Punjab-Haryana High Court
Major Ram Singh (Retd.) vs Saint Soldiers International School ... on 18 September, 1992
Equivalent citations: (1993)103PLR114
JUDGMENT V.K. Jhanji, J.
1. This is landlord's revision directed against the order of the Appellate Authority by which the appeal of the tenant was allowed and the order of the Rent Controller ordering ejectment of the tenant was set aside.
2. Ejectment of the respondent was sought on the ground that the respondents have changed user of the demised premises inasmuch as the premises which were let out for residential purpose, have been used for the purpose of running of school; (ii) the respondents, by constructing roofless block of three latrines, have materially impaired the value and utility of the premises; and (iii) that the premises were required for the personal necessity as well as for use and occupation of his family which consists of two married sons and their families; one married daughter with two sons; one son of another daughter. The accommodation in their possession was stated to be not sufficient.
3. The petition was contested by the respondents, who, in their written statement, denied that the premises in dispute were let out to them exclusively for residential purposes. Rather, the same were let oat for carrying out activities of school viz boarding and lodging etc. The ground of impairment of the value and utility of the demised premises as well as personal requirement of the premises for the use and occupation of the petitioner and his family, were also denied.
4. The Rest Controller, on appreciation of the evidence on record, ordered ejectment of the tenant. on the ground of change of user, other grounds did not find favour with the Rent Controller. On appeal by the tenant,, the Appellate Authority set aside the order of the Rent Controller and, in consequence, the ejectment petition was dismissed. This order is being challenged here in this civil revision.
5. Mr. H.L. Sarin, Senior Advocate, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the building in dispute is a residential one and was let out to the respondents, for residential purposes i.e. for the residence of the students and staff of the school but the respondents have started a school in the building and that being so, respondents are liable to be ejected on the ground of change of user. He also submitted that the finding of the Appellate Authority that since the teaching work is so closely and intimately connected with the provision of hostel accommodation to the students, both activities can legitimately and justiably be described as allied business, is erroneous.
6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents, Mr. Arun Jain, Advocate, submitted that there is no evidence on record to show that the building was let out for residential purposes. He maintained that the order of the Appellate Authority is well reasoned and calls for no interference.
7. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the view that this civil revision deserves to succeed.
8. When the building was let out, a lease agreement was entered into between the parties. The lease deed is marked 'A' and the purpose for which the building was let out has been shown to be residential therein. It is true that this document cannot be read into evidence as the same is not a registered one but apart from this document there is voluminous evidence on record to show that the building was let out for the residential purpose. Though in the written statement, the respondents have stated that the building was let out for non-residential purpose i.e, for the activities of the school which would also include boarding, lodging, schooling etc. However, PW-4, Chairman of the respondent-society, Shri Gurdev Singh, admitted in his statement when appeared as PW-4, that the building was taken on rent for the hostel of the school to accommodate the students and the teachers He also admitted that the hostliers of the school used to say in this building and used to take their teaching work in Kothi No. 76, Sector 19-A, Chandigarh, so long as the school functioned there and after that they started attending classes in House No. 3054, Sector 19-D Chandigarh. RW-8, Sudesh Chaudhry, who is Principal of the school, also admitted that the school was being run in House No. 76, Sector 19-A, Chandigarh upto October, 1984 and thereafter it was shifted to House No. 3054, Sector 19-D, Chandigarh. She further admitted that in July, 1987, the school was shifted to House No. 3037, Sector 19-D Chandigarh.
