Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2001 DIGILAW 224 (HP)

YUGAL RAJ PURI v. SHANTI DEVI

2001-09-04

M.R.VERMA

body2001
JUDGMENT (M.R. Verma, J: - This revision petition under Section 24 of the Himachal Pradesh Urban Rent Control Act, 1987 is directed against the order dated 6.8,1997 passed by learned Appellate Authority. Solan in Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.l3-S/4 of 1992 whereby the order dated 17.7.1991 passed by the learned Rent Controller, Kandaghat dismissing the eviction petition f preferred by the petitioner under Section 14 of the Himachal Pradesh Urban Rent Control Act, 1987 (hereafter referred to as the Act) has been upheld and the appeal of the petitioner has been dismissed. 2. Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to this revision petition are that the petitioner filed a petition for eviction of the respondent from the premises consisting of two Bed Rooms, Study, Dining, Drawing, Kitchen, Bath and Verandah of Kamla Cottage, Municipal Ward No.8, Jawahar Park, Solan, on the grounds that the demised premises are bonafide required by him for own use and occupation since he has retired from service and wants to settle at Solan, that the building is very old and require renovation/re-construction which can not be carried out without its vacation and that the respondent had not paid the rent for the period April, 1987 onwards. 3. The respondent in her reply while admitting the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties and the rate of rent resisted the claim of the petitioner on the grounds that the disputed premises are not required by the petitioner as he is well settled in Delhi and has no intention to shift to Solan, and that the condition of the building is very good and it does not require any renovation or reconstruction. The allegation of non-paymet of rent has also been disputed and it is claimed that the petition has been filed with the ulterior motive to enhance the rent. 4. On the pleadings of the parties the learned Rent Controller framed the following issues:- 1. Whether the respondent is in arrears since 1.4.1987, as alleged? OPP. 2. Whether the demised premises are required by the petitioner bonafi-dely, as alleged? OPP. 3. Whether the respondent is a contractual tenant, as alleged? ....OPR. 4. Relief. 5. The learned Rent Controller vide his order dated 17.7.1991 held issue No.l as redunant and Issue No.3 as not pressed and decide Issue No.2 against the petitioner and as a consequence dismissed the petition. 6. OPP. 3. Whether the respondent is a contractual tenant, as alleged? ....OPR. 4. Relief. 5. The learned Rent Controller vide his order dated 17.7.1991 held issue No.l as redunant and Issue No.3 as not pressed and decide Issue No.2 against the petitioner and as a consequence dismissed the petition. 6. Being aggrieved, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the learned Appellate Authority, Solan, who by the impugned judgment, dismissed the appeal being without any merit. Hence, the present petition. 7. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone though the records. 8. It may be pointed out at the very outset that at the time of the arguments the claim of the petitioner to evict the respondent from the premises in dispute has been confined only to the ground that the premises are bonafide required by the petitioner for his own use and occupation as he wants to settle at Solan and no other ground was pressed. 9. The question whether certain premises are bonafide required by landlord for his use and occupation is a question of fact. Both the Tribunals below have answered this question in the negative by recording concurrent findings of fact. It is well settled that in exercise of revisional jurisdiction, the Court cannot and should not interfere with concurrent findings of fact except in cases where some illegality or impropriety is shown to have been committed by the authorities below. No doubt in view of the provisions of Section 24 of the Act, the scope of interference is not as limited as under the provisions of Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, nevertheless, the scope of interference still is not as comprehensive so as to equate it with the scope of interference in an appeal. Therefore, the controversy raised in this petition has to be considered and decided keeping in view this settled position of law. 10. It was contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the Authorities below have committed illegalities and improprieties in taking into account extraneous and irrelevant circumstances to return their findings that the demised premises are not bonafide required by the petitioner for personal use and occupation. 10. It was contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the Authorities below have committed illegalities and improprieties in taking into account extraneous and irrelevant circumstances to return their findings that the demised premises are not bonafide required by the petitioner for personal use and occupation. Elaborating his contention, the learned counsel urged that it is for the landlord to decide as to where he should reside and it cannot be decided by the Authorities under the Act as to where should he reside. