Civil Revision No.: 32/2010. Case: Bimla Goel wife of late Sh. Uttam Chand Goel, r/o Belmount House, Lower Jakhu, Shimla-1, Dinesh Goel son of late Sh. Uttam Chand Goel, r/o Belmount House, Lower Jakhu, Shimla-1, Satish Goel son of of late Sh. Uttam Chand Goel, r/o Belmount House, Lower Jakhu, Shimla-1 and Sandeep Goel son of late Sh. Uttam Chand Goel, r/o Belmount House, Lower Jakhu, Shimla-1 Vs Satpal Sharma s/o Sita Ram Sharma, r/o 13/2 Subzi Mandi, Shimla, H.P.. Himachal Pradesh High Court
| Case Number | Civil Revision No.: 32/2010 |
| Judges | Rajiv Sharma, J. |
| Issue | Himachal Pradesh Urban Rent Control Act, 1987 - Section 14 and 14(3); Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 - Section 14(1) and 14(5); Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act, 1961 - Section 12(1) |
| Judgement Date | December 09, 2011 |
| Court | Himachal Pradesh High Court |
Judgment:
Rajiv Sharma, J.
1. This revision petition is directed against the judgment dated 5.3.2010 of the learned Appellate Authority rendered in Rent Appeal No. 62-S/14 of 2009.
2. Material facts necessary for the adjudication of this petition are that the respondent-landlord (hereinafter referred to as 'landlord' for convenience sake) filed a petition, under section 14 of the H.P. Urban Rent Control Act, 1987 against the petitioners-tenants (hereinafter referred to as 'tenants' for convenience sake). Landlord is owner of building No.31, Alley No.7, Middle Bazaar, Shimla. The tenants are in accommodation of three rooms, one bath room and one verandah in the first floor on annual rent of `4,800/-. The eviction of the tenants has been sought on the ground that the suit premises has become unsafe and unfit for human habitation. It has outlived its life, material used has decayed, cracks have appeared in the walls, floors have sagged and the entire building is in a dilapidated condition. The building is made of Dhajji walls and wooden frame structure. The building was inspected by the expert. The tenants have been requested several times to vacate the premises but in vain. The eviction has also been sought on the ground that the entire building, including premises under tenancy and occupancy of the tenants is bona fide required by the landlord for the purpose of building/rebuilding, which could not be carried out without the same being vacated by the tenants. The entire building was required to be pulled down to raise RCC structure. The building is situated in commercial area. The landlord has sufficient funds to raise construction. The eviction has also been sought on the grounds that the tenants have changed the user of the premises from residential to non-residential without the consent of the landlord. The tenants have started storing raw material.
3. The petition was resisted by the tenants. According to the tenants, the building has not outlived its utility. The petition has been filed to coerce the tenants to enhance the rent. The reconstruction of the premises is not possible without approval and sanction from the competent authorities. The building falls in heritage zone and core area. It is denied that the building is 100 years old or cracks have appeared in the walls. It is denied that the material used has worn out or that the building is in dilapidated condition. It is also denied that the floors of the building have started sagging or that the load bearing walls have developed cracks. It is also denied that the building is bona fide required by the landlord for rebuilding and reconstruction.
4. Rejoinder was filed by the landlord. Issues were framed by the Rent Controller on 19.3.2008. Rent Controller ordered the eviction of the tenants on the ground that the suit premises in possession of the tenants have become unsafe and unfit for human habitation. The eviction of the tenants was also ordered on the ground that the suit premises were bona fide required by the landlord for building/rebuilding, which could not be carried out without getting the premises vacated by the tenants The tenants were directed to handover vacant possession of the suit premises to the landlord forthwith. Rent Controller has rejected the case of the landlord as far as eviction was sought on the ground that the tenants have changed the user of the premises from residential to non-residential. The tenants feeling aggrieved by the order passed by the Rent Controller filed an appeal before the Appellate Authority, Fast Track Court, Shimla. The Appellate Authority rejected the same on 5.3.2010. Hence, the present revision petition.
