanted premises was a non-residential building and, 
therefore, eviction could not be sought under the said provisions. However, 
Rent Controller passed an eviction order holding that the premises was part 
ofa residential building and the bona fide requirement oflandlords had been 
established. Appellant unsuccessfully filed an appeal and revision. Hence the 
present appeal 
On behalf of the appellant-tenant it WllS contended that the letter of 
allotment, the conveyance deed and the site plan clearly show that the building 
wns a non-residential premises and thus, the courts below erred in holding 
that 'shop-cum-flat' premises was a residential building. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
B 
c 
D 
HELD : 1.1. The first floor of 'shop-cum-flat' premises occupied by 
appellant-tenant is a part of non-residential building. Thus, the eviction 
petition filed by the respondent-landlords under Section 13(3)(a)(i)(a) of the 
East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction (Extension to Chandigarh) Act, 1974, E 
(as amended in 1982) is liable to be dismissed. [918-A, F) 
1.2. On perusal of Section 2(g) and (d) of the Act it is clear that if a 
building is being used solely for the purpose of business or trade, it is a non-
residential building and a building other than a non-residential building is a 
residential building. In the instant case, the appellant-tenant has been using F 
the premises solely for the purpose of running a Hair Dressing Saloon from 
the inception of the tenancy. [915-CJ 
1.3. It is evident from the recitals in the deed of conveyance. the letter 
ofallotment, the site plan and from the agreement of tenancy, that the 'shop- G 
cum-flat' is a non-residential building within the meaning of the Act The 
recitals in the letter of allotment and the deed of conveyance shows that even 
at the time of allotment of the site itself, it was shown as commercial Clause 
18 of the letter of allotment puts an embargo on the use of the building for 
residential purpose unless the plan supplied by the Government specified it 
as a residenfoil building. The design plan of the first floor does not provide H 
912 
SUPREME CO\JRT REPORTS 
[2002] I S.C.R. 
A for bed-rooms etc. There is 10 provision for bathroom and no provision for 
kitchen, on the contrary a r 1om is shown as 'office'. A perusal of clause 20 
shows th11t the 'shop-cum-fl: tt' constructe

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.