- (1.) The petitioner in the present case is Radha Swamy Sat Sangh Sabha which is a registered Society. This petition has been filed by its Secretary Babu Ram Jaudon (hereinafter called 'the landlord').
(2.) The landlord had filed an application under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act (No. 3 of 1949) for the eviction of the tenant before the Rent Controller, Amritsar. It was alleged in the application by the landlord that the respodent-tenant is a tenant under the applicant in the demised premises which is a part of the building known as Shish Mahal situated at Majitha Road, Amritsar, that he was in arrears of rent and that the landlord society is a religious and charitable society and for the prosecution of its aims and objects it wants to construct a Sat Sangh Hall in the said premises. It was also alleged that the said society did not have any other place to hold congregation meetings which are popularly known as Sat Sangh and that the landlord is not in possession of any Sat Sangh Hall in the Urban area of Amritsar. It was alleged that the demised premises were in a dilapidated condition of which some portion has already fallen down and it was unsuitable and unsafe for human habitation. It was on these grounds that the eviction was sought for. This application was resisted by the tenant and the allegations in the plaint were denied. However, the arrears of rent were paid on the first date of the hearing along with interest and costs and the parties contested on the following issues- "1. Whether the application has been filed before the Rent Controller ? If not, its effect ? 2. Whether there is relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties ? 3. Whether the respondent is liable to eviction on the ground alleged in para No. 6 of the petition ? 4. Whether valid tender has been made on the first date of hearing ? If not, its effect ? 5. Whether the application for the eviction of the respondent is maintainable regarding property in dispute ? 6. Whether the Rent Controller has jurisdiction to entertain the application ? 7. Whether the respondent is estopped in denying the tenancy of the applicant ? 8. Whether the applicant society is a registered body and its application has been properly signed, verified and instituted by the applicant. If not, its effect ? 9. Whether valid notice to quit has been served on the respondent. If not, its effect ? 10. Whether a sum of Rs. 50/- has been paid by the respondent as alleged in para 6(a) of the written statement ? If so, is the respondent entitled to deduct the same from the arrears of rent ? 11. Whether the applicant it entitled to special costs for reasons stated in para No. 9 of the application ? 12. Relief." After trial, the Rent Controller allowed the application and ordered eviction of the tenant. Feeling aggrieved the tenant filed an appeal before the appellate authority, which was allowed. Hence this petition by landlord.
(3.) Mr. Sarin, the learned counsel for the petitioner, has contended that the view taken by the appellate authority is wrong and that the authorities under the Act cannot sit over the judgment of the choice of the landlord for his requirement. In support of this contention, he has relied upon Shri Brij Lal and another v. Shri Hari Singh and others, 1975 RCR(Rent) 103 and Kotasarthi Senapati v. Katini Narayan Murti & Sons and another,1973 RCJ 26, where in it was held that the authorities under the Act cannot sit over the propriety of the choice of the landlord for his own requirement and that if the bona fide requirement of the landlord is proved, then the application is to be allowed. There is no dispute about the proposition of law as laid down in these authorities. In all these cases the landlord was not a juristic person as in the present case. In the present case, the finding of the appellate authority, is that the need of the landlord is not bona fide and the learned appellate authority has observed in para 14 of the judgment as under- "All this property belong to Radha Swami Sat Sangh. The total area is 29 Kanals 19 marlas. Out of this area, 10 Kanals 9 marlas is Gair Mumkin Kothi. That means, the area under building of which demised premises is a part 19 kanals and 10 marlas of land is still available in the vacant form to the petitioners. The witnesses of the petitioner also admitted that five bighas of land was lying vacant." It has futher observed in the same para of the judgment as under- "If the petitioner had urged that the vacant land, because of its situation or other circumstances, were unsuited to the construction of the prayer Hall, it would have been different. No evidence was examined even to this fact, if the approach to that land was not proper or was difficult. That land can conveniently be utilised by the landlord, who is taking eviction proceedings against the tenants since 1964." It is evident from these observations that the Society can contsruct a Sat Singh Hall for prayer purposes in the vacant land adjacent to the demised premises. It is not disputed that adjacent land to the demised premises belongs to the landlord and no reason is given as to why the landlord wants to construct the Sat Singh Hall after demolishing the demised premises and displacing the tenant from those premises. It shows that the landlord has failed to prove its bona fide needs for the construction of the Sat Sangh Hall after demolishing the demised premises. It is stated at the Bar that Radha Swami Sat Sangh Sabha is a religious and charitable institution and the Society was registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860. The aims and objects of the society are to preach religion and to do service to the humanity at large. I do not know how by demolishing the demised premises the society will serve the cause of human beings. Rather the cause will be better served if the adjacent vacant land is utilised for the construction of the Sat Sangh Hall if at all it is needed in Amritsar. Earlier to the present application number of applications were given on one ground or the other against the tenant, but the same were dismissed.;