Case: Leela Sood and Ors. Vs Manohar Lal. Himachal Pradesh High Court
| Judges | Rajiv Sharma, J. |
| Issue | H.P. Urban Rent Control Act, 1987 - Sections 24, 24(5) |
| Citation | 2008 (2) ShimLC 498 |
| Judgement Date | July 24, 2008 |
| Court | Himachal Pradesh High Court |
Judgment:
Rajiv Sharma, J., (At Shimla)
-
This revision petition under Section 24(5) of the H.P. Urban Rent Control Act, 1987 has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 21.2.2008 passed by the Appellate Authority in Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 61-S/13(B) of 2006.
-
Brief facts necessary for the adjudication of this petition are that the respondent-landlord, hereinafter referred to as the landlord for convenience sake, has filed a petition under Section 14 of the H.P. Urban Rent Control Act, 1987 against the petitioners-tenants, hereinafter referred to as the tenants for convenience sake, in the Court of learned Rent Controller, Court No. 3, Shimla.
-
The landlord has sought eviction of tenants on the ground that the premises were bona fidely required by him for reconstruction of the entire building, which rebuilding could not be carried out unless the tenants vacate the premises in question. He wants to reconstruct the building on modern lines. He has got a plan sanctioned from the Municipal Corporation, Shimla to reconstruct the building. The building in question has become unsafe and unfit for human habitation being old. The landlord has sufficient funds and resources for proposed reconstruction work. The tenants have not paid the arrears of rent since 1.4.2004.
-
The tenants have contested that the landlord has no locus standi to file the petition and it was denied that the premises in their possession were required by the landlord for reconstruction of the entire building on old lines. It was also stated that the landlord was not owner of the suit premises, therefore, he had no right to seek eviction of the tenants from the premises. It was denied that the building has become unsafe and unfit for human habitation. The building is in good habitable condition. The building is built in brick masonry with cement. The means of landlord were denied. It was also denied that the tenants were in arrears of rent since 1.4.2004.
-
The learned Rent Controller has framed the following issues on 9.12.2004:
-
Whether the premises in question bona fidely required by the petitioner for the purpose of rebuilding and reconstruction, as alleged? OPP
-
Whether the premises in question has become unfit and unsafe for human habitation, as alleged? OPP
-
Whether the respondent is in arrears of rent since 1.4.2004, as alleged? OPP
-
Whether the petition is not maintainable, as alleged? OPR
-
Whether the petitioner has no locus standi to file the present petition, as alleged? OPR
-
Whether the petitioner is estopped from filing the present petition on account of his own acts, deed, conduct, etc. as alleged? OPR
-
Relief.
The learned Rent Controller has recorded the following findings on the issues framed:
Issue No. 1: Yes.
Issue No. 2: Yes.
Issue No. 3: Yes.
Issue No. 4: No.
Issue No. 5: No.
Issue No. 6: No.
Relief: Petition is allowed as per operative portion of the order.
-
The learned Rent Controller on the basis of the oral and documentary evidence brought on record allowed the petition and held that the tenants were in arrears of rent of the premises in question since 1.4.2004 till date at the rate of Rs. 1,620/- per annum with statutory interest at the rate of 9 per cent per annum. The petition was also allowed vide order dated 23.11.2006 on the ground that the premises in question were required bona fidely by the landlord for reconstruction/rebuilding.
-
The tenants feeling aggrieved by the order dated 23.11.2006 preferred an appeal before the learned Appellate Authority under Section 24 of the H.P. Urban Rent Control Act, 1987. The appeal was dismissed by the learned Appellate Authority on 21.2.2008.
-
This revision petition has been filed against the judgment dated 21.2.2008.
-
Mr. H.C. Sharma, learned Counsel for the petitioner has strenuously argued that the judgment dated 21.2.2008 is not sustainable in the eyes of law. He has contended that the petition was not maintainable for the reason that one Anita Sood, who had also inherited tenancy rights, was not arrayed as a party. He further contended that the tenants were not in arrears of rent and the landlord was not in possession of sufficient means. According to him, the building is in a habitable condition. The ownership of the landlord was also disputed by the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants.
-
Mr. Ashok Sood, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the landlord has supported the judgment dated 21.2.2008.
-
I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and have perused the pleadings carefully.
-
The landlord, Manohar Lal has become owner of the building by way of family settlement vide settlement deed Ext. PW2/A. The tenants are precluded from taking any objection as to the settlement arrived at between the parties. The petition filed on behalf of Manohar Lal was maintainable. The landlord has appeared as PW6. He has deposed that he is the owner of the premises in question. He has placed on record the photographs Ext.PW6/A1 to Ext. PW6/A3 and negatives Ext. PW6/A4 to Ext. PW6/6. He has also placed on record copy of rent receipt, i.e. Ext. PW6/B. He has deposed that the building in, question has fallen in his share by way of family settlement, Ext. PW2/A.
-
According to him, the building in question is in a dilapidated condition being 100 years old. He then deposed that he has sufficient funds to reconstruct the building. The landlord has examined PW3-Vivek Karol as an Expert. His report is Ext. PW3/A. The relevant portion of the report has already been discussed by the learned Courts below and need not be discussed again to avoid repetition.
-
The tenant has produced the report Ext. RW1/A of Mr. H.S. ferst. This report has also been reproduced by the learned First Appellate Court. Mr. H.S. Bist has inspected the premises on 24.12.2005 while Mr. Vivek Karol has inspected the building on 2.3.2005. The tenants had also produced Pawan alias Raj Kumar as RW2. He is running a 'Kiryana' shop. He has deposed that the condition of shop No.11 is very good.
-
The premises in question are 100 years old. The learned Courts below on the basis of the reports Ext. PW3/A and Ext. RW1/A and on the basis of visual impression based on photographs coupled with oral evidence came to the right conclusion that the building is in dilapidated condition and is required to be...
To continue reading
Request your trial