BALAK RAM v. ROSHAN LAL — 1996 DIGILAW 155 (HP)

JUDGMENT A.L. Vaidya, J.: Respondent Roshan Lal is the landlord of the I demised premises which consists of two rooms, a verandah and latrine and has been described as House No.211, Harinagar, Boileauganj, Shimla. The present petitioner Balak Ram has been occupying these premises as tenant under the landlord. The landlord preferred a petition under Section 14 of the Himachal Pradesh Urban Rent Control Act, 1971 (hereinafter to be called as the Act) on the following grounds: (i) for non-payment of the arrears of rent for the period 1.3.1983 to 30.9 1985 @ Rs.10/- per month plus 6% statutory interest on the said amount upto date of payment of rent besides the costs of the petition as may be assessed by the learned Tribunal. (ii) That the premises are also required bonafide by the petitioner for his own use and occupation as also for the use and occupation of his family members. The petitioner is not occupying another residential building owned by him in the Urban area concerned nor the petitioner has vacated such a building without sufficient cause within five years of the filing of the petition in the urban area of Shimla. The petitioner is living in a rented accommodation in Aziz Manzil, Boileauganj, Shimla. The said accommodation is totally inadequate and in-sufficient for the requirement of the petitioner and his family members. The family of the petitioner consists of" himself, his wife and five children of the ages of 13,21,18,15 and 13 years. The son of the petitioner is working as a Mechanical helper in the Transport. Second son is studying in B.A. IInd year and the daughters are alto school going. The rented accommodation consists of only two rooms without any kitchen and bath." 2. Tenant Balak Ram contested the petition and denied the grounds for eviction as pleaded by the landlord in his petition. It was very specifically pleaded that the landlord has got sufficient accommodation in his occupation and he does not require any accommodation in occupation of the replying respondent. According to the tenant/respondent, the petitioner has got various buildings within Municipal Corporation, Shimla and outside the area of Municipal Corporation, Shimla and he has been renting accommodation to the tenants during the last five years immediately before filing of the petition. In-sufficiency of the accommodation occupied by the landlord was also not admitted. 3. According to the tenant/respondent, the petitioner has got various buildings within Municipal Corporation, Shimla and outside the area of Municipal Corporation, Shimla and he has been renting accommodation to the tenants during the last five years immediately before filing of the petition. In-sufficiency of the accommodation occupied by the landlord was also not admitted. 3. In rejoinder, the pleadings made in the petition were re-alleged and no specific reply to the aforesaid pleas of the tenant/respondent was given. Parties were put to trial on the following issues by the trial court: 1. Whether the respondent is in arrears of rent, if so, to what extent? OPP 2. Whether the premises are required bonafide by the petitioner, as alleged? OPP 3. Whether the petition is not maintainable as alleged? OPR 4. Whether the petitioner is estopped to file the petition? OPR 5. Whether the petition is bad for non-joinder of the parties? OPR 6. Relief. Issue No. 1 was decided in the negative while Issue No.2 in favour of the landlord and the remaining issues were decided against the tenant. Petition was allowed. 4. The aforesaid order of eviction passed by the Rent Controller was assailed in an appeal before the Appellate Authority, Shimla on various grounds, which after hearing the parties, dismissed the appeal. 5. The present revision petition has been preferred against the aforesaid order of the Appellate Authority, on various pleas. 6. Learned counsel for the parties have been heard and the entire record has been scrutinised. 7. Ordinarily, this Court will not disturb the concurrent findings of the two forums below unless and until there is some inherent defect in passing of the orders by the two forums. In the present case insofar as the concurrent findings are concerned, that aspect cannot be there on the sole ground that an application for additional evidence was allowed by this court and the two forums below had no occassion to appreciate that evidence and this submission that concurrent findings given by two forums below are not ordinarily to be interfered with by this court, shall have no bearing on the facts of the present case. 8. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the parties that sole ground for eviction which survives is pertaining to the bonafide requirement of the landlord. 9. 8. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the parties that sole ground for eviction which survives is pertaining to the bonafide requirement of the landlord. 9. A residential building in occupation of a tenant can be the subject matter of the eviction of the tenant on the ground bonafide requirement. Section 14(3)(a) of the Act, which would be applicable to the present case, reads as under: (3) A landlord may apply to the Controller for an order directing the tenant to put the landlord in possession-(a) in the case of a residential building, if - (i) He requires it for his own occupation: Provided that he is not occupying another residential building owned by him, in the urban area concerned: Provided further that he has not vacated such a building without sufficient case within five years of the filing of the application, in the said urban area; 10. In order to have an order of eviction in his favour the landlord under the provisions of law has to legally establish that the premises were required: (i) for his own occupation; (ii) that the landlord was not occupying another residential building owned by him, in the urban area concerned; (iii) that he has not vacated such a building without sufficient cause within five years of the filing of the application, in the said urban area. 11. All the aforesaid three aspects of the matter have to co-exist simultaneously. In case, one of the ingredients is not pleaded and not proved, order of eviction cannot be favourably considered in favour of the landlord. 