Civil Revision Petition No. 4038 of 2013. Case: Deepak Boot House and Another Vs Dr. Piyare Lal Sood. Himachal Pradesh High Court
| Case Number | Civil Revision Petition No. 4038 of 2013 |
| Counsel | For Appellant: Mr. R.L. Sood, Senior Advocate and Mr. Arjun Lall, Advocate and For Respondents: Mr. Ajay Kumar, Senior Advocate and Mr. Dheeraj Vashisht, Advocate |
| Judges | Rajiv Sharma, J. |
| Issue | East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 - Sections 13, 13(3)(a)(iii); Himachal Pradesh Urban Rent Control Act, 1987 - Sections 14, 14(3)(c), 14(4); Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act, 1961 - Section 12(1)(h); Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 - Sections 14, 14(1)(b), 14(3)(c) |
| Citation | 2014 (1) RCR 579 (Rent), 2014 (1) ShimLC 47 |
| Judgement Date | December 31, 2013 |
| Court | Himachal Pradesh High Court |
Judgment:
Rajiv Sharma, J.
-
This revision petition is directed against the judgment dated 12.4.2013 rendered by the Appellate Authority in Rent Appeal No. 34-S/14 of 2010. "Key facts" necessary for the adjudication of this petition are that respondent-landlord (hereinafter referred to as the "landlord" for convenience sake) filed a petition for eviction of petitioners-tenants (hereinafter referred to as the "tenants" for convenience sake) under Section 14 of the Himachal Pradesh Urban Rent Control Act 1987. According to the landlord, premises are situated in Ward No. 13, Municipal Corporation and the same are known as building No. 98, Lower Bazaar, Shimla. Nature of the premises is non-residential. These were let out to tenants in the year 1960-61. Electricity fittings etc. were provided by the landlord. It is further averred that rent of the premises was Rs. 2234/- per annum. Rent of similar accommodation in the same locality is more than Rs. 15,000/- per month. Eviction of the tenant has been sought on the ground that the building is about 100 years old and has become unfit and unsafe for human habitation. Eviction of the tenant has also been sought on the ground that the premises are bona fide required by the landlord for rebuilding and reconstruction, which cannot be carried out without the premises being vacated. Landlord has sufficient funds for reconstruction and after reconstruction the building can be put to better use.
-
Petition was resisted by the tenants. According to the tenants, building in question has common walls with adjoining building and unless the adjoining building is demolished, reconstruction of the building of landlord was not possible and as such requirement of the landlord was mala fide. The building is situated in the core area of Shimla and no construction can take place in the core area and the building is not more than 100 years old, as alleged. Building is made of Dhajji walls and wooden frames and is in good condition. Landlord is in use and occupation of third floor of the building and in one floor, wife of the landlord is running a clinic.
-
Rent Controller framed issues on 26.6.2009. He allowed the petition on the ground that the suit premises have become unfit and unsafe for human habitation and the same are bona fide required by the landlord for reconstruction, which could not be carried out without the suit premises being vacated by the tenants. The tenants feeling aggrieved with the order dated 6.4.2010 filed an appeal before the Appellate Authority. The Appellate Authority dismissed the same on 12.4.2013. Hence, the present petition.
-
Mr. R.L. Sood, learned Senior Advocate has vehemently argued that landlord has failed to prove that the premises have become unsafe and unfit for human habitation. He also contended that both the Courts below have erred in law by accepting the plea of landlord that premises are required bona fide for rebuilding and reconstruction which could not be carried out without the same being vacated by the tenants. He further contended that landlord himself is residing in the same building and no notice has been issued by the Municipal Corporation to the landlord to demolish the building.
-
Mr. Ajay Kumar, learned Senior Advocate has supported the order and judgment passed by both the Courts below.
-
I have heard the learned Counsel for the parries and have gone through the records carefully.
-
Relationship of landlord and tenants has not been disputed. The identification of the building and rate of rent i.e. Rs. 2234/- per annum of the suit premises has also not been denied. Landlord Piyare Lal Sood has appeared as AW-1. According to him, suit premises are situated in ground floor of building No. 98 as per location plan Ex. AW-1/A. The tenancy was created in the year 1960-61. According to him, tenant No. 2 is running a shop in the name of Deepak Boot House. Electricity fittings etc. were provided by the landlord. Rent of the shop is Rs. 2,234/- per annum. The building is 100 years old. It was constructed with Dhajji walls. Cracks have developed in the floor. The material used in the construction of premises has also deteriorated. The premises have outlived its life. The premises have become unsafe and unfit for human habitation. He has admitted that he is residing in second and top floors of the building. According to him, he has no other suitable accommodation for residence. He intends to rebuild and reconstruct RCC building. He intends to increase the utility of the premises to earn more profit. He has referred to inspection carried by AW-4 Mr. B.C. Sharma. He has sufficient funds to rebuild and reconstruct the building. He has proved copy of PPF account Ex. AW-2/B. He has also filed eviction petition against two tenants. The building is situated in commercial locality. Utility of the building will be increased after the same is rebuilt and reconstructed. He has admitted that his wife is running a clinic in the same premises. He has not received any notice from the Municipal Corporation. He is residing in the same premises for the last 40 years.
