CIVIL REVISION NO. 7223 OF 2008. ::-1-::
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB
AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.
C.R. No. 7223 of 2008. [O&M]
Date of Decision: 4th August, 2009.
The Guhla Primary Agricultural Cooperative Society Ltd., Guhla
Petitioner through
Mr. Surender Dhull, Advocate
Versus
Jagdish Singh Respondent
through
Mr. Samarth Sagar, Advocate.
CORAM:
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT.
1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporters or not?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?
SURYA KANT, J. [ORAL)
This order shall dispose of Civil Revision Nos. 7223 to
7229 of 2008 as common questions of law and facts are involved in
these cases. For brevity, the facts are being extracted from CWP No.
7223 of 2008.
[2]. The petitioner is a Primary Agricultural Cooperative
Society registered under the Haryana Cooperative Societies Act,
1984. The petitioner Society is owner of seven shops, an open
verandah, office rooms, some godowns and toilets etc. constructed
near the Grain Market in Guhla town, District Kaithal. All the seven
shops have been rented out to different tenants since the year 1982-
84. One of the shop has been let out to the respondent – tenant also.
The office room along with open space continued to be occupied by
the petitioner Society, whereas another part of the building was given
CIVIL REVISION NO. 7223 OF 2008. ::-2-::
on rent to a Private School.
[3]. The petitioner Society filed an eviction petition against the
respondent-tenant under Section 13 of the Haryana Urban [Control of
Rent and Eviction] Act, 1973, inter-alia, on the grounds that – [i] the
demised premises is required by the petitioner Society for its own
use and occupation; and [ii] the shop is in a dilapidated condition and
is unfit and unsafe for human habitation.
[4]. In order to substantiate the first plea that the premises is
required by the Society for its personal use and occupation, it was
averred in the eviction petition that six other Primary Agricultural
Cooperative Societies, namely, Agonda, Shiv Majra, Kasaur,
Kharodi, Mahamudpur and Majri have been amalgamated with the
petitioner Society and as a result thereto, its business activities have
increased manifolds, requiring additional accommodation for “its
office, godowns for members and day to day needs and other
requirements attached with the Society”. In support of the second
plea, the petitioner pleaded that “the walls and flooring have been
damaged with the water and have no strength to bear the burden of
roof/shop and the shop has become unfit and unsafe for human
habitation”.
[5]. The respondent – tenant controverted both the grounds
and asserted that the shop is in good condition and is fit for doing the
business activities and that the petitioner Society has more than
1500 square yard open space available with it where it could
construct more shops/building, if so required by it for the increased
business activities. It was further explained that the petitioner Society
CIVIL REVISION NO. 7223 OF 2008. ::-3-::
has rented out three rooms and a verandah to a private school and
had there been a bona-fide necessity, it would not have let out that
part of the premises to the school. The respondent further averred
that the office bearers of the petitioner Society in fact tried to forcibly
dispossess him, due to which he had to file a civil suit for Permanent
Injunction.
[6]. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the Rent
Controller framed the issues (i) as to whether the petitioner Society
bona-fidely requires the tenanted premises for its personal
necessity? and (ii) whether the tenanted premises is in dilapidated
condition and requires reconstruction? The other ancillary issues
were also framed. The petitioner Society produced its Cashier and
Chief Executive Officer [AW2 and AW3] and one Draftsman [AW1] in
its oral evidence. It also produced on record a site plan [Ex.A1], two
resolutions dated 12.2.2007 and 6.4.2007 [Ex.A2 and A3], a letter
dated 21.8.2006 of the Assistant Registrar, Cooperative Societies,
Kaithal [Ex.A4] and certified copy of the plaint in Civil Suit No. 92 of
2007 [Ex.A5] and closed its evidence. The respondent – tenant also
produced one Draftsman [RW1] and himself stepped into the witness
box [RW2]. He also produced the documentary evidence consisting
of Jamabandi for the year 2002-03 [Ex.R1] and Site Plan [Ex.R2].
