Punjab-Haryana High Court
The Kali Bari Mandir Committee, Through ... vs Shri Bhim Raj And Anr. on 18 December, 2002
Equivalent citations: (2002)133PLR527
Author: J.S. Khehar
Bench: J.S. Khehar
JUDGMENT J.S. Khehar, J.
1. The Kali Bari Mandir Committee, Ferozepur Cantt., i.e. the petitioner-landlord sought eviction of Bhim Raj, the respondent-tenant, by filing an ejectment application under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949, on the ground of non-payment of rent, by alleging that the rent had not been paid for the period from 1.1.1983 to 31.4.1983; on the ground of subletting, by alleging that the respondent-tenant Bhim Raj had sublet the premises to Radhey Sham; on the ground of having effected authorised alterations in the premises by alleging that the alterations had impaired the value and utility of the premises; and on the ground of personal necessity by alleging that the premises were required for the temple Pujari as well as for the visiting sadhus and mahatmas during festivities and celebrations.
2. The Rent Controller dismissed the ejectment application filed by the petitioner-landlord on 10.6.1985. Aggrieved with the order passed by the Rent Controller, the petitioner-landlord challenged the order of the Rent Controller by filing an appeal. The Appellate Authority concurred with the Rent Controller while dismissing the appeal on 12.1.1987. Dissatisfied with the orders passed by the Rent Controller as well as the Appellate Authority, the Kali Bari Mandir Committee, Ferozepur Cantt, has filed the instant petition.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has pressed only one ground for eviction i.e. that the premises in question is required for housing the temple Pujari and for housing visiting Sadhus and Mahants. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner-landlord that the Rent Controller as well as the Appellate Authority erred in recording a finding against the petitioner-landlord on the issue of personal necessity. Learned counsel for the petitioner-landlord has invited the attention of this Court to the observations made by he Rent Controller in paragraph 10 of the order dated 10.6.1985 dealing with the aforesaid ground, wherein the Rent Controller observed as under:-
"..........As pointed out by Sh, Kakkar the site plan Ex.A1 coupled with the admission of the various witnesses of the petitioner Mandir showed that as many as six residential tenanted portion existed in the immediate vicinity of the Mandir or the shrine where Puja was held because of which normally any or all of those portions would obviously be more suitable for the residence of the Pujari as well as for accommodating the saints visiting the shrine from time to time."
Referring to the order passed by the Appellate Authority, learned counsel for the petitioner-landlord, has invited the attention of this Court to the observations made by the Appellate Authority in paragraph 5 of the order passed by the Appellate Authority, dated 12.1.1987, wherein while deciding the issue in favour of the respondent-tenant, the Appellate Authority came to be persuaded, on account of two reasons recorded therein for affirming the order of the Rent Controller on the ground of personal necessity; namely, the rooms in occupation of other tenants adjacent to the Mandir would be more suitable for the residence of the Pujari as well as the residence of sadhus and mahatmas visiting the temple and secondly, that the Pujari required only one room to live comfortably whereas the premises in occupation of the respondent- tenant comprises of 4 rooms. In this behalf, it was also noticed by the Appellate Authority that there was no evidence on the basis of which a conclusion could be drawn that sadhus and mahatmas while visiting the temple, stay therein, during the course of festivities and celebrations.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner-landlord has assailed the determination of the Courts below by vehemently contending that the landlord himself is the best judge of his requirements. Neither the tenant, nor the Courts determining the issue can interfere in the said discretion of the landlord. In this behalf reliance has been placed on the decision rendered by the Apex Court in Ragavendra Kumar v. Firm Prem Machinary & Co., A.I.R. 2000 S.C. 534, wherein the Apex Court reiterated the legal position as recorded by it earlier in Smt. Prativa Devi v. T.V. Krishnan, (1996)5 S.C.C. 353, by observing as under :-
"The learned Single Judge of the High Court while formulating first substantial question of law proceeded on the basis that the plaintiff-landlord admitted that there were number of plots, shops and houses in his possession. We have been taken through the judgments of the Court below and we do not find any such admission. It is true that the plaintiff-landlord in his evidence stated that there were number of other shops and houses belonging to him but he made a categorical statement that his said houses and shops were not vacant and that suit premises is suitable for his business purpose. It is s settled position of law that the landlord is best judge of his requirement for residential or business purpose and he has got complete freedom in the matter (See Prativa Devi (Smt) v. T.V. Krishnan, (1996)5 S.C.C. 3531. In the case in hand the plaintiff landlord wanted eviction of the tenant from the suit premises for starting his business as it was suitable and it cannot be faulted."
