IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 7869 of 2009 Date of decision: 23rd July, 2010 M/s Chailu Ram Hariram … Petitioner Versus Tara Chand Nuniwal Religious Trust … Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA Present: Mr. Sanjay Mittal, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Gorakh Nath, Advocate for the respondent. KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA, J. (ORAL) Tara Chand Nuniwal Religious Trust, Narnaul (hereinafter referred to as, ‘the Trust’) passed a resolution to evict the three tenants to set-up a school or dispensary in the demised premises. To give effect to the resolution, an eviction petition was filed against the petitioner. The Rent Controller held that the Trust had given no details as to how the school will be built; what would be the number of students; how much class-rooms required; what would be the nature of furniture, location of stairs and the ramp; from where the Trust will gather money and on all of these assumptions, held that personal necessity of the Trust was not made out. The rent petition was dismissed vide order dated 28th April, 2007. Aggrieved against the order dated 28th April, 2007, the respondent-Trust went in appeal. The appellate Court reversed this finding on the ground that the resolution stated setting up of a school or a Civil Revision No.7869 of 2009 dispensary, therefore, once the resolution of doing a charitable work had been passed by the Trust, at that stage the landlord was not required to state each and every fact as to how it will give effect to its need. Counsel for the petitioner states that when the tenancy was created, the Trust was non-existent. The tenancy was created in the year 1948 and the Trust came into existence in the year 1951. These arguments cannot be accepted and the right of the Trust to initiate eviction proceedings cannot be doubted. The tenancy, in the present case, was created at the rate of Rs.15/- per month. If the Trust has come forward to forego Rs.15/- per month and earn some good-will, the Court cannot stand in the way. It is further stated that the Trust has not stated that no other building was occupied by it and it has not vacated the same. The Trust has filed eviction petition against all the three tenants, therefore, the very fact which has been stated in the eviction petition that after evicting all the tenants, the Trust wanted to run a school or dispensary, satisfies such a requirement. As a last ray of hope, counsel for the petitioner states that in case the Trust fails to set-up a school or dispensary, liberty be granted to the petitioner to approach the appropriate forum for restoration of the tenancy. There is no doubt that such a right does vest in the tenant under the provisions of the Act. With the observations made above, present revision petition is disposed of. [KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA] JUDGE July 23, 2010 rps 2