[7]. On consideration of the evidence on record, the Rent
Controller, rejected the first plea of the petitioner Society it requires
the premises for its personal use and occupation after observing that
there is sufficient accommodation available with the Society
inasmuch as three rooms and Verandah which were earlier rented
CIVIL REVISION NO. 7223 OF 2008. ::-4-::
out to Mount Carmel School have now been got vacated and that
“there is more than sufficient open space in possession of the
petitioner Society whereupon construction can be raised by it for
running its business”. The Rent Controller further observed that no
evidence has been led to prove the increase in its business or other
activities due to amalgamation of seven different Cooperative
Societies and that the site plan [Ex.A1] produced by the petitioner
Society does not reflect the entire property owned and possessed by
it. The Rent Controller also turned down the plea that the premises
has become unfit and unsafe for human habitation after observing
that only vague allegations have been made and there is no
corroborative and credible evidence to substantiate that plea. The
eviction petition was accordingly dismissed.
[8]. The petitioner Society preferred an appeal which too met
with the same fate and has been dismissed by the Appellate
Authority vide its impugned judgment dated 9.9.2008.
[9]. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at some
length and perused the impugned orders as well as the record. In
my considered view, no error of jurisdiction has been committed by
the courts below in dismissing the eviction petition, warranting any
interference by this Court. I say so for the reason that the plea of the
petitioner Society regarding its personal necessity was founded up
on the fact that with the amalgamation of seven other Cooperative
Societies, the business and other activities of the Society have
multiplied. No evidence whatsoever except the oral statement of the
office bearers of the Society, has been led in support of that plea.
CIVIL REVISION NO. 7223 OF 2008. ::-5-::
The petitioner Society ought to have proved as to what were its
business activities before and after the amalgamation and how the
existing space has now fallen short. It ought to have proved the
increase in business activities like, storage space for fertilizers,
seeds, agricultural equipments and other allied activities. Suffice it to
say that mere amalgamation of seven Societies into one and
consequential increase in the membership of the Society does not
per-se require more space as the names of the members are to be
entered in the Society’s Membership Register only. However, the
Rent Controller does not appear to be right in observing that since
there is additional open space available with the Society, it could
raise construction thereupon. No tenant has a right to dictate the
landlord that instead of seeking eviction, the landlord should raise
fresh construction to meet his requirement.
[10]. Similarly, the evidence led by the petitioner Society in
support of the second plea that the premises has become unfit and
unsafe for human habitation, falls short of proving that plea. No
building expert of credibility has been produced nor the photographs
or any other material has been brought on record to establish that the
building has outlived its utility or is now unsafe or unfit for human
habitation. The bald statement made by the officials of the Society
can not be accepted.
[11]. For the reasons afore-stated, no interference with the
impugned orders is called for and the revision petition is accordingly
dismissed.
[12] Faced with this, learned counsel for the petitioner pleaded
CIVIL REVISION NO. 7223 OF 2008. ::-6-::
for the remand of the case to enable the petitioner – Society to lead
additional evidence. No such plea can, however, be entertained at
this stage. Suffice it to observe that the principle of res-judicata is not
attracted stricto-senso to the eviction proceedings based upon plea
of personal necessity of a landlord, if the afresh such proceedings
are based upon changed circumstances. In other words, it is open to
the landlord to file a fresh petition provided that the later events
justify the requirement of additional accommodation. In this view of
the matter, the Society shall be at liberty to file a fresh petition, if so
required, to prove that during the pendency of the eviction
proceedings, the circumstances have changed and keeping in view
the later events, it requires the tenanted premises for its personal
use and occupation. Needless to say that the tenant shall always be
at liberty to refute such plea and prove otherwise.
[13]. No costs. August 04, 2009. ( SURYA KANT ) dinesh JUDGE