C. Revision No. 86/2010. Case: Sunita Kahol and others Vs Satpal Sharma. Himachal Pradesh High Court
| Case Number | C. Revision No. 86/2010 |
| Counsel | For Appellants: Mr. Vipinder Roach, Advocate andFor the Respondent: Mr. Ajay Kumar, Advocate |
| Judges | Rajiv Sharma, J. |
| Issue | Himachal Pradesh Urban Rent Control Act, 1987 - Sections 14, 14 (3) (c), 24 (5); Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control Act, 1960 - Section 14 (1) (b); M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 - Section 12 (1) (h) |
| Judgement Date | October 08, 2010 |
| Court | Himachal Pradesh High Court |
Judgment:
Rajiv Sharma, J.
-
This is tenant''s revision petition under section 24 (5) of the Himachal Pradesh Urban Rent Control Act, 1987 against the judgment dated 24.4.2010 passed by the Appellate Authority, Shimla in Civil Misc. Appeal No. 54-S/14 of 2009.
-
Material facts necessary for the adjudication of this petition are that the respondent-landlord (hereinafter referred to as ''landlord'' for convenience sake) filed an application under section 14 of the Himachal Pradesh Urban Rent Control Act, 1987 seeking eviction of the petitioners-tenants (hereinafter referred to as ''tenants'' for convenience sake) on the grounds, firstly that the tenanted premises has become unsafe and unfit for human habitation and the same is bona fidely required by the landlord for reconstruction and rebuilding and secondly, that the respondents have acquired their own residential accommodation within the local limits of urban area of Shimla and thirdly, the tenants without the consent of the landlord have converted the user of the tenanted premises from residential to non-residential. The Rent Controller allowed the application on the ground that the premises in question has become unsafe and unfit for human habitation and the same is required by the landlord for reconstruction and rebuilding, which cannot be done without its vacation and dismissed the petition on the ground that the tenants have acquired reasonably sufficient accommodation and they have changed the user of premises from residential to nonresidential. The tenants preferred an appeal against the order of Rent Controller dated 29.7.2009 before the Appellate Authority, Shimla. The Appellate Authority dismissed the appeal on 24.4.2010. Hence, this revision petition by the tenants against the judgment dated 24.4.2010.
-
Mr. Vipinder Roach has strenuously argued that the Appellate Authority has not correctly appreciated the evidence and legal principles. According to him, the building has neither become unsafe for human habitation nor the same was bona fidely required for the purpose of reconstruction and rebuilding by the landlord.
-
Mr. Ajay Kumar has supported the judgment of the Appellate Authority dated 24.4.2010.
-
I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the pleadings carefully.
-
Landlord has appeared as AW-2. He has testified that the tenanted premises is 100 years old made of mud and Dhajji walls. Its walls have developed cracks, the floors are sagging, the material used has outlived its life and according to him, the building has become unfit and unsafe for human habitation and is in a dangerous condition. PW-3 Vivek Karol, Civil Engineer, has deposed that he has inspected the building in question on 8.8.2001. He found the same to be in dangerous and dilapidated condition and according to him the same had become unfit for human habitation. The material used in the same has outlived its life. The walls have developed cracks and floors have sagged. He has further deposed that the building is more than 100 years old and outlived its ordinary span of life. He has proved his report Ex.PW-3/A. According to him, building cannot be repaired and the reconstruction cannot be done without its vacation. PW-3 has proved photographs Ex.AW-1/B-1 to Ex.AW- 1/B-18. RW-3 could not deny categorically that the photographs were not of the building in question. He was 26 years old at the time of recording of his statement. His father was inducted as tenant. It thus, duly proves that the building is old. It is evident from the photographs that the building in question is in dilapidated condition and it has become unfit for human habitation. RW-2 H.S. Bishat has proved in evidence his report Ex. RW-2/A and spot map Ex.RW-2/B. According to him, the building in question is in a very good condition and fit for habitation, which neither requires any repair nor reconstruction. However, in his report he has stated that the building is having conventional type of construction and is four storeyed. According to him, the age of building is 70 to 80 years. It has also come in the report that the life of such type of building is 100 to 120 years. Accordingly, the landlord has proved that the building is unfit for human habitation.
-
AW-2 has testified that the tenanted premises is located in commercial locality and after rebuilding the same can be put to better use and he intends to do the same. RW-2 H.S. Bisht, in his report Ex.RW-2/A, has stated that the building in question falls in Middle Bazar, Ward No. 13, Shimla. He has admitted that the Gaiety Theater is at a distance of one minute walk from the building in question and Gaiety Theater is being reconstructed nowadays. Even RW-3 Ankush Sharma has admitted in his cross-examination that the buildings of Guptajee''s and New Plaza Restaurant are opposite to the building in question. AW-2 has also deposed that for the purpose of reconstruction, the proposed plan Ex. AW-1/A has been prepared which has been approved by the Municipal Corporation, Shimla. This version of AW-2 has been supported by AW-1, Yashwant Singh. AW-1 has testified that the landlord had submitted the plan for reconstruction, which was sanctioned by the Municipal Corporation Shimla on 4.3.2008 and has been sent for approval to State Town Planner after clearance by the Municipal Corporation. He has proved the proposed approved plan Ex.AW-1/A. It is thus evident from the statement of PW-2, RW-2 and RW-3 that the building is located in commercial locality. The landlord has already submitted the building plan which was sent by the Municipal Corporation for approval to the State Town Planner. The landlord will be definitely benefitted if the tenanted premises are rebuilt and put to commercial use. Landlord has proved on record copy of F.D.R. Ex. AW-2/C and National Saving Certificates Ex. AW-2/D to AW-2/F to prove that he had sufficient funds to raise the construction. He has also deposed that he can raise loan for reconstruction of the building.
-
Their Lordships of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in Metalware and Company etc. versus Bansilal Sarma and Company etc. (1979) 3 SCC 398 while interpreting section 14 (1) (b) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control Act, 1960 have held that the Rent Controller is required to take into account all the surrounding circumstances including not merely the factors of the landlord being possessed of sufficient means or funds to undertake the project and steps taken by him in that regard but also the existing condition of the building, its age and situation and possibility or otherwise of its being put to a more profitable use after reconstruction. Their Lordships have further held that if the building happens to be decrepit or dilapidated it will readily make the bona fide requirement of the landlord, though that by itself in the absence of any means being possessed by the landlord would not be sufficient. Their Lordships have held as under:
"6. As stated earlier it cannot be disputed that the phrase used in S. 14 (1) (b) of the Act is 'the building is bona fide required by the landlord' for the immediate purpose of demolition and reconstruction and the same clearly refers to the bona fide requirement of the landlord it is also true that the requirement in terms is not that the building should need immediate demolition and reconstruction. But we fail to appreciate how the state or condition of the building and the extent to which it could...
To continue reading
Request your trial