9. The statement of the witnesses produced by the respondent-society clearly proves that initially the building was being used for the purpose of hostel and later on, the purpose was changed from hostel to running of school. RW-8, Sudesh Chaudhry, Principal, in her statement maintained that the school is not being run in this building but the building is being used only for the purpose of hostel. This statement cannot be accepted in presence of the report of the Local Commissioner. The Rent Controller, vide order dated 14.1.1985, appointed Shri S. P. Chatwal, Advocate as Local Commissioner in order to find oat whether the premises are being used for school and whether there existed open latrines in the said premises, as alleged by the landlord. The Local Commissioner firstly went to the premises on 15.1.1985 but on enquiry, was told that the Principal of the school was on leave for a few days. He went to the school again on 19.1.1985 when he met Mrs. Chaudhry, Principal of the School Initially she refused to accept the notice but on persuasion, she allowed him to inspect the premises. In his report, Ex. AX, the Local Commissioner has stated that at the time when he went to inspect the site school prayers were going on in the back courtyard. He along with the Principal inspected the entire building i. e. the rooms on the ground floor as well as first floor and on inspection, he found that in different rooms, classes were being held and the school was being run there At that time a class was also being run in the back courtyard. Garage of said building was also being used for the class room purposes. One room was being used for the office and the remaining rooms were flooded with chairs and benches. Mrs. Chaudhry, Principal of the School told the Local Commissioner that there were nearly 200 students and 10 teachers. The Local Commissioner also found three open and pucca latrines near the main bath room in the back courtyard. Three sign boards bearing 'Saint Soldiers International School (Recognised)" were fixed on the walls towards the front side and back side of the building. No objection whatsoever was filed against this report by the respondents. Mr. Jain has not been able to point out from the record as to how the report is not correct. The report of the Local Commissioner clearly indicates that at present school is being run in the building and the same is not being used for the purposes of hostel as stated by the Principal. Mr. Jain made a reference to the statement of RW-1, Kanshi Ram, Sub-Inspector, Food and Supply in order to show that the ration-card for 78 adult members was renewed in April, 1987 and continues to be valid till today. This statement only proves that ration card was renewed in April, 1987 and continues to be valid but this does not show whether the ration is being drawn for the students and teachers, alleged to be residing in this building. There is no evidence on record to show that at present the building is being used for the purpose of hostel.
10. On perusal of the entire evidence including the statements of the witnesses which I have gone through with the help of learned counsel for the parties, I find that the building was let out for the purpose of hostel of the school when the school was being run in House No. 76, Sector 19-A, Chandigarh. The said house was vacated by the respondents in pursuance of an order of Competent Court. Thereafter, the respondents shifted to House No. 3054, Sector 19-D, Chandigarh. After running the school in House No. 3054, Sector 19-D, Chandigarh for some time, the same was shifted to House No 3037, Sector 19-D, Chandigarh in July, 1987 as stated by the Principal of the School. After some time, the respondents shifted the school to the premises in dispute and started using the building for the purpose of running the school. Landlord, on coming to know about the change of user, filed petition for ejectment of the respondents. I am also not in agreement with the reasoning adopted by the Appellate Authority that teaching was closely and intimately connected with the provision of hostel accommodation of the school and both the activities can legitimately be described as allied. The activities which the respondents are carrying on is running and maintaining the school by engaging teachers as also some of the ministerial staff to carry on the school and by carrying on teaching, it is doing business. The expression 'business' or 'trade' in Section 2(d) of the Act is not limited to an activity as is carried on in a shop The definition of non-residential building' applies to a building whether shop or otherwise which is used solely for the purpose of trade or business. The word business' is of a much wider connotation and so the activity or running the school would certainly fall within the meaning of expression 'business' as defined in Section 2(d) of the Act. The respondents who took the building for residential building, have changed user of the premises by running the school in it and they are liable to be ejected on the ground of change of user.
11. For the reasons recorded above, this Civil Revision is allowed, the order of the Appellate Authority is set aside and that of the Rent Controller is restored with costs. However, respondents are allowed three months' time to vacate the demised premises provided they pay/deposit the entire arrears of rent including that of three months, with the Rent Controller, within a period of one month from today and also file an undertaking to the effect that on the expiry of the said period, they shall hand over the vacant possession to the petitioner. The undertaking shall also be filed within one month from to day.