5. Mr. Suneet Goel has strenuously argued that the landlord has failed to prove that the premises were unsafe and unfit for human habitation. He then argued that the findings recorded by both the courts below that the premises were required bona fide by the landlord for building/rebuilding is also contrary to the evidence placed on record. He also argued that the landlord has not got the maps approved from the competent authority and was not in possession of sufficient funds.
6. Mr. Ajay Kumar has supported the orders passed by the learned Rent Controller and the judgment passed by the Appellate Authority.
7. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the records meticulously.
8. Landlord has appeared as PW-1. He has proved location plan Ex.AW-1/A. According to him, the building is more than 100 years old. It is made of Dhajji walls. The building has developed cracks. The entire building is in dilapidated condition. It has become unsafe and unfit for human habitation. He had sought the expert opinion from PW-3 Vivek Karol. He has proved photographs Ex.AW-1/B to Ex.AW-1/U. He further stated that the building has outlived its life and he intends to rebuild the same by raising RCC structure for which the vacation of the suit premises is necessary. The building plans have been approved by the M.C. Shimla. He had sufficient funds to raise the construction. He has proved on record F.D.R. Ex.AW-1/V and National Saving certificates Ex.AW-1/V-1 to V-3. He has denied the suggestion that the rent petition has been filed to coerce the tenants to enhance the rent. He has denied that the suit premises fall in heritage zone but deposed that the same is in core area where the construction and reconstruction has not been banned. He has denied the suggestion that the building is not more than 100 years old.
9. PW-2 Yashwant Singh of A.P. Branch, M.C. Shimla has testified that the building plan for reconstruction has been sent by M.C. Shimla to State Town Planner, Shimla for approval on 4.3.2008. He has proved on record Ex.PW-2/A. He has stated that initially the building plan was rejected but later on the same was approved by the M.C. Shimla and sent to the State Town Planner.
10. PW-3 Vivek Karol has inspected the suit premises. He has proved report Ex.PW-3/A. According to him, the building was dilapidated. The same could not be reconstructed without the same being vacated.
11. Tenant Dinesh Goel while appearing as RW-1 has deposed that the landlord had been pressurizing the tenants to raise rent. The building is in good condition. The floors, roofs, windows and doors are intact. The walls have been plastered with cement. He had sought the opinion of RW-4 Shiv Saran Dass Vaish. According to him, the building falls in core area. The reconstruction of the building was not possible being completely banned. Only repairs were possible. M.C. had no authority to pass the map as it can only be approved by the Cabinet. The suit premises were not required for building and rebuilding bona fide by the landlord.
12. RW-2 Suresh Kumar and RW-3 Gian Chand have supported the version of RW-1. RW-2 has admitted that photographs Ex.AW-1/B to AW-1/U are the photographs of the building. He has admitted that the condition of the building was bad as per photographs.
13. RW-4 Shiv Saran Dass Vaish has proved report Ex.RW-4/A. He has shown his ignorance about the photographs Ex.AW-1/B to AW-1/U. He has stated that the building was not made of Dhajji walls. He has also admitted that the building was more than 100 years old.
14. The plaintiff has placed on record Ex.AW-1/V F.D.R. He has also proved on record national saving certificates Ex.AW-1/V-1 to AW-1/V-3. It establishes that the landlord is in possession of sufficient funds to reconstruct the building.
15. What emerges from the oral as well as documentary evidence led by the parties is that the building is 100 years old. It is in dilapidated condition. The walls have developed cracks. It is made of Dhajji walls. The floors have sagged. The M.C. Shimla has also issued notice Ex.PX. The Statement of PW-1 is duly corroborated by PW-3. It is also established from report Ex.AW-3/A that the condition of the building is precarious. It poses danger to the life and property...
To continue reading
Request your trial