KASHMIRI LAL Vs. ARYA SAMAJ MANDIR SUBATHU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Respondent-landlord, namely, Arya Smaj Mandir, Subathu, through its President, sought the petitioner's eviction from a residential set comprising one room, kitchen, varandaha, latrine and bathroom located in the ground floor of House No. 337, Chowk Bazar, Subathu on two grounds : non-payment of arrears of rent and the same being required by it for its own use as accommodation for school and office. The arrears of rent were tendered on the first date of hearing and as such the first ground did not survive. In respect of the second ground, the Rent Controller found that the premises were, in fact, required bona fide by the respondent for running a school and on that basis an order of eviction against the petitioner was passed. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner preferred an appeal, which was also dismissed by the Appellate Authority. These two orders, passed on 9/06/1988 and 11/01/1990, respectively, by the Rent Controller, Solan and Appellate Authority, Solan, are under challenge in this revision petition at the behest of the tenant.

(2.) The petitioner's sole contention is that the ground on which his eviction was sought is not available to the respondent, since such requirement for running a school cannot be said to be a reasonable and bona fide one. It has been urged that eviction of a tenant on the ground of use and occupation can be sought by a landlord under the provisions of Himachal Pradesh Urban Rent Control Act, 1987 (Act No. 25 of 1987) (hereinafter to be called as "the Act"), from a residential building only and as such the requirement in order to be bona fide must be for a residential purpose. There being a prohibition under the Act for converting the use of a building from residential into non-residential one, except with e the permission in writing of the Controller, and any unauthorised conversion has been made punishable under S. 30 of the Act, the running of a school being a non-residential purpose, the order for eviction cannot be sustained. The submission on behalf of the respondent is that the landlord in this case being a juristic entity, the words 'use and occupation' have to be construed liberally and opening of a school by a juristic landlord would be a sufficient ground to seek eviction. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also gone through the record.

(3.) The protection, which has been provided under S. 14 of the Act to a tenant is against eviction from a building or rented land except in execution of a decree passed before or after the commencement of the Act, in accordance with the provisions of the Act.