12. In the present case, it has been contended that petition for eviction was filed on 9.10.1985 and according to the landlord, as per his pleading made in the petition, as has been referred above, it was specifically averred that the petitioner landlord was not occupying another residential building owned by him in the Urban area concerned nor the petitioner/landlord has vacated such a building without sufficient cause within five years of the filing of the petition in the urban area of Shimla. This plea was contested by the tenant/respondent but the same was re- affirmed by the landlord in his replication. 13. This plea was contested by the tenant/respondent but the same was re- affirmed by the landlord in his replication. 13. Needless to say, the bonafide requirement implies the honest intention on the part of the landlord but that intention should not only be reflected f from the evidence examined during the proceedings but also from the pleadings I as well as from the circumstances brought on record by the parties. 14. It has been contended on behalf of the tenant-petitioner that there is evidence on record which proved the fact that landlord was owing other premises in the urban area of Shimla which were got vacated within five years of the filing of the present petition and were again rented out to various other tenants. Learned counsels line of argument in this particular behalf has been that the aforesaid plea taken by the landlord that within five years of the filing of the petition landlord has not vacated such a building, has not been legally proved but on the basis of the facts on record, this plea was wrongly and falsely raised which reflected not the honest intention on the part of the landlord and as such goes contrary to the plea of bonafide requirement. There appears to be some force in the submissions put forth on behalf of the tenant-petitioner. 15. During the pendency of the present petition, an application to bring on record some additional evidence was allowed, which evidence as per order of this court was recorded by the Appellate Authority, Shimla. The present tenant in support of the additional evidence exhibited A-l to A-7 which were the entries in the Tax department inspection list pertaining to the house-property owned by the landlord along with others. 16. Ex.A-1 consists of entries pertaining to House No.211 (premises in dispute), House No.214 and 215. This pertains to the year 1980. House No.215 has been described not to be occupied by anybody as it was not worth living. Ex.A-2 is the certified copy for the aforesaid two houses pertaining to the year 1982-83 wherein entries remained the same, as referred earlier. Ex.A-3 pertains to the year 1983-84 wherein House No.215 has been entered in the ownership of the present landlord and S/Sh.Ami Chand and Brij Lal. In this house there are seven tenants occupying one room each except tenant Sant Ram who has been recorded to be occupying two rooms. Ex.A-3 pertains to the year 1983-84 wherein House No.215 has been entered in the ownership of the present landlord and S/Sh.Ami Chand and Brij Lal. In this house there are seven tenants occupying one room each except tenant Sant Ram who has been recorded to be occupying two rooms. This entry only reflected that the landlord in the year 1983-84 i.e. prior to the filing of the present petition had vacant possession of House No.215 but rented those rooms in favour of seven tenants- mentioned in Ex.A- 3. Ex.A-4 is the copy for the year 1984-85 where in the entries remained the same, as referred earlier. Ex.A-5 is the entry for the last year 1985-86 wherein one tenant Sant Ram is recorded to have vacated the room in his occupation. This Sant Ram was in occupation of one room alone. According to this entry, one room was got vacated by the landlord. Ex.A-6 pertains to the year 1986-87 wherein one Mahinder Singh was inducted as a tenant in place of Sant Ram who was earlier paying Rs.360/- as rent, annually but Mohinder Singh has been recorded to be paying Rs.1200/- P.A. These entries have been repeated in Ex.A-7 which pertained to the year 1987-88. Learned counsel for the landlord has vehemently submitted that nodoubt premises, referred to above, were got vacated and rented out as referred in the entries of the Corporation Register, but these premises were one room set without latrine and, as such, were not all suitable for need and requirement of the landlord. In rebuttal to the aforesaid evidence, the landlord has tried to examine himself to prove that the premises which were got vacated were sort of Dharas and cow- sheds and as such could not be taken into consideration while appreciating the bonafide requirement of the landlord. The aforesaid appreciation being derived at for the landlord cannot be favourably accepted on two counts. Firstly, as per the entries in the Municipal Corporation Register, House No.215 has been described to be having various rooms. There is nothing in these entries that these rooms were Dharas or cow-sheds and that those have been destroyed in a fire. The aforesaid appreciation being derived at for the landlord cannot be favourably accepted on two counts. Firstly, as per the entries in the Municipal Corporation Register, House No.215 has been described to be having various rooms. There is nothing in these entries that these rooms were Dharas or cow-sheds and that those have been destroyed in a fire. Secondly, the most important aspect of the matter is that according to the landlord no premises were got vacated within five years of the filing of the petition and this plea on the basis of the aforesaid evidence does not stand legally established, as discussed above. House No.215 which was occupied by seven tenants was rented out within five years of the filing of the petition. Not only that these vacated premises at the first instance were rented out and thereafter tenants were changed with the sole idea of raising rent. 17. Thus, on the basis of the evidence examined, moreso the additional evidence examined and as detailed above, the landlord has not been legally successful to establish all the legal essential - ingredients to prove his case of requiring the demised premises for his bonafide requirement. Order of eviction passed by both the two forums below on this short ground requires interference. 18. No other point has been stressed. 19. In view of the foregoing reasons, present petition is accepted and as a consequences thereof order of eviction passed by the two forums below is quashed and set aside. However, the parties are left to bear their own costs.