JUDGMENT Dr. Bharat Bhushan Parsoon, J.: - By way of this revision petition, orders dated 15.11.2012 of the Rent Controller, Samana allowing the eviction petition under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act [for short, “the Act”] interalia on the ground of personal necessity, and order dated 26.7.2013 of the Appellate Authority, whereby appeal of the petitioner-tenant has been dismissed, have been challenged. Since finding on facts had concurrently been recorded against the petitioner-tenant, he has put forth a legal plea that the respondent-landlord was not competent to file the petition for ejectment. It was also claimed that the respondent-Landlord, a Trust, was not a registered one. 2. Landlord, Ram Vichar Vatika @ Trimurti Guru Mandir had filed a petition under Section 13 of the Act against the petitioner tenant, Vir Bhan for his eviction on the grounds of material additions and alterations made by him in the demised premises which allegedly impaired the value and utility of the premises as also on the ground of personal bona- -fide necessity. Both the grounds taken by the landlord for eviction of the petitioner-tenant were questioned by the tenant alleging their nonexistence. 3. Sequelly, following issues were framed by the Rent Controller for adjudication :- “1. Whether the petitioner is entitled for ejectment of the respondent from demised premises on the ground of bonafide personal necessity? OPA 2. Whether respondent has made material additions and alterations in the demised premises, if so its effect? OPA 3. Relief.” 4. Appreciating oral as well as documentary evidence produced by both the parties, the Rent Controller adjudicating issue No.1 in favour of the landlord and issue No. 2 in favour of the tenant, ordered eviction of the tenant on the ground of personal necessity. It was vide order dated 15.11.2012. In appeal preferred by the tenant, findings on both the issues were affirmed. Affirming the eviction order dated 15.11.2012 on the ground of personal necessity, being devoid of merit, the appeal was dismissed vide order dated 26.7.2013. 5. In the revision petition, challenging competence and locus standi of the landlord, it has been claimed that it was not a registered society. Affirming the eviction order dated 15.11.2012 on the ground of personal necessity, being devoid of merit, the appeal was dismissed vide order dated 26.7.2013. 5. In the revision petition, challenging competence and locus standi of the landlord, it has been claimed that it was not a registered society. Referring to trust deed [Annexure P/3], resolution dated 23.11.2008 [Annexure P/4] and site plan [Annexure P/5], it is claimed that there was no need much less bona fide to evict the petitioner-tenant, but the Rent Controller made out completely a new case for the landlord. It is averred that both the authorities under the Act neither appreciated the contents of the trust deed nor of the resolution filed by the Trust and making sweeping observations, passed the impugned orders evicting the petitioner tenant. In addition, it is claimed that the landlord had not only put forth wrong and unmerited plea of personal necessity but had also made concealment of facts. It was canvassed that the other gates for entry to the building of the Trust were available and sequelly, there was no bonafide necessity for eviction of the tenant. Acceptance of the revision petition was sought. 6. Hearing has been provided. 7. In the face of clear admission by the defendant right from the very beginning with regard to relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties, now it does not lie in the mouth of the tenant to dispute the nomenclature or description of the landlord. The petition preferred under Section 13 of the Act reveals that the landlord was depicted as Ram Vichar Vatika @ Trimurti Guru Mandir, Chowk Bazaar, Samana, District Patiala and it had brought the eviction petition through its president Pawan Kumar son of Ramji Dass of Samana. Merely because this property is under a trust namely Shri Adwait Swarup Atam Vichar Trust which is a registered body and landlord Ram Vichar Vatika @ Trimurti Guru Mandir is neither a trust nor is independently registered as a society is not a circumstance to deny the status of landlord to it particularly when existence of such relationship has never been disputed by the petitioner-tenant nor any question had ever been raised with regard to nomenclature of the landlord. 8. 8. Even from the trust deed (Annexure P-3) a document relied upon by the petitioner-tenant himself, it is evident that Ram Vichar Vatika also known as Trimurti Guru Mandir is under the custodianship of the Trust which continues to be maintained through its subsequent Presidents. Similarly question mark raised on the status of Pawan Kumar averring that he is neither President nor even trustee of the Trust is not of any merit. Rather, from the own document i.e. resolution (Annexure P-4) of the petitioner-tenant, it is evident that this Pawan Kumar is president of the Trimurti Guru Mandir which is also known as Ram Vichar Vatika. 9. But what is worthy of consideration is as to what was authorised by the landlord and what was done by such authorised representative of the landlord? 10. This Pawan Kumar through whom the petition had been filed is claimed by the respondents-landlords to have been duly authorized vide resolution (Annexure P-4) to file the petition under the Act which resulted in eviction of the tenant on the ground of personal bonafide necessity of the landlord. 