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner the Authorities below have wrongly taken into, account that because of the ailment and old age of the petitioner and mental derangement of his son, Delhi, where the petitioner owns a house is a better place for him to reside. Thus, the considerations being irrelevant and extraneous, the opinion of the Authorities based on such considerations could not be made basis for disallowing the petition. 11. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the. respondent had contended that while deciding the question of bonafide requirement, the Authorities below could look for an examine whether there is some compulsion giving rise to the "requirement" so that the requirement could be held bonafide. Therefore, the authorities below have not committed any wrong, much less illegality or impropriety in tailing into account the estbalished surrounding circumstances to examine the bonafide of the requirement. It was contended that the concurrent findings of fact as returned by the Authorities below, therefore, do not call for interference. 12. The relevant ground as taken in the petition reads as follows: 18(a) (1) that the premises are bonafide required by the petitioner who intends to settle at Solan and is not in possession of any premises owned by him in his possession nor has vacated any such premises during the last 10 years. He is also not in possession of- any other premises in the urban area of Solan town in any capacity whatsoever. He after retirement and prior to that was residing and is residing at Delhi and now after the retirement in the present circumstances intends to live in his own house at Solan. The bonafide need as such is existing. He is also not in possession of- any other premises in the urban area of Solan town in any capacity whatsoever. He after retirement and prior to that was residing and is residing at Delhi and now after the retirement in the present circumstances intends to live in his own house at Solan. The bonafide need as such is existing. However, the building is very old and requires renovation and reconstruction which is not possible without vacation of the same and the petitioner after occupying the same shall get the said construction/renovation or repairs affected after consulting the engineers and architects as per his suitability and requirement." 13. In his statement, the petitioner (PW-1) has stated that the demised premises are required by him for his perusal use and he did not possess any accommodation in Solan since 1950 nor had vacated any during last ten years. He has further stated that he wants to live in Solan to lead a peaceful life as he is not keeping good health in Delhi and the climate of Solan is also suitable for his ailing son who is in his care and custody. There is neither pleadings nor corroboration of statement of PW-1 regarding alleged ailment, as no medical prescription slips/certificate/opinion has been produced and proved. 14. In his cross examination, PW-1 has admitted that he had constructed a house in Delhi in 1987 -88. He admittedly retired from Service in the year 1982. He has further stated that it was in the year 1986-87 that he,desired to live in Solan. There is nothing in his petition that he required the, demised premises to. live in because of his illness and illness of his son. 15. To disbelieve IV, version of the petitioner regarding his "bonafide requirement of use and occupation" of the premises the Authorities below relied on the following circumstances: (1) That there is no corroborative evidence to show that the alleged requirement is based on medical grounds (2) That the location of demised premises is such that these are not suitable for an ailing person to reside in. (3) That better medical facilities are available-at Delhi than at Solan. (4) That despite alleged desire to live in Solan since 1986-87, the petitioner constructed a house in Delhi in 1987 - 88 which belies existence of such desire. (3) That better medical facilities are available-at Delhi than at Solan. (4) That despite alleged desire to live in Solan since 1986-87, the petitioner constructed a house in Delhi in 1987 - 88 which belies existence of such desire. (5) That in all probabilities, the petitioner is interested in disposing of the property in dispute. 16. The above circumstances cannot be said to be extraneous or irrelevant to examine whether the requirement is bonafide or not. These circumstances are deducible from the evidence on record. The desire to live at a certain placed is a mental state. There cannot be direct evidence to disprove such desire and it has to be ascertained only from the reliability or otherwise of the person claiming that he has such desire. In a dispute between a landlord and t a tenant, mere saying of the landlord that he desires to live in a particular J house owned by him at a particular place will not be enough to prove such desire, if the surrounding circumstances instead of supporting such a claim, lead to a conclusion to the contrary. Thus, the Authorities below were right in taking into account the above circumstances while deciding the relevant issue and cannot be said to have thereby committed any illegality or impropriety. Therefore, the concurrent findings of facts as recorded by\them call for no interference by this Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction. 17. As a result, this petition merits dismissal and is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs.