SUBHASH CHANDER Vs. MANAGING COMMITTEE GURUDWARA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Notwithstanding the fact that ground of personal bona-fide necessity of the landlord has concurrently been adjudicated by the Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority under the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent & Eviction) Act, 1973 (hereinafter called the Act) against the tenant, petitioner herein, and there being very meagre scope of interference in view of the Full Bench judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court dated 27.8.2014 passed in Civil Appeal No.6177 of 2004 (Hindustran Petroleum Corporation Ltd. v. Dilbahar Singh), Counsel for the tenant/petitioner herein is insistent that it is a case calling for interference on the point of law and as also there being complete omission by both the authorities under the Act to consider vital evidence qua the ground of personal necessity.

(2.) So far as the legal ground projected by the tenant is concerned, it is claimed that the landlord was neither properly represented nor the petition for eviction of the tenant was competent. Landlord is Gurdwara Guru Nanak Darbar, Shivaji Colony, Rohtak. Petition for eviction was preferred by the landlord through its President S. Raminderjit Singh. It is claimed that there should have been written resolution of the Gurdwara to the effect that eviction petition was to be filed and then further resolution was required authorising a particular person to institute the eviction petition. Reference has been made to Municipal Committee, Sirhand v. Ishar Dass and another,2001 PunLR 691. It was a case of filing of regular second appeal before this Court by Municipal Committee, Sirhand, where provisions of Order XLI Rule 1 CPC, 1908 had come up for interpretation. Observations made in Garibd Chand v. Municipal Committee, Budladha,1979 PunLJ 478, which were also reproduced therein, for quick reference are reproduced here as well:-

(3.) Counsel for the respondent-landlord, on the other hand, has urged that landlord Gurdwara was not required to pass any resolution particularly when its President S. Raminderjit Singh had himself entered the witness box fully justifying the ground of personal necessity of the landlord and his competence to file the petition and had faced lengthy and scrutinizing cross examination. It is also claimed that no analogy of body corporate or a registered society can be merged into the provisions of the Act. Support has been sought from Farmers Forum, Punjab, Chandigarh through its Assistant Secretary and another v. Shri Ram Lal Gandhi, 1984 2 RCR(Rent) 170. In this authority, premises had been let to a society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1980. Petition for ejectment against the society was filed through its Assistant Secretary. Holding that Section 6 of the Societies Registration Act, 1980 was not applicable as it was petition for ejectment and not a suit, the petition was held to be maintainable.