RADHASOAMY SATSANG SABHA Vs. DIWAN KISHAN CHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner in the present case is Radha Swamy Sat Sangh Sabha which is a registered Society. This petition has been filed by its Secretary Babu Ram Jaudon (hereinafter called 'the landlord').

(2.) The landlord had filed an application under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act (No. 3 of 1949) for the eviction of the tenant before the Rent Controller, Amritsar. It was alleged in the application by the landlord that the respodent-tenant is a tenant under the applicant in the demised premises which is a part of the building known as Shish Mahal situated at Majitha Road, Amritsar, that he was in arrears of rent and that the landlord society is a religious and charitable society and for the prosecution of its aims and objects it wants to construct a Sat Sangh Hall in the said premises. It was also alleged that the said society did not have any other place to hold congregation meetings which are popularly known as Sat Sangh and that the landlord is not in possession of any Sat Sangh Hall in the Urban area of Amritsar. It was alleged that the demised premises were in a dilapidated condition of which some portion has already fallen down and it was unsuitable and unsafe for human habitation. It was on these grounds that the eviction was sought for. This application was resisted by the tenant and the allegations in the plaint were denied. However, the arrears of rent were paid on the first date of the hearing along with interest and costs and the parties contested on the following issues-

(3.) Mr. Sarin, the learned counsel for the petitioner, has contended that the view taken by the appellate authority is wrong and that the authorities under the Act cannot sit over the judgment of the choice of the landlord for his requirement. In support of this contention, he has relied upon Shri Brij Lal and another v. Shri Hari Singh and others, 1975 RCR(Rent) 103 and Kotasarthi Senapati v. Katini Narayan Murti & Sons and another,1973 RCJ 26, where in it was held that the authorities under the Act cannot sit over the propriety of the choice of the landlord for his own requirement and that if the bona fide requirement of the landlord is proved, then the application is to be allowed. There is no dispute about the proposition of law as laid down in these authorities. In all these cases the landlord was not a juristic person as in the present case. In the present case, the finding of the appellate authority, is that the need of the landlord is not bona fide and the learned appellate authority has observed in para 14 of the judgment as under-