Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 462 (HP)

Ashok Kumar v. Parkash Chand

2011-02-21

RAJIV SHARMA

body2011
JUDGMENT Rajiv Sharma, J. This petition is directed against the judgment dated 17.06.2010, passed by the learned Appellate Authority (II), Una (H.P.) in Rent Appeal No. 02 of 2009. 2. Material facts necessary for adjudication of this petition are that the respondent-landlord (hereinafter referred to as “the landlord for convenience sake) had sought the eviction of the petitioner-tenant (hereinafter referred to as “the tenant” for convenience sake), on the grounds of arrears of rent, the structure has become un-safe and un-fit for human habitation and he required the demised premises bonafide for the purpose of rebuilding and making additions/alterations, which could not be carried out without the building being vacated. 3. The petition was contested by the tenant. The tenant has not disputed the identification of the demised premises as well as the fact that the demised premises were rented out to his father 30 years’ back. The tenant had not denied that the demised premises were constructed 50 years back. According to him, he was not in arrears of rent. He also contended that the landlord had a residential house in the back of the building adjoining the demised premises. According to him, the landlord did not require the premises bonafide for re-building. The learned Rent Controller framed the issues on 26.12.2008. 4. During the course of hearing, the learned counsel for the landlord has not pressed the grounds of arrears of rent and that the premises have become un-safe and un-fit for human habitation. 5. Learned counsel for the landlord has only confined his submission to the extent that the landlord requires the premises bonafide for the purpose of re-building and additions and alterations. 6. Learned Rent Controller allowed the petition partly on 23.05.2009 and ordered the eviction of the tenant on the ground that the premises were required bonafide by the landlord for the purpose of re-building or re-construction or making addition and alteration and the same cannot be carried out without the premises being vacated. 7. The tenant preferred an appeal before the learned Appellate Authority. The learned Appellate Authority dismissed the appeal on 17.06.2010. Hence, this Civil Revision Petition. 8. Mr. 7. The tenant preferred an appeal before the learned Appellate Authority. The learned Appellate Authority dismissed the appeal on 17.06.2010. Hence, this Civil Revision Petition. 8. Mr. Ajay Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner has strenuously argued that the landlord has failed to prove that the premises were required by him bonafide for the purpose of Respondent building/re-construction and additions/alterations and the same could not be carried out without the premises being vacated. 9. Mr. Ajay Kumar, learned counsel for the respondent has supported the orders passed by both the authorities below. 10. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the pleadings carefully. 11. The landlord has appeared as PW-3. He has deposed that he wanted to construct a residential house on the 1st floor of premises. He also deposed that initially he presented the map to the Municipal Committee, however, the same was rejected and thereafter he again submitted the fresh map, which was approved on 31.03.2001 by the Municipal Committee. According to him, reconstruction of the premises could not be carried without the same being vacated. He has also testified that he was having sufficient funds for re-construction of the building and has proved the copies of F.D.Rs. Ex. PW-3/A and Ex. PW-3/B on records. PW2 is Shri Surjit Singh. He has prepared the maps Ex. PW-1/A and Ex. PW-1/B. 12. PW-1 is Shri Karam Singh. He has proved the map Ex. PW-1/A, which was passed by the Municipal Committee. The approval was conveyed to the landlord vide letter Ex. PW-1/D. He has also admitted that earlier the landlord had presented building plan Ex. PW-1/B and the same was rejected by the Municipal Committee. Thereafter, the landlord again submitted map Ex. P W-1/A, which was approved by the Municipal Committee. 13. The tenant has appeared as RW-1. According to him, the premises were in good condition and there was no need of any change in the same and the 1st floor could be raised on the same. He has admitted that the landlord has one son and two daughters. He has also admitted that the mud water used to flow in the house of landlord. This is the evidence produced by the landlord and the tenant. 14. He has admitted that the landlord has one son and two daughters. He has also admitted that the mud water used to flow in the house of landlord. This is the evidence produced by the landlord and the tenant. 14. What emerges from the evidence led by the parties, oral as well as documentary, is that the plaintiff has proved that he required the premises bonafide for the purpose of reconstruction of the building to enable him to raise two storeyed house. The map has already been approved vide Ex. PW-1/A. He has sufficient funds to re-construct the building. The landlord has one son and two daughters and wife. One son of the landlord is married. The married son of the landlord is also residing with him. It has come in the evidence that second storey cannot be added at the existing structure being weak. The findings recorded by the learned 1st Appellate Authority and the learned Rent Controller are based on correct appreciation of evidence. The landlord has proved that he requires the premises bonafide for the purpose of re-construction, additions/alterations, which cannot be carried without the premises being vacated. 15. Accordingly, in view of the observations made hereinabove, there is no merit in this petition and the same is dismissed.