11. Counsel for the tenant questioning resolution (Annexure P-4) in favour of the President through whom the landlord had filed the petition for ejectment citing Rishab Chand Bhandari(Dead) by LRs. Versus National Engineering Industry Limited, (2009) 10 Supreme Court Cases 601 has urged that for a person acting as agent of the owner while filing a petition for ejectment some documentary proof is required to show that the owner Trust had authorized its agent to file a suit for eviction on its behalf. It is claimed that unless there is any such written authorization, it cannot be said that the said agent had any right to file such a suit. 12. In the interface of facts of the case cited by learned counsel for the petitioner-tenant when an agent had not been able to show that he was authorized in writing to file a suit for eviction of the tenant on behalf of the Trust, no right was there in favour of the agent (who was respondent in the appeal before the Hon’ble Supreme Court). No right was presumed in favour of the said tenant-respondent to file such a suit. No right was presumed in favour of the said tenant-respondent to file such a suit. In para no.9 of this cited authority as above, Hon’ble Supreme Court had held as under:- “In the present case the respondent has not been able to show that it was authorised in writing to act on behalf of the Trust either by a power of attorney or any other written document. Unless there is some documentary proof, that the Trust had authorised its agent to file a suit for eviction on its behalf, it cannot be said that the respondent had any right to file such a suit, even though it had actually let out the premises to the appellant and collected rent.” 13. Counsel for the respondent-landlord, on the other hand, citing Parmeshwari Prasad Gupta Versus Union of India, 1973 AIR(SC) 2389, has urged that even if resolution (Annexure P-4) does not give authorization to Pawan Kumar, ratification can always be made subsequently and would relate back to the date of the act ratified. Reference has also been made to United Bank of India Versus Naresh Kumar and others, 1997, AIR (SC) 3 and Punjab University Versus V.N. Tripathi, 2001(2) CLJ(Service) 309. 14. There is no dispute about the law laid down in these authorities and there cannot be any. However, facts of the case in hand are entirely different. In the present case resolution (Annexure P4) reveals that Pawan Kumar was continuing as President of Trimurti Guru Mandir. But it is worth notice as to what authorization had been given to said Pawan Kumar as President of the Mandir? 15. From perusal of the resolution (Annexure P4), it emerges further that tenant Veer Bhan had filed a suit against the landlord so that he was not forcibly evicted from the premises. To contain such move of tenant Veer Bhan, Pawan Kumar was authorised to do the following: 1. To defend the case filed by Veer Bhan;and, 2. To file a case against him to claim arrears of rent from him. 16. So far as the present litigation is concerned, authorisation vide resolution (Annexure P4) in favour of Pawan Kumar was only for filing a case for recovery of rent from the tenant Veer Bhan and nothing more than this. 17. But what the authorized representative of landlord did was quite contrary to the authorisation given to him vide resolution (Annexure P4). So far as the present litigation is concerned, authorisation vide resolution (Annexure P4) in favour of Pawan Kumar was only for filing a case for recovery of rent from the tenant Veer Bhan and nothing more than this. 17. But what the authorized representative of landlord did was quite contrary to the authorisation given to him vide resolution (Annexure P4). The said representative of the Trust, instead had filed a petition for eviction of the tenant not only for payment of arrears of rent w.e.f. 1.7.2002 but had also sought its ejectment on the ground of making of additions and alterations in the rented premises resulting in alleged impairment of material value and utility of the premises as also on the ground of personal necessity. 18. On the ground of personal necessity, it was claimed that on eastern side of the premises, there was a passage which was narrow and the landlord was facing great difficulty in arranging religious functions on various occasions. It was claimed that in order to broaden such passage for the devotees and people at large, the premises were required to be vacated by the tenant. It was further mentioned that the landlord “requires the shop for the other so many reasons for his personal necessity.” Such many other reasons had not been elaborated in the petition. 19. It is thus evident that the named representative of the landlord out-flowed from the delegation authorised by the Trust/Landlord in his favour, resulting in filing of unauthorised eviction petition by him. This petition for ejectment was thus based completely on his personal whims and fancies and clearly was a counter-blast to the suit which had been filed by the tenant. 20. Even when entirety of facts is gone through, ground of impairment in value and utility of the premises was rejected against the landlord and ground of personal necessity was adjudicated in its favour which also suffers from many infirmities. 21. When the tenant had taken specific plea of existence of two other passages in addition to the one existing on the eastern side of the premises in dispute, the Rent Controller out-flowing from the pleadings of the landlord made out completely a new case in favour of the landlord holding that a bigger passage was required to deal with emergency situations in case any mishappening occurs during huge gathering of persons. 22. 22. There was no such pleadings put forth in this petition. The Rent Controller rather sidetracked the issue ignoring the existence of two other passages of much greater width than that of the present one existing on eastern side of the premises in dispute. 23. Even during the course of arguments before this Court it has not been denied that yet there are two more passages, one of about 7 feet width and the other one of 4' 6.5" width. The Appellate Authority has also ignored existence of two other gates and has not given any finding as to whether in the face of existence of two more gates of sufficient width, whether there was any need for the third gate adjoining the eastern side of the premises in dispute, to be widened? 24. Thus even on independently viewing the entire spectrum of facts and evidence, findings of the Rent Controller regarding personal bonafide necessity of the landlord as also of the Appellate Authority affirming the same, suffers from the inherent factual infirmity which is incurable. Thus findings of the Rent Controller as well as of the Appellate Authority on this aspect are not only far and beyond the scope of pleadings of the landlord but are also the result of misappreciation of evidence as also of factual matrix. Thus, findings of the Rent Controller affirmed by the Appellate Court on issue No.1 are reversed. 25. Consequently, accepting the revision petition, setting aside the impugned orders, the petition by the landlord is dismissed as such. ---------0.B.S.0------------ —————————