Judgment K.Kannan, J. 1. The tenant, who faces an order of eviction on the ground of the requirement of the landlord for their own needs for construction of a dharamshala is the revision-petitioner challenging the concurrent orders passed by the Rent Controller, Amloh and the Appellate Authority. 2. Two contentions have been taken by the learned counsel for the revision- petitioner namely (i) the petition is not maintainable since the landlord had already availed of the jurisdiction of the Commissioner for an action for recovery of the property under the provisions of the Punjab Religious Premises and Land (Eviction and Rent Recovery) Act, 1997 (hereinafter called for the Act 4 of 1998). The said Act ousts the jurisdiction of any other Court or authority and the petition for eviction before the Rent Controller is not maintainable. (ii) the personal necessity of the landlord has not been established and the necessary proof that should have to be adduced had not been tendered at all to merit acceptance of such a plea for the authorities below. 3. As regards the contention of the non-maintainability of the petition, it is admitted by both the parties that the property in dispute belongs to Shri Gurudwara Singh Sabha Sahib Virajman Guru Granth Sahib, that is under the control of Shri Shiromani Gurudwara Prabhandaka Committee. If the property belongs to religious institution, the provisions of the Act 4 of 1998 would be applicable. The learned counsel refers to the provisions of Section 12 that contains a bar in the following words :- " 12. Bar of jurisdiction - No Court shall have jurisdiction to entertain any suit or proceeding in respect of the eviction of any person who is in unauthorised occupation of any religious premises or the recovery of the arrears of rent payable under sub-section (1) of section 6 or the damages payable under sub-section (2) of that section or the costs awarded to Religious Institution under sub-section (5) of section 8 or any portion of such rent, damages costs." 4. According to the counsel for the petitioner, the institution of the petition being an admitted fact, the landlord could not have pursued the application before the Rent Controller. According to the counsel for the petitioner, the institution of the petition being an admitted fact, the landlord could not have pursued the application before the Rent Controller. The Appellate Authority dealt with the issue of jurisdiction by reference to the fact that the Act 4 of 1998 had been challenged before this Court and the provisions of the Act had also stood stayed. The Appellate Authority, therefore, observed that in view of the stay of the operation of the Act, the bar under Section 12 would not operate. It is now an admitted fact that the constitutional vires has been upheld by this Court and the stay has also been vacated. 5. The counsel for the respondent would submit he had already made a statement in Court that he was not pursuing a remedy under the Act 4 of 1998 and the said statement was also recorded by this Court on 21.01.1998 that the proceedings under the said Act would not be pressed and that the petitioner was availing of the remedy before the Rent Controller only. According to him, the provisions of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act itself have not been abrogated for the religious institution and the Act was still applicable. 6. Between the two contentions of one, saying that the Rent Control Act is ousted of its jurisdiction and the other, saying that the Rent Control Act is not abrogated by Act 4 of 1998, the answer seems to lie in the fact that the Act 4 of 1998 contemplates action for eviction against "unauthorized occupants" from the religious premises through the machinery provided in the Act for the term "unauthorized occupants" includes inter alia even a person being a lessee, by reason of the determination or cancellation of the lease granted on his behalf cease whether before or after the commencement of the Act, to be entitled to occupy or hold such religious premises. The learned counsel for the petitioner states that the tenant who continues in possession of the property beyond the term of lease shall be considered as an unauthorized person and the order of eviction will be passed only under the Act. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioner states that the tenant who continues in possession of the property beyond the term of lease shall be considered as an unauthorized person and the order of eviction will be passed only under the Act. 7. The provisions of the Act, which should be seen as really a privilege to a religious institution to short circuit the provisions of rent control legislation where some statutory protection against eviction are available for the tenant and that the landlord himself cannot obtain ejectment against the tenant except by the resort to Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act. The benefit which a landlord could claim by approaching the Authority under Act 4 of 1998, is not a benefit for the tenant. If the landlord chooses to forfeit his right and takes action for eviction only under the Rent Act treating the tenant as a statutory tenant entitled to be protected, the tenant cannot contend that he is not a tenant but only an unauthorized occupant. At least, at the time when the petition was filed, with the operation of the stay of the enforcement of the Act 4 of 1998, the landlord was perfectly justified only in filing a petition before the Rent Controller. 8. The point, if at all, could be whether a landlord would be entitled to pursue both before the Rent Controller and before the Authority constituted under the Act of 1998. I have already referred to the fact that the counsel for the petitioner has made a statement giving up his right to prosecute before the competent authority under the Act and that he was pursuing the remedy only before the Rent Controller and the Authorities constituted under the Rent Restriction Act. Section 12 could not have operated at the time when the petition was filed in view of the stay of operation of the Act, but even if the eclipse that it might have caused has been subsequently removed, still the remedy under the Act itself is not completely wiped out. The Act itself does not contain any provisions with reference to abatement of proceedings taken before the Rent Controller. Section 12 only refers to the bar of proceedings against unauthorized occupants of any religious premises. The Act itself does not contain any provisions with reference to abatement of proceedings taken before the Rent Controller. Section 12 only refers to the bar of proceedings against unauthorized occupants of any religious premises. The definition of "the person in unauthorized occupation" cannot be imported into the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, which does not treat a tenant as an unauthorized occupant and regards him only as a statutory tenant. The provisions of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act and the Act 4 of 1998 must, in my view, be so considered that the latter Act should be seen as a facilitative enactment for the benefit of the landlord against unauthorized occupants and not a piece of legislation granting any privilege to a tenant to plead that the action for ejectment must be made only by treating the tenant as an unauthorized occupant under Act 4 of 1998 and not under the Rent Control Act. The assumption of jurisdiction and the orders passed by the Authorities constituted under the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act is, therefore, upheld. 9. As regards the contention relating to the personal requirement of the landlord, the averment in the petition is that the property is necessary for construction of a big building complex raise the income for the religious institution and provide for a dharamshala. The objection on behalf of the tenant is that the building plan for such construction has not been filed in the Court nor has any sanction from Municipal Committee obtained for such an intended construction. While it would be desirable that the Court looks to such proof in normal cases as an evidence of expression of bona fides, where a private individual as a landlord could be prompted by a personal desire for making a better commercial exploitation out of his building, a religious institution that is administered and constituted under an enactment could not be treated in the same fashion. If the property was in the hands of a tenant and by the normal course proceedings before a Rent Controller, a case takes quite a length of time, it would be an empty formality to expect that the landlord ought to have applied before the Municipal Committee for sanction even before he obtained an eviction of his tenant. If the property was in the hands of a tenant and by the normal course proceedings before a Rent Controller, a case takes quite a length of time, it would be an empty formality to expect that the landlord ought to have applied before the Municipal Committee for sanction even before he obtained an eviction of his tenant. If to build a new construction an intention finds expression in the resolution of the office bearers and they had resorted to take action in the process known to law, that itself should be taken as expression of a bona fide intent for personal occupation. All the legislative parameters such as non-occupation of any other in the urban area and non-vacation of premises without reasonable cost and a definite averment regarding the purpose of eviction and the degree of need having been clearly expressed in the petition, there could be no cause to suspect the bona fides. The reasoning of the Courts below in accepting the contention of the landlord must be taken as sound enough not to be displaced by any order reserving such a decision. 10. The Civil Revision is, therefore, dismissed. No costs.