Tilok Tirath Vidyavati Chhuttani Charitable Trust vs Janak Raj Ahuja

K. Kannan, J.—The petition is filed challenging the orders dismissing the landlord''s petition for eviction on the ground of personal need of the petitioner for expansion of the hospital. In the course of trial, the petitioner gave out details of the plan for expansion by giving evidence to the effect that they were planning to set up a CT scan and MRI unit and that place would be necessary for such use. The petition was contested by the tenant among other grounds denying the maintainability of the petition without appropriate resolution of the Board of Trustees and it was further contended that during the pendency of the proceedings itself, yet another shop in the same building complex had fallen vacant and the said property that fell vacant had been let out again on rent for chemist shop. This was pointed out in the context of availability of a vacant space as an event taking place during the pendency of the proceedings and to undermine the plea of bona fide as set forth in the petition. The petition was dismissed by the Rent Controller acceding to the defence and in the appeal, the appellate authority had rendered the judgment setting out several circumstances as to how the test of bona fides had not been fulfilled by the landlord. The appellate Court has set out reasons and particularly, with reference to the fact that the minimum requirement of setting out the actual purpose for which the property was sought had not been stated in the petition. The appellate authority had observed that if the landlord was asking for expansion of the hospital, it ought to have been stated as a necessary pleading, the nature of such expansion. The evidence which was given that the property was necessary for setting up a CT scan and MRI unit ought to have been a part of the pleading itself. The Court also observed that even action preparatory to establishing such unit had not been taken by eliciting information about the likely suppliers or the cost for establishing the unit. The appellate authority had also observed that there ought to have been even an elaborate plan apart from rough plan filed before the Court setting out the optimal use of the premises in the hands of the tenant that would be utilized for location of the MRI unit.

The learned counsel for the landlord would contend that if the property itself had not been taken possession of, it would not have been possible for the landlord to have any detailed plan of locating the machineries. Again without securing ejectment, engaging in any transaction on purchase of costly machineries would not arise. If the petitioner had set out a general requirement of expansion in business that ought to itself be sufficient for sustaining the petition and it ought to be merely a matter of evidence of the particular need which was available on record by the witnesses speaking about the nature of expansion that was being contemplated. The learned counsel would also point out that the fact that the landlord had utilized yet another portion of the property that fell vacant for letting out to a chemist shop was found by the appellate authority as inconsequential and it was actually setting aside the finding of the trial Court.

The matter is in revision and I do not feel persuaded to take a different view than how the matter has been dealt with by the appellate authority. When a landlord seeks for ejectment for his personal need and landlord takes action against several tenants for expansion of a hospital, it ought to be supported by appropriate pleadings. Any objective criterion that could be applied could only be anchored on pleadings and it cannot be merely an aspect that could be dilated in the course of proceedings through evidence. The tenant needs to know what is the exact need of the landlord and so too, the Court that it enters an adjudication on the evidence that are properly rooted to the pleadings. In a summary proceeding, such as in rent control matters, the Courts have been reasonably lenient in allowing for a broad framework to be placed in the petition and allow for parties to give out the details in the course of evidence. This is only a general principle, but I will not find this to be at all times applicable and more particularly in a situation where landlord seeks an ejectment on a personal need. If there were several tenants in occupation and the landlord was taking action in ejectment against some of the tenants, the expansion of activity of the landlord that would involve a landlord in investment of crores of rupees for establishing a MRI unit or CT scan unit cannot be tested in its bona fides without appropriate evidence regarding preparations for such use, the resources for such investment and the detailed planning that it might involve. All these aspects do not merely require pleadings but they also lack evidence, as the lower appellate authority has correctly observed. The appellate authority had still provided a fresh scope for establishing its need if a detailed planning is made and the Trust is able to spell out a proper blueprint for its expansional needs. This ought to serve the landlord enough and there is no scope to modify the directions already given or to allow for reappraisal of the findings rendered by the appellate authority. The decision of the lower appellate Court is confirmed and the revision petition is dismissed.