-
AW-2 Raj Pal has deposed that first tax assessment was conducted on 23.11.1921 vide Ex. AW-2/A. According to him, the premises are 90 years old as per record.
-
AW-3 Yashwant Singh had brought the original plan Ex. AW-3/A. He had also brought original plan for the year 1889. According to him, the premises were 100 years old.
-
AW-4 B.C. Sharma is material witness. He has prepared the technical report Ex. AW-4/A. He has retired as Engineer from H.P. State Electricity Board. He has obtained diploma in Civil Engineering. He has personally inspected the building on 25.11.2008. According to him, the walls are of Dhajji. The premises are 100 years old. The building has outlived its life. It has become unfit and unsafe for human habitation. The walls have developed cracks and the floors have also damaged. The building is in dilapidated condition. He has taken photographs Ex. AW-4/C-1 to Ex. AW-4/C-12. Eviction of the tenants is necessary for RCC structure. He has denied the suggestion that there is a common wall.
-
RW-2 Kewal Krishan (tenant) has deposed that he is running shop for the last 40 years. The building is four storeyed. According to him, the building is 50-60 years old. It is in good condition. Walls and roof of building are in proper condition. The building is not in dilapidated condition. He has deposed that the premises have common walls. According to him, until the owners of common walls did not consent for construction, new construction could not be carried. The building is situated in core area. Landlord himself is residing in third and fourth floors. Landlord's wife is running a clinic on the same floor.
-
RW-1 Sanjeev Kumar has deposed that he is running a shop in building No. 97 since 1997 in the ground floor.
-
RW-3 Shiv Saran Dass has proved Ex. RW-3/A. He has retired as Assistant Engineer from HPPWD. He has inspected the building at the instance of tenants on 26.10.2009. According to him, the building is in good condition. It is fit for human habitation. Minor cracks have developed in the building, which can be repaired by way of cement. He did not take photographs of the building. According to him, the building cannot be reconstructed without the consent of other co-owners since there are common walls. The building falls in the core area. No construction is permissible in the core area. However, he has categorically admitted that for raising RCC construction, vacation of premises is essential. He has also admitted that the value of the building would be increased if it is reconstructed. However, he could not place any notification on record whereby construction in the core area has been banned.
-
RW-4 Pitamber Sharma has proved the statement of Pyare Lal Ex. RW-4/A.
-
RW-5 Jamna Dass has deposed that building plan has been rejected on 28.7.2009 and no building plan has been submitted. He has testified that landlord has submitted plans for reconstruction on the old lines.
-
RW-6 Hem Kumar, Junior Draftsman has admitted that in the core area reconstruction is permissible with the permission of the State Government.
-
RW-7 Raj Pal has proved Ex. RW-7/1 to RW-7/5. According to him, landlord was the owner of the building.
-
What emerges from the statements of AW-1 Pyare Lal and AW-4 B.C. Sharma is that building is 100 years old. It is made of Dhajji walls. The walls have developed cracks and floors have damaged. The building has outlived its life. It has become unfit and unsafe for human habitation. According to AW-4 B.C. Sharma, Technical Expert, the building cannot be reconstructed without vacating the premises by tenants. He has proved his report Ex. PW-4/A. He has obtained diploma in Civil Engineering. He has retired from H.P. State Electricity Board as Civil Engineering. As far as RW-3 Shiv Sharan Dass is concerned, he has admitted that cracks have developed in walls of the building though it can be repaired. He has admitted that for construction of RCC structure vacation of premises is necessary. He has also admitted that by reconstruction utility and value of the building would increase. AW-3 Yashwant Singh has proved plan Ex. AW-3/A sanctioned in the year 1889. It also establishes that premises are 100 years old. Before filing eviction petition on this ground issuance of notice by Municipal Corporation is not sine qua non. AW-4 B.C. Sharma has also deposed that the present structure is the only structure existing in the area and rest of the owners have already reconstructed their own buildings. AW-3/A has no bearing as far as present lis is concerned. It has come on record that present building is four storeyed and the map had been submitted though rejected.
-
Mr. R.L. Sood, learned Senior Advocate has vehemently argued that respondent himself is residing in the premises and his wife is running a clinic. It has come in the statement of AW-1 that he has no...
To continue reading
Request your trial