RAJINDER KUMAR BANSAL Vs. MUNICIPAL COMMITTEE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The landlord is in appeals aggrieved against an order passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana on 04.03.2009 whereby the club activities were not held as business within the meaning of Section 2(f) of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973(Hereinafter referred to as the 'Act ') so as to apply the Act to the rented land. The High Court has set aside the orders passed by the Rent Controller as well as by the Appellate Authority holding that the rented land is being put to use for the purpose of business.

(2.) The facts leading to the present appeals are that one Telu Ram was the original owner of the property. Bhagwan Dass held occupancy rights in terms of the Punjab Tenancy Act, 1887. Bhagwan Dass earlier executed a gift deed in favour of Louis club on 16.01.1909 for the purpose of running a club only after construction of a building thereon in respect of land bearing Khasra No. 770 comprising 15 bighas and 12 biswas and Khasra No. 771 comprising of 0 bighas 8 and biswas i.e. total admeasuring 16 bighas. Bhagwan Dass had doubt about the gift since he had only occupancy rights and therefore, a lease deed was executed, after cancelling the gift deed, in favour of the Respondent No. 2 herein on 03.03.1909. The rent was Rs. 10/- per year besides land revenue. The tenant was given authority to use land for the purpose of club. It further provided that if there is any construction, the landlord will pay market price of it. The lease deed in question reads as thus:

(3.) It is an admitted fact that a pavilion was constructed, which was used for the purpose of club only. The Respondent No. 2 herein created a sub-lease in favour of Ladies Tandon Club. Later, one portion of the property was transferred to the Municipal Committee. The Municipal Committee changed the use of the property by sinking a tubewell for the use of residents of the town. Therefore, the appellants filed a petition for ejectment inter alia on the ground of non-payment of rent; (2) subletting of the premises without the consent of the landlord; and (3) that the property had been abandoned by the first respondent which had ceased to exist and the premises were now being used for the offices of different departments that is the property has been put to unauthorized use.