CIVIL REVISION NO. 7223 OF 2008. ::-1-:: IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.R. No. 7223 of 2008. [O&M] Date of Decision: 4th August, 2009. The Guhla Primary Agricultural Cooperative Society Ltd., Guhla Petitioner through Mr. Surender Dhull, Advocate Versus Jagdish Singh Respondent through Mr. Samarth Sagar, Advocate. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT. 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? SURYA KANT, J. [ORAL) This order shall dispose of Civil Revision Nos. 7223 to 7229 of 2008 as common questions of law and facts are involved in these cases. For brevity, the facts are being extracted from CWP No. 7223 of 2008. [2]. The petitioner is a Primary Agricultural Cooperative Society registered under the Haryana Cooperative Societies Act, 1984. The petitioner Society is owner of seven shops, an open verandah, office rooms, some godowns and toilets etc. constructed near the Grain Market in Guhla town, District Kaithal. All the seven shops have been rented out to different tenants since the year 1982- 84. One of the shop has been let out to the respondent – tenant also. The office room along with open space continued to be occupied by the petitioner Society, whereas another part of the building was given CIVIL REVISION NO. 7223 OF 2008. ::-2-:: on rent to a Private School. [3]. The petitioner Society filed an eviction petition against the respondent-tenant under Section 13 of the Haryana Urban [Control of Rent and Eviction] Act, 1973, inter-alia, on the grounds that – [i] the demised premises is required by the petitioner Society for its own use and occupation; and [ii] the shop is in a dilapidated condition and is unfit and unsafe for human habitation. [4]. In order to substantiate the first plea that the premises is required by the Society for its personal use and occupation, it was averred in the eviction petition that six other Primary Agricultural Cooperative Societies, namely, Agonda, Shiv Majra, Kasaur, Kharodi, Mahamudpur and Majri have been amalgamated with the petitioner Society and as a result thereto, its business activities have increased manifolds, requiring additional accommodation for “its office, godowns for members and day to day needs and other requirements attached with the Society”. In support of the second plea, the petitioner pleaded that “the walls and flooring have been damaged with the water and have no strength to bear the burden of roof/shop and the shop has become unfit and unsafe for human habitation”. [5]. The respondent – tenant controverted both the grounds and asserted that the shop is in good condition and is fit for doing the business activities and that the petitioner Society has more than 1500 square yard open space available with it where it could construct more shops/building, if so required by it for the increased business activities. It was further explained that the petitioner Society CIVIL REVISION NO. 7223 OF 2008. ::-3-:: has rented out three rooms and a verandah to a private school and had there been a bona-fide necessity, it would not have let out that part of the premises to the school. The respondent further averred that the office bearers of the petitioner Society in fact tried to forcibly dispossess him, due to which he had to file a civil suit for Permanent Injunction. [6]. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the Rent Controller framed the issues (i) as to whether the petitioner Society bona-fidely requires the tenanted premises for its personal necessity? and (ii) whether the tenanted premises is in dilapidated condition and requires reconstruction? The other ancillary issues were also framed. The petitioner Society produced its Cashier and Chief Executive Officer [AW2 and AW3] and one Draftsman [AW1] in its oral evidence. It also produced on record a site plan [Ex.A1], two resolutions dated 12.2.2007 and 6.4.2007 [Ex.A2 and A3], a letter dated 21.8.2006 of the Assistant Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Kaithal [Ex.A4] and certified copy of the plaint in Civil Suit No. 92 of 2007 [Ex.A5] and closed its evidence. The respondent – tenant also produced one Draftsman [RW1] and himself stepped into the witness box [RW2]. He also produced the documentary evidence consisting of Jamabandi for the year 2002-03 [Ex.R1] and Site Plan [Ex.R2]. [7]. On consideration of the evidence on record, the Rent Controller, rejected the first plea of the petitioner Society it requires the premises for its personal use and occupation after observing that there is sufficient accommodation available with the Society inasmuch as three rooms and Verandah which were earlier rented CIVIL REVISION NO. 7223 OF 2008. ::-4-:: out to Mount Carmel School have now been got vacated and that “there is more than sufficient open space in possession of the petitioner Society whereupon construction can be raised by it for running its business”. The Rent Controller further observed that no evidence has been led to prove the increase in its business or other activities due to amalgamation of seven different Cooperative Societies and that the site plan [Ex.A1] produced by the petitioner Society does not reflect the entire property owned and possessed by it. The Rent Controller also turned down the plea that the premises has become unfit and unsafe for human habitation after observing that only vague allegations have been made and there is no corroborative and credible evidence to substantiate that plea. The eviction petition was accordingly dismissed. [8]. The petitioner Society preferred an appeal which too met with the same fate and has been dismissed by the Appellate Authority vide its impugned judgment dated 9.9.2008. [9]. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at some length and perused the impugned orders as well as the record. In my considered view, no error of jurisdiction has been committed by the courts below in dismissing the eviction petition, warranting any interference by this Court. I say so for the reason that the plea of the petitioner Society regarding its personal necessity was founded up on the fact that with the amalgamation of seven other Cooperative Societies, the business and other activities of the Society have multiplied. No evidence whatsoever except the oral statement of the office bearers of the Society, has been led in support of that plea. CIVIL REVISION NO. 7223 OF 2008. ::-5-:: The petitioner Society ought to have proved as to what were its business activities before and after the amalgamation and how the existing space has now fallen short. It ought to have proved the increase in business activities like, storage space for fertilizers, seeds, agricultural equipments and other allied activities. Suffice it to say that mere amalgamation of seven Societies into one and consequential increase in the membership of the Society does not per-se require more space as the names of the members are to be entered in the Society's Membership Register only. However, the Rent Controller does not appear to be right in observing that since there is additional open space available with the Society, it could raise construction thereupon. No tenant has a right to dictate the landlord that instead of seeking eviction, the landlord should raise fresh construction to meet his requirement. [10]. Similarly, the evidence led by the petitioner Society in support of the second plea that the premises has become unfit and unsafe for human habitation, falls short of proving that plea. No building expert of credibility has been produced nor the photographs or any other material has been brought on record to establish that the building has outlived its utility or is now unsafe or unfit for human habitation. The bald statement made by the officials of the Society can not be accepted. [11]. For the reasons afore-stated, no interference with the impugned orders is called for and the revision petition is accordingly dismissed. [12] Faced with this, learned counsel for the petitioner pleaded CIVIL REVISION NO. 7223 OF 2008. ::-6-:: for the remand of the case to enable the petitioner – Society to lead additional evidence. No such plea can, however, be entertained at this stage. Suffice it to observe that the principle of res-judicata is not attracted stricto-senso to the eviction proceedings based upon plea of personal necessity of a landlord, if the afresh such proceedings are based upon changed circumstances. In other words, it is open to the landlord to file a fresh petition provided that the later events justify the requirement of additional accommodation. In this view of the matter, the Society shall be at liberty to file a fresh petition, if so required, to prove that during the pendency of the eviction proceedings, the circumstances have changed and keeping in view the later events, it requires the tenanted premises for its personal use and occupation. Needless to say that the tenant shall always be at liberty to refute such plea and prove otherwise. [13]. No costs. August 04, 2009. ( SURYA KANT ) dinesh JUDGE