The Amritsar Decesan Trust Association Regd. vs Miss Razia Shankar Dass

J.V. Gupta, J.—This is landlord''s petition in whose favour eviction order was passed by the Rent Controller but was set aside in appeal.

Landlord is a Trust, known as The Amritsar Diocesan Trust Association. The application for ejectment was filed on behalf of the Trust to seek ejectment of its tenant Miss Razia Shankar Dass from the premises in dispute located in the premises of St. Mary''s Hospital, Tarn Taran on the allegation that the premises in dispute belong to the Trust. Eviction was sought inter alia on the ground that the premises are required for the accommodation of the staff employed in the hospital. In the written statement, it was denied that the premises are required for the hospital authorities for accommodating the staff of the hospital. Rather, it was asserred that there are six buildings in the hospital which could be used for the said purpose. Plea was also taken that the application was barred u/s 14 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act (for short the Act), because such an application filed earlier was dismissed by the authorities in the year 1979. On trial, the learned Rent Controller found that the Trust is genuinly in need of the disputed premises for accommodating the hospital staff and for further requirement of the hospital and therefore the tenant is liable to be evicted from the demised premises on this ground. Consequently, eviction order was passed. As regards objection that the application was barred because of the earlier decision, the Rent Controller found that since the earlier application had been dismissed on technical ground, was not sufficent to hold that the present eviction application was barred on the principle of res judicata, when the. Trust is genuinly in need of the disputed premises for its own needs and requirements. In appeal, the Appellate Authority reversed the said findings of the Rent Controller on the ground that necessary ingredients of Section 13(3) (a)(i) of the Act were not pleaded and consequentiy the application was not bona fide because it was never alleged that the premises are required for the use of the hospital but the only allegation was that it is required for the use of its staff members. The Appellate Authority also found that the application was barred by principle of res judicata and also u/s 14 of the Act. In view of these findings eviction order was set aside. Dissatisfied with the same, the Trust has filed this petition in this Court.

Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that it has been wrongly held that the three necessary ingredients were not pleaded by the landlord. Moreover the tenant admittedly is not in the employment of the hospital or the Trust and the premises are required for accommodating the hospital staff. Thus the requirement was most bona fide and the finding of the Rent Controller in this behalf has been reversed in appeal illegally and improperly. As regards the question of res judicata, it was submitted that earlier application was dismissed on technical ground though it was also held therein that the requirement was not bona fide but that will not stand in the way of the landlord because if it did not requite in 1979, it may require subsequently and the present application was filed after more than three years.

After hearing the learned Counsel for the parties and going through the pleadings and records I find that the landlord bona fide required the premises for accommodation of the hospital staff and the approach of the learned Rent Controller in this behalf was perfectly valid whereas the learned Appellate Authority reversed the said finding illegally and improperly. From the perusal of para 4 of the ejectment application it is quite evident that all the necessary ingredients were pleaded therein. There is evidence on the record to that effect as well. A. W. 1 Mr. Stanley Haque, Head Priest of Amritsar Dicosen Trust-landlord appeared in the witness-box and categaricaily stated that the Trust has not vacated any premises with the limits of Tarn Taran for the last about 30 years nor has not rented out any such portion during this period. That being so, the finding of the Appellate Authority was based on mis-reading of the pleadings and the evidence on the record.

It could not be disputed that the requirement of the Trust to accommodate the hospital staff within the hospital premises was most bona fide. Admittedly, the tenant is not in the employment of the Trust. Earlier, her father was in the service of the hospital. After his death, her daughter continued as tenant and did not vacate the premises in spite of many efforts. In these circumstances, she was not entitled to occupy the premises particularly when the landlord needs the same premises for accommodating the hospital staff. Consequently, the Rent Controller rightly came to the conclusion that the Trust is genuinly in need of the disputed premises for accommodating the hospital staff and for further requirement of the hospital,

As regards the dismissal of the earlier application in the year 1979, was also of no consequence, if it could be proved by the landlord that the circumstances have changed and now the requirement was bona fide. As a matter of fact, the earlier application was mainly dismissed on technical grounds though it was also observed therein that Mst. Deepo and others who were employees of the hospital were residing in their-own houses outside the hospital. That does not mean that the other employees of the hospital cannot be accommodated in the hospital. In view of these circumstances this petition succeeds, the order of the Appellate Authority is set aside and that of the Rent Controller directing ejectment of the tenant is restored, with costs. However, the tenant is allowed three months'' time to vacate the premises provided all arrears of rent, if any, are deposited with the Rent Controller within one month with a further undertaking in writing that after the expiry of the said period, vacant possession will be handed over and the rent for the said period will be paid in advance by the 10th of every month.