Reference has also been made to the decision rendered by the Supreme Court in Mrs. Meenal Eknath Kshirsagar v. Traders and Agencies and Anr., J.T. 1996(6) S.C. 468, wherein also the Apex Court observed that the landlord was the best judge to determine his requirements and ever if some alternative accommodation is available, it is not open to the tenant to suggest that the alternative accommodation would be more suitable to the landlord.
6. In order to rebut the contentions advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. S.C. Pathela, representing the respondent-tenant vehemently reiterated the logic expressed in the orders passed by the Rent Controller as well as the Appellate Authority, while rejecting the claim of the petitioner-Mandir, on the ground of personal necessity.
7. It is not a matter of dispute that the Kali Bari Mandir comprises of the Mandir portion as well as the rooms surrounding the Mandir. The site plans placed on the record of the Rent Controller by the parties in the nature of Exhibits disclose that the Mandir is surrounded by a large number of rooms. The rented premises which comprises of 4 rooms also surrounds the Mandir. Learned counsel for the petitioner-landlord has invited the attention of this Court to the fact that there are no vacant rooms available, inasmuch as all the other rooms within the Mandir complex are in occupation of different tenants. In addition, learned counsel for the petitioner-landlord had drawn the attention of the Court to the store in which the present Pujari has been accommodated since there is no suitable room which can be assigned to him. The said Pujari while appearing as a witness has categorically affirmed that the accommodation in his possession is insufficient since it comprises of a small store room without any other amenities. During the course of his statement, the Pujari had also asserted that on account of insufficient accommodation, he has to sleep in the open Court-yard. The Secretary of the Kali Bari Mandir Committee, while appearing as a witness, affirmed the factual position expressed by the Pujari. In the facts and circumstances noticed above, there can be no escape from the conclusion that the petitioner-landlord actually requires reasonable accommodation for the residence of the temple Pujari. But the question to the considered is whether 4 rooms in possession of the respondent-tenant can be got vacated for the temple Pujari. Insofar as the aforesaid question is concerned, the case of the petitioner-landlord is that the rooms are not only required for the temple Pujari but also required for the sadhus and mahatmas who come to stay at the temple during festivities and celebrations. The Appellate Authority has noticed that no evidence had been produced, at the hands of the petitioner-landlord, in order to arrive at the conclusion that sadhus and mahatmas visit the temple and reside therein during festivities and celebrations. It is not possible for me to accept the contention of the learned counsel for the respondent-tenant as also the observations of the Appellate Authority. It s a matter of common knowledge that in this country sadhus and mahatmas during the course of their travels ordinarily stay in mandirs. Setting apart the rooms in mandirs to accommodate the travelling sadhus and mahatmas is a matter of normal course. It is also a matter of common knowledge that sadhus and mahatmas are accommodated in mandirs during festivities and celebrations, specially for participating in the rituals and the religious ceremonies. Independent evidence need not be produced in respect of well established practices/norms. In such circumstance, I find no justification in the Appellate Court in declining to accept the statement of the Pujari and the Secretary of the Mandir asserting that sadhus and mahatmas come to live in the Mandir. It is also abundantly clear from the decision of the Apex Court, relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner, mat neither the tenant nor the Courts can interfere in the discretion of choice of the landlord. Undoubtedly, the landlord is the best judge to determine his requirement. In the present case, no amenities are available to the temple Pujari in the small store room where he is presently accommodated. I am satisfied, from the site plans placed on the record that, to temple Pujari as well as the visiting sadhus and mahatmas will have adequate residential facilities with appropriate amenities in case the premises in possession of the respondent-tenant is available with the petitioner-temple. Thus viewed, T am satisfied that the Courts below erred on both counts while adjudicating upon the controversy in respect of the ground of personal necessity.
8. For the reasons recorded above, the instant petition is allowed. The orders passed by the Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority are set aside. The respondent-tenant Bhim Raj is directed to vacate the premises in his possession and hand over vacant pos session thereof to the petitioner-landlord within three months from today.