The authority of the petitioner and the grounds for ejectment must be established, and previous decisions regarding registration and authorization can influence the court's decision.

V.K.Jhanji, J.

1. This is landlords revision petition. Chatar Bhuj Lila Wati Trust (petitioner herein) through its Clerk, Sh. Dharam Pal, filed an ejectment petition against the respondent on the grounds of non-payment of rent, impairment of value and utility of the premises, premises having become unsafe and unfit for human habitation, and for the personal requirement of the petitioner which is running a hospital in the adjoining building. The ejectment was also sought on the ground that the premises have been sublet by the tenant to respondent No. 2.

2. The ejectment petition was contested by the respondents, who in their written statement denied the allegations as contained in the ejectment petition. It was stated that the said petition had not been filed by a duly authorised person.

3. The Rent Controller on the basis of evidence brought on record, passed an order of ejectment against the respondent after finding that the building has become unfit and unsafe for habitation and also that the premises are required for personal use of the petitioner. The objection of the respondents that the ejectment petition is not maintainable because the same had not been filed by a duly authorised person, was not accepted by the Rent Controller. On appeal, the Appellate Authority though affirmed the finding of the Rent Controller on the grounds of building having become unfit and unsafe for human habitation, and personal necessity, yet dismissed the ejectment petition only on the ground that the petitioner-Trust has failed to establish that it is a registered body under the Societies Registration Act, 1860, and that Dharam Pal was a duly authorised person to institute the proceedings. The landlord has now preferred the present revision petition whereby the order passed by the Appellate Authority has been impugned.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has pointed out that in another ejectment petition filed by the same petitioner-Trust against some other tenants, a similar finding recorded by the Appellate Authority was set aside by this Court in Chater Bhuj Leelawati Trust v. Shakuntla, 1992(1) RCR 425, Civil Revision No. 927 of 1991 on 13.12.1991, and therefore, the finding of the Appellate Authority in this case is also liable to be setaside in view of that decision. Learned counsel for the respondents has not been able to point out as to how the said decision is distinguishable from the facts of this case. In Civil Revision No. 927 of 1991, this Court not only found that the petitioner-Trust was registered as a Society with the Registrar of Firms and Societies, Haryana, Chandigarh, but also found that Dharam Pal was duly authorised by the petitioner-Trust to file ejectment petition. The contention of learned counsel for the respondents that though copy of certificate of registration of Society vide which, the petitioner Trust was registered as a Society with the Registrar of Firms and Societies, Haryana, Chandigarh, as well as Memorandum and Articles of Association have been placed on record, yet the same have not been exhibited, is of no consequence in view of the decision in C.R. No. 927 of 1991.

5. No other point was urged by the learned counsel for the respondents.

6. Consequently, the revision petition is allowed and the order of the Appellate Authority is set aside. However, the respondents are allowed three months time to vacate the premises.