note Ex.DA but no such rent note is on record. He has stated that second rent note was executed in the year 1982 but that rent note has not been produced. It is not the case of the respondent that second rent note is with the tenant. Therefore, it is reasonable to infer that second rent note is with the landlord who has not produced the same and, therefore, adverse inference is to be drawn against him. 10. The respondent-landlord will have to stand on his own feet for seeking eviction of the petitioner. He cannot be permitted to project the case that since tenant has stated that the premises was rented out for residence, therefore, the premises is a residential premises. It cannot be ignored that respondent himself has pleaded and stated on oath that the premises was rented out for shop and it is non-residential. Simply because the petitioner had been residing in the premises while running the shop will not take out the premises from the definition of non-residential building. The definition of non-residential building means a building which is being used mainly for the purpose of business or trade or partly for the purpose of business or trade and partly for the purpose of residence, subject to the condition that the person who carried on business or trade in the building resides therein. The pleaded and proved case of the landlord does not take out the premises from the definition of non-residential building. It emerges from the pleadings of landlord and evidence that premises in question is non-residential.
