BHAGAT SINGH SODHI Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition has filed against the order dated 27.1.1981, passed by the appellate authority, whereby the appeal, filed by the tenant, was accepted, the order, passed by the Rent Controller, was set aside and the ejectment petition, filed by the landlord, was dismissed.

(2.) SODHI Bhagat Singh, landlord, filed ejectment petition under Section 13 of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), against Union of India (tenant) for the ejectment of the tenant from the house in dispute, alleging therein that on 18.4.1963, Union of India, through Superintendent of Posts, Rohtak, had taken the premises in dispute on rent @ Rs. 150/- per month and had started running the post office and that on 18.4.1964, the Superintendent, Post Offices, Rohtak, on behalf of the Union of India, executed a rent-note in favour of the landlord, for a period of five years. The landlord sought the ejectment of the tenant from the premises in dispute, on the ground that he required the house in dispute for his own occupation and that the tenant has not paid rent since October, 1977. The ejectment petition was contested by the tenant, admitting that the Union of India was a tenant under the landlord. It was alleged that the house in question was let out by the landlord for use and occupation as Post Office and as such, the premises in dispute was not a residential building but was a commercial one and hence, the landlord was not entitled to seek eviction of the tenant, on the ground of personal necessity. It was alleged that the tenant had already paid the rent from October 1977 and in order to avoid technical objection, the tenant tendered Rs. 2100/- as arrears of rent for the months of October 1977 to November 1978 as claimed by the landlord, besides interest and costs. However, the tenant reserved the right to claim back the rent, already paid for the month of October, 1977. After hearing both the sides, the Rent Controller found that the ground of non-payment of rent was not available to the landlord. With regard to personal need, it was held that the landlord required the house in question bonafide for the personal use. It was further found that the building was let out to the tenant for running the Post Office and that it was not a non- residential building and that the landlord was entitled to seek ejectment of the tenant from the building in question, on the ground of personal necessity. Accordingly, the order of ejectment was passeed against the tenant. However, the appeal, filed by the Union of India (tenant) was accepted by the appellate authority, the order of ejectment, passed by the Rent Controller, was set aside and the ejectment petition, filed by the landlord was dismissed by the appellate authority, vide order dated 27.1.1981. Aggrieved against the same, the landlord filed the present revision petition in this Court.

(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner-landlord submitted before me that the house in question, which was let out to the tenant, for running the Post Office, could not be termed as a non-residential building, inasmuch as the house did not cease to be a residential building. Reliance was placed on the law laid down by this Court, in the case reported as The Director of Department of Language, Haryana and anr. v. Smt. Surjit Kaur, 1984(2) RCR (Rent) 511. It was further submitted that if the residential building was let out even for a non-residential purposes, still the building continues to be a residential building and the landlord was entitled to seek eviction from the demised premises, inasmuch as the landlord had not taken the permission of the Rent Controller to cover the residential building into a non-residential building, as required under Section 11 of the Act.