C.R.No.4466 of 2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURTOF PUNJAB AND HARYANA, CHANDIGARH. C.R. No. 4466 of 2011 Date of decision: 26.7.2011 Sushma Rani .....Petitioner vs. Shri Zaharia Mal Charitable Veterinary HospitalTrust & others ....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG. --- Present: Mr.R.S.Bajaj, Advocate, for the petitioner. -- Rakesh Kumar Garg,J. This judgment shall dispose of three revision petitions bearing No.4466,4467 and 4468 of 2011, as petitioners in all these petitions are tenants of respondent No.1 and have been evicted in separate petitions but on similar grounds. However, for convenience sake the facts are taken from C.R.No.4466 of 20.11. As per the averments, respondent No.1 is the trust and respondents No. 2 to 6 are the trustees of respondent No.1. The trust also passed a resolution on 18.1.2004 for initiating eviction proceedings against the petitioner. It is further averred that petitioner is a tenant in thedemised premises at a monthly rent of Rs.30/- and is in arrears of rent with effect from 1.8.2002. The respondent-trust further submitted that the demised premises along with other rented premises were required by it for its personal bona fide need as the respondent trust had no accommodation for setting up generator room, store room, office, kitchen etc. Hence the eviction petition. C.R.No.4466 of 2011 2 Upon notice, petitioner appeared and file written statement raising various preliminary objections. Ground of non payment of arrears was refuted submitting that a valid tender has been made. It was denied that the demised premises were required by the respondent-trust for its personal use and occupation and as it has got more than sufficient accommodation . All other material averments were controverted and dismissal of the petition was prayed. In the replication respondent controverted the allegation of the petitioner and reiterated the averments made in the eviction application. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed by the Rent Controller:- 1. Whether the tender made on 14.6.2004 is illegal and invalid ? OPP 2. Whether the respondent is liable to be ejected for personal bona fide requirement of the petitioner <OPP 3. Whether the petition filed by a competent person ?OPP 4. Whether the petition is bad for misjoinder of parties ?OPR 4-A. Whether the site plan appended with the petition is incorrect, if so its effect ?OPR 5. Whether the petitioner is estopped by his act and conduct in filing the present petition ?OPR 6. Relief. Before the Rent Controller, Issue No.1 regarding the non payment of rent was not pressed. Issue No.2 regarding the personal necessity of the respondent-trust was decided against the landlord. Issue No.3 was decided in favour of the respondent-trust holding that the petition was filed by a competent person. Issue No.4 was decided against the petitioner. Issue No.4-A was decided in favour of the petitioner. However, it C.R.No.4466 of 2011 3 was held that it had no effect on the merits of the eviction petition. Issue No.5 was decided in favour of the petitioner holding that respondent No.1 filed earlier petitions against the petition and other tenants and the same were withdrawn and thus filing of one petition after the other is with mala fide intention to harass the petitioner. Consequently, the eviction petition was dismissed by the Rent Controller vide order dated 21.3.2009. Aggrieved from the said order respondent filed an appeal before the Appellate Authority who after hearing the learned counsel for the parties accepted the appeal and reversed the findings holding that the respondent trust required the demised premises for its personal use and occupation and its need was bona fide. Feeling aggrieved from the aforesaid judgment of the Appellate Authority, the tenants are before this Court challenging the said judgment. Shri R.S.Bajaj, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners has argued before this Court that the Appellate Authority has failed to appreciate that the need of bona fide necessity, as pleaded by the respondents was misconceived. Earlier petitions for ejectment on similar grounds were filed and the same were withdrawn. Thus, it is clearly established that it was nothing but a mala fide intention of the respondent in filing one after the other petition to somehow ensure ejectment of the petitioner from the premises in dispute. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further argued that in the petition the nature of the property has been mentioned as residential and thus, the same cannot be got vacated for a commercial purpose, as pleaded by the respondent-landlord that the building in question is required for constructing a store, kitchen, office room, generator room and parking lot from which it is clear that C.R.No.4466 of 2011 4 respondents need the demised premises for a commercial purpose. On the basis of the aforesaid arguments counsel for the petitioner has argued that the impugned order of the Appellate Authority is liable to be set aside. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the impugned order as well as the other documents placed on record. From the pleadings of the respondents, it is crystal clear that the respondent has pleaded that demised premises is needed by the trust along with other property in possession of the tenants for the construction of generator room, store room and parking place etc. There is nothing on record to show that the trust is in possession of any other property which could be used for its trustees nor they have vacated any such premises. It has been clearly established on record that the aforesaid construction is required by the respondent-trust for visitors of Dharamsala i.e. charitable purpose. There is nothing on record to suggest that the property is being got vacated for non residential/commercial purposes. Simply because the trust wants to construct a kitchen, a store, a generator set, a room for chowkidar and an office, it cannot be said that the same is for a commercial purpose. The argument raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner in this regard is misconceived and is liable to be rejected outrightly. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further argued that the respondents have mainly based their case on the documents Ex.AW3/A to Ex.AW3/C but the said documents have not been proved in accordance with the Evidence Act and no reliance can be placed on the said documents and in view thereof the total case of the respondent was demolished. The mere assertion on the part of the petition is not sufficient to prove the argument. C.R.No.4466 of 2011 5 There is nothing on record to show that the Cantonment Board officials in connivance with the respondent passed a wrong resolution to help the trust. It may also be mentioned that there is no whisper regarding the bona fide need of the respondent that the same is not required for its personal use and occupation. The other argument raised by the petitioner is not supported by any evidence on record and thus the same is liable to be rejected. No other argument raised. Thus, there is no merit in these petitions and the same are dismissed. (Rakesh Kumar Garg) Judge July 26, 2011 rk C.R.No.4466 of 2011 6 IN THE HIGH COURTOF PUNJAB AND HARYANA, CHANDIGARH. C.R. No. 4468 of 2011 Date of decision: 26.7.2011 Kishan Lal .....Petitioner vs. Shri Zaharia Mal Charitable Veterinary HospitalTrust & others ....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG. --- Present: Mr.R.S.Bajaj, Advocate, for the petitioner. -- Rakesh Kumar Garg,J. For orders see, C.R.No.4466 of 2011. (Rakesh Kumar Garg) Judge July 26, 2011 rk C.R.No.4466 of 2011 7 IN THE HIGH COURTOF PUNJAB AND HARYANA, CHANDIGARH. C.R. No. 4467 of 2011 Date of decision: 26.7.2011 Mohan Lal .....Petitioner vs. Shri Zaharia Mal Charitable Veterinary HospitalTrust & others ....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG. --- Present: Mr.R.S.Bajaj, Advocate, for the petitioner. -- Rakesh Kumar Garg,J. For orders see, C.R.No.4466 of 2011. (Rakesh Kumar Garg) Judge July 26, 2011 rk