“8. In my opinion, the aforesaid judgment of the Supreme Court squarely covers the case of the respondentlandlord. In this case also, one building was let out in different parts and in that situation, he is entitled to recover the immediate possession of all the parts by filing different petitions. The question whether the different parts let out to different tenants are part of one building or separate buildings is a question of fact which is to be determined on the facts and circumstances of each case. Before getting ejectment of different tenants from different parts, it has to be established that all the parts let out to different tenants are part of one building. In the instant case, the Rent Controller, on the basis of evidence available on record, has recorded a finding of fact that all the 13 shops are part and parcel of one building. In this regard, the Rent Controller has relied upon various photographs, site plan and the report of the Architect, which clearly establish that all the shops constitute one building and the suit building as a single unit was constructed at one time. I do not find any illegality or perversity in the said finding of fact. Thus, in my opinion, the ejectment orders passed against the petitioners regarding two different shops which form part of one building, cannot be said to be illegal on the ground that under Section 13B of the Act, the landlord has already got vacated one shop, which was also part of the said building.”
