Hence, this appeal by special leave.
Both the respondents are medical practitioners.
From the Judgment and Order dated 31.1.1985 of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Civil Revision No.
1, Dr. Harbans Singh.
1847 of 1984.
The third ground relating to impairment of value and utility of the rented building was rejected.
The Rent Controller dismissed the petition holding that numbere of the three grounds had been proved.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
The respondents filed a petition for eviction of the appellant tenant on three grounds, namely, personal need of the respondents under Section 13 3 a i a , change of user under section 13 2 ii b and impairment of value and utility of the rented building under section 13 2 iii of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1948.
However, an order of eviction was made on the ground of change of user of the rented building.
The submissions of Shri Avadh Behari, learned companynsel for the appellant are several.
On appeal by the respondents, the appellate authority held that the personal need of respondent No.
The appellate authority further held that the building though let out for residential purpose was used by the appellant, a companysultant engineer, partly for his profession on account of which it had become a scheduled building as defined in Section 2 h of the Act and, therefore, the ground for eviction based on personal need was number available for evicting the tenant from a scheduled building.
B. Rohtagi, R.C. Mishra and Dr. Meera Aggarwal for the Appellant.
The appellant then preferred a revision to the High Court which has been dismissed the findings and order of eviction made by the appellate authority.
Respondent No.
The appellant companytested the petition denying the existence of any of these grounds for eviction.
5086 of 1985.
S. Gujaral and R.S. Sodhi for the Respondents.
1, Dr. Harbans Singh, in March 1980.
2, Dr. Ravinder Singh, is son of respondent No.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by VERMA, J. The appellant, Gulraj Singh Grewal, took the suit premises situate in Ludhiana on monthly rent of Rs.
800 from respondent No.
2, Dr. Ravinder Singh, one of the landlords, was proved and the ground of change of user of the rented building by the appellant had also been proved.
