C.R. No. 181 of 2008. Case: Kesri Devi and Ors. Vs Hari Dass Sharma. Himachal Pradesh High Court
| Case Number | C.R. No. 181 of 2008 |
| Judges | Rajiv Sharma, J. |
| Issue | Tamil Nadu Buildings Lease and Rent Control Act, 1960 - Section 14(1); Himachal Pradesh Urban Rent Control Act, 1987 - Section 14(3) and 14(5); Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act, 1961 - Section 12(1) |
| Judgement Date | September 02, 2011 |
| Court | Himachal Pradesh High Court |
Judgment:
Rajiv Sharma, J., (At Shimla)
1. This Civil Revision Petition is directed against the judgment dated 23.08.2008, passed by the Learned 1st Appellate Authority in Civil Misc. Appeal No. 20-S/14 of 2007.
2. Material facts necessary for adjudication of this petition are that the Respondent-landlord (hereinafter referred to as "the landlord" for convenience sake) had filed a petition seeking eviction of the Petitioners-tenants (here in after referred to as "the tenants" for brevity sake) on the ground that the demised premises are required by him for the purpose of rebuilding on old lines, which cannot be carried out without the demised premises in question is vacated by the tenants. According to the landlord, the building is 100 years old and its wood work has rotten. The walls and floors have developed cracks. The landlord has requisite funds for the purpose of re-building the demised premises.
3. The tenants contested the petition. According to them, the building is not 100 years old. It is denied that the wood work has rotten and the walls have developed cracks.
4. The Learned Rent Controller framed the issues on 07.05.2004. He ordered the eviction of the tenants. The tenants preferred an appeal before the Learned Appellate Authority, Shimla. The same was dismissed on 23.08.2008.
5. Mr. Bhupender Gupta, Learned Senior Advocate has strenuously argued that the landlord has failed to prove that the building in question is required bonafide for the purpose of building/re-building, which cannot be carried out without the same being vacated by the tenants. According to him, both the Courts below have mis-read the evidence.
6. Mr. Vikas Bhardwaj, Learned Counsel for the Respondent has supported the order passed by the Learned Rent Controller and up-held by the Learned 1st Appellate Authority.
7. I have heard the Learned Counsel for the parties and gone through the pleadings carefully.
8. The landlord has appeared as PW-1. According to him, the building is 100 years old. The condition of the building is dilapidated. The walls and floors had developed cracks. It has become unfit for human habitation. He has got the map Ex. PW-1/D duly sanctioned from Municipal Corporation, Shimla vide sanction letter Ex. PW-1/C. He has proved on record duly sanctioned plan Ex. PW-1/D and copy of extension letter Ex. PW-1/E, whereby the building plan was extended for a period of one year in 1995. According to him, he will get the further extension. He has sufficient funds to re-built the building. According to him, the building cannot be re-constructed without the same being vacated by the tenants. He has also proved in evidence copies of F.D.Rs., Ex. PW-1/F-1 to Ex. PW-1/F-18.
9. PW-2 Shri H.S. Bisht is a qualified diploma holder in Civil Engineering. He has proved in evidence his report Ex. PW-2/A and maps Ex. PW-2/B and Ex. PW-2/C.
According to him, the building is not 100 years old. He has further testified that upper two storeys of the building are lying vacant. The building is more than 100 years old. It has developed cracks and is in a dilapidate condition. Temporary supports have been erected to the building.
10. PW-3 Ramesh Chand is a Draftsman of Municipal Corporation. He has testified that the map for reconstruction of the building has been duly approved vide sanction order, Ex. PW-1/C, as per sanction plan, Ex. PW-4 -1/D. The extension has also been granted for rebuilding on 27.06.1997 vide extension letter, Ex. PW-1/E.
11. PW-4 has supported the version of PW-1. According to him, the building is old and in dilapidated condition. Temporary supports have been given to it. Its windows and doors are in rotten condition.
12. The tenants have relied upon the technical report marked 'X'. However, the tenants have not examined Mr. Sanjay Karol in support of the report. The report has not been duly proved. Now, as far as the report, Ex. PW-2/A is concerned, the same has been duly proved by PW-2 Shri H.S. Bist.
13. What emerges from the facts enumerated hereinabove, is that the building is 100 years old. It has outlived its utility. It is in dilapidated condition. The walls as well as floors have developed cracks. Temporary supports have been given to support the building. The same cannot be re-build without vacating it by the tenants. The landlord has sufficient funds with him for the purpose of re-building. The plans had been duly proved and the extension has also been granted for a period of one year in 1995 and thereafter, the landlord is required to get it renewed from the competent authority in accordance with law. The landlord has categorically deposed that he will get further extension for construction. It has also come on the record that in the vicinity, new buildings and hotels have - 5 -been constructed and by rebuilding of the demised premises, its commercial value would increase. The tenants have not proved the report marked "X'. It was required to be proved by expert Shri Sanjay Karol. Accordingly, the landlord has proved that he requires the demised premises bonafide for the purpose of re-building, which cannot be done without vacating the tenants. Both the courts below have correctly appreciated the oral as well as documentary evidence led by the parties.
14. Their Lordships of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Metalware and Company etc. v. 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 Section 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 stand without immediate demolition and reconstruction in future would be a totally irrelevant factor while determining "the bona fide requirement of the landlord". If the Rent Controller has to be satisfied about the bona fide requirement of the landlord which must mean genuineness of his claim in that behalf the Rent Controller will have to take into account all the surrounding circumstances...
To continue reading
Request your trial