The main legal point established in the judgment is the validity of the ejectment application filed by the authorized person on behalf of the petitioner-trust, based on the provisions of the Memorandum of Association empowering specific individuals to sue in the names of the Society.

V.K.Jhanji, J.

1. This civil revision has been directed against the order of the authorities below dismissing the ejectment application filed by the landlord.

2. Petitioner-landlord is a Trust and Shri Dharma Pal, Clerk of the Trust was authorised to file ejectment application against tenant, namely, Dev Raj from the premises in dispute. The ejectment of the tenant was sought on the ground of non payment of rent, impairment of value and utility of the demised premises, unsafe and unfit condition of the building and for personal requirement of the Trust who is running a hospital in the adjacent building.

3. Tenant within the time prescribed under the law, tendered the arrears of rent. The ground of non payment of rent was thus given up.

4. The application was contested by the respondent who in his written statement stated that the ejectment application has not been filed by duly authorised person. The remaining allegation contained in the ejectment application were also denied.

5. The learned Rent Controller, on the appreciation of the entire evidence on the record, came to the conclusion that the petitioner has failed to establish that the tenant has materially impaired the value and utility of the premises in dispute. He also found that the building has become unsafe and unfit for human habitation and the premises in dispute are required for the personal use of the petitioner trust for the purposes of expansion of hospital and construction of staff quarters etc. However, the application was dismissed solely on the ground that the petitioner being a registered public trust, the ejectment application has not been brought by all the trustees or one of the trustees empowered by all the other trustees. Petitioner preferred appeal before the appellate authority who affirmed the findings of the learned Rent Controller. Petitioner has impugned the orders of the authorities below in the present revision. During (sic) application had to be filed by all the trustees or one of the trustees authorised by all other trustees, is not sustainable in view of the documents, Ex. P 8 (copy of the resolution passed by the petitioner trust authorising Dharam Pal to file ejectment application against the tenant), Ex. P.9 (copy of certificate of registration of Society vide which the trust was registered as a Society with the Registrar of Firms and Societies, haryana, Chandigarh) and Ex.P.10 (Memorandum and Articles of Association of the trust). Clasue 6 of the Memorandum of Association (Ex.P.10) provides that the Society can sue in its corporate name through its President or Secretary or any other person authorised by them. In the present case, there is nothing on the record to show that the petitioner is a public trust. A bar perusal or Ex.P.9 and Ex.P.10 shows that the petitioner is Society registered under the Societies Registration Act. Clause 6 of the Memorandum of Association empowers the President, Secretary or any other person duly authorised by them to sue in the names of the Society. Dharm pal Clerk has duly been authorised by the petitioner trust to file ejectment application against the tenant and thus a i am of the considered view that the ejectment application was validly filed by Dharm Pal Clerk on behalf of the petitioner-trust.

6. Counsel for the respondent has not challenged the findings of the authorities below with regard to the building having become unsafe and unfit for human habitation as well as the premises in dispute being required by the petitioner for its own requirement.

7. As a result thereof, this civil revision is allowed and the orders of the authorities below are set aside. Taking into consideration that the respondent is a widow having eight minor children, six months time is granted to vacate the premises provided an undertaking is filed within three months from today before the learned Rent Controller that after the expiry of period of six months, vacant possession of the premises in dispute shall be hand