AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Alok Singh, J.—Since in all the three revision petitions i.e. C.R. Nos. 6377 of 2008, 4558 of 2004 and 2450 of 2005, the identical questions are involved, hence, with the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties, all the petitions are being disposed of with this common judgment.
Landlord has filed three eviction petitions before the learned Rent Controller, Sonepat, u/s 13 of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction), Act, 1973, on the ground that school the registered society is the landlord and now requirement of the school has increased manifolds and tenanted premises are required by the school for its own use and occupation. The Director of Secondary Education, Haryana, Chandigarh has also felt shortage of the accommodation in the school and directed for providing at least minimum required facilities to the students and the staff by having additional accommodation for the same. It is also contended by the landlord that after getting vacated the demised premises from the tenants, the same was used for library room, staff room, Bio-Lab, Computer Rooms etc. In Civil Revision Nos. 6377 of 2008 and 4558 of 2004, eviction petitions were allowed by the impugned orders; while in Civil Revision No. 2450 of 2005, eviction petition filed by the landlord was rejected.
Learned Counsel for the tenant vehemently argued that school has absolutely no need of the demised shops for the purpose of setting of library room, staff room, Bio-Lab, Computer Rooms etc. He further argued that the intention of the landlord is not to occupy the demised premises for the use and occupation of the school as alleged, but real intention is to sell the property. It is further averted by the learned Counsel for the tenant that initially there were 14 shops and school has sold 7 shops, hence, alleged need of the landlord is merely a desire and cannot be said to be bona fide need.
Learned Counsel for the respondent(s) stated that no shop was sold by the school after letting shops in question to the tenants. It is further argued by the learned Counsel for the landlord that the shops in question are suitable for the school to set up library room, staff room, Bio-Lab, Computer Rooms etc. Not only this, even the Education Department is asking the school to provide minimum required facility to the staff and the students.
There is no dispute that in the adjacent building, school is being run. This is also not in dispute that Education Department has desired the school to provide the minimum required facilities to the staff and the students. Now question comes if school has sold certain properties in past would it make the school disentitle to get the demised premises vacated on the ground of personal use and occupation as alleged.
In the opinion of this Court, merely because some of the shops were sold by the Society to meet out the expenses of the school does not make the school disentitle to seek eviction of the present tenants from the demised premises on the ground that now need of the infrastructure has increased manifolds and Education Department is pressing hard to provide minimum required facilities to the staff and the students.
In view of the above, no interference is called for in Civil Revision Nos. 6377 of 2008 and 4558 of 2004, hence, are dismissed. However, in view of the finding recorded herein above, Civil Revision No. 2450 of 2005 is allowed. However, in the interest of justice, two months'' time is granted to the tenants to handover peaceful vacant possession to the landlord.
A photocopy of this order be placed on the files of the connected matters.