HARWANT KAUR Vs. HARINAM SANKIRTAN MANDAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners are the tenants of the building in dispute owned by Harinam sankirtan Mandal. An application was filed by that Mandal against the petitioners and firm Hari Singh Bachan Singh for ejectment from the said building on the ground that it was required for personal occupation for the purpose of a school run by the Mandal and that the petitioners had sublet a portion of the building to firm hari Singh Bachan Singh. A notice was issued to the petitioners to vacate the building but to no effect. The application was resisted by the petitioners and the following issues were framed by the Rent Controller:-

(2.) THE learned Appellate Authority reversed the finding of the learned Rent controller on Issue No. 1, but upheld the findings on issues 3 and 4. The findings on issues 5 and 6 were not challenged before him. The petitioners have challenged the decision of the learned Appellate Authority on issues 3 and 4 and the finding as to estoppel under issues 5 and 6. On behalf of the landlord-respondent, the decision of the learned Appellate Authority on issue No. 1 has been challenged.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the petitioners has argued that the decision of the learned Appellate Authority as well as of the Rent Controller on issues 3 and 4 is wrong in view of the decision of their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Attar singh v. Inder Kumar, 1967 Cur LJ 242= (AIR 1967 SC 773), which did not approve of the decision of this Court in Municipal Committee, Abohar v. Daulat ram, ILR (1959) Punj 1131, on the basis of which both the issues have been decided in favour of the landlord. In the instant case, it has been proved that there does exist a school run by the landlord for which accommodation is grossly insufficient. The school is being run upto fifth class and is located in a building adjacent to the premises in dispute, which consists of three rooms only whereas the students on the rolls of the school are 185. Further admission of students cannot be made due to insufficiency of accommodation. It has been argued on behalf of the petitioners that a residential building cannot be got vacated for running a school therein. This matter directly came up for decision before a division Bench of this Court in Sri Kishan v. Ghanesham Dass, ILR (1963) 1 Punj 115, and it was held that a juristic person like an association, a trust or a limited company, can have its tenant ejected from a residential building for the purpose of a school on the ground that it is required for its own occupation. The word 'occupation' does not necessarily mean residence does it involve a continual personal living in the house. The words 'own occupation' used in conjunction with 'his' may well include either a human being or a notional entity like an association or a trust or a limited company. Various judgments were relied upon for this conclusion, one of them being Municipal Committee, Abohar, ILR (1959) Punj 1131 (supra ). In that case, it was held that the Act covers the case of a juristic person as well as of an individual human being and the juristic person is entitled to enforce his rights in the same manner to enforce his rights in the same manner as an individual human being. Dealing with the specific case, it was observed:--