Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 653 (HP)

MADAN MOHAN v. ISHWAR CHAND

2013-07-08

RAJIV SHARMA

body2013
JUDGMENT : RAJIV SHARMA, J. 1. This petition is directed against the judgment dated 16.10.2012 passed by the Appellate Authority-1, Sirmaur District at Nahan in Rent Appeal No. 117-RA/14 of 2010. "Key facts" necessary for the adjudication of this petition are that the respondent-landlord (hereinafter referred to as the "landlord" for convenience sake) filed a 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? yes petition u/s 14 of the Himachal Pradesh Urban Rent Control Act, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act" for brevity sake) seeking eviction of the petitioner-tenant (hereinafter referred to as the "tenant" for convenience sake). According to the landlord, the premises were occupied by tenants Rangeela Swami, Rakshu, Usha, Anita and Kanta. Usha and Anita were married and were not residing in the premises. The premises comprised of three rooms, kitchen, Dehleez, latrine, bathroom in the ground floor and four rooms on the first floor and amenities regarding water and electricity have been provided. The monthly rent of the premises in question was Rs. 500/-. The building is more than 100 years old and the premises were let out to the predecessor of the tenants Kanti Narain in the year 1988 at the rate of Rs. 125/- per month. However, from April, 1998, the rent was mutually increased to Rs. 500/- per month. The increased rent was paid by the tenant Kanti Narain during the months of April and May, 1998. The grounds of the eviction of the tenants are as under: (i) that the respondent have failed to pay the rent of the premises w.e.f. June, 1998 till date (June, 2004) at the rate of Rs. 500/- per month minus Rs. 5125/- sent by the respondent No. 3 Madan Mohan vide his letter dated 29-05-2001 through bank draft dated 24-09-2001 drawn on Central Bank of India, Shambuwala. Therefore, the respondents are liable to pay the arrears of rent amounting to Rs. 31,375/- from the date of its accrual to the date of its actual payment along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum. Therefore, the respondents are liable to pay the arrears of rent amounting to Rs. 31,375/- from the date of its accrual to the date of its actual payment along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum. (ii) That the premises are quite old and constructed of Lahori bricks with mud mortar, walls are of 1= feet in width and there are some cracks appearing in the walls and the floors and roofs are not in good condition, therefore, the petitioner in the light of his own need requires the premises in question for rebuilding with modern technique which cannot be carried out without the building being vacated by the respondents and the petitioner has sufficient funds and source to rebuild the premises and the petitioner has already got approved the building plan from the Municipal Council, Nahan; (iii) That the premises after such reconstruction are required by the petitioner for his own use and occupation, as his family, who is not occupying any other residential building of any kind in this urban nor he has vacated such a building without sufficient cause within five years prior to filing the petition. The petitioner is residing in village Shambuwala much far away of M.C. area and now circumstances have become conducive to raise construction of the house only after which he along with his family members will be able to live in the urban area where he wants to resettle with start of business." 2. The tenants have resisted and contested the petition of the landlord by filing reply. According to the tenants, monthly rent of the premises was Rs. 125/-. The building was only 45 years old. The increase of rent from Rs. 125/- to Rs. 500/- per month was denied. The father of the tenants has never signed any agreement with the landlord for the alleged enhancement of rent. The landlord himself has signed the diary. They are not in arrears of rent. After the death of their father in December, 1999 rent upto August, 2001 has been paid. The landlord has received the rent upto August, 2001 and thereafter he refused to receive the rent without any reason. The tenants were in arrears of rent from September, 2001 at the rate of Rs. 125/- per month. The building was good and worth living. The walls of the building have not developed any cracks. The landlord has received the rent upto August, 2001 and thereafter he refused to receive the rent without any reason. The tenants were in arrears of rent from September, 2001 at the rate of Rs. 125/- per month. The building was good and worth living. The walls of the building have not developed any cracks. The premises in questions were not required by the landlord for reconstruction. The landlord has sufficient vacant land and building in Muhal Haripur near Jhanda Ji on Nahan-Shimla Road. He is also having another property situated in Bazaar, Gunnu Ghat, Nahan. 3. The rejoinder was filed by the landlord. The Rent Controller framed the issues on 6.8.2005. The Rent Controller allowed the petition on the ground of nonpayment of arrears of rent and on the ground that the premises were required by the landlord for rebuilding, which could not be carried out without the building being vacated by the tenants. The premises were also required bona fidely by the landlord for his use and occupation. The tenants were in arrears of rent of the premises with effect from September, 2001 to 30.4.2010 with interest @ 9% per annum, which came to be Rs. 5,118/- total Rs. 18,118.75 paise. The tenants were directed to make the payment of the amount, i.e. Rs. 18,118.75 paise within 30 days from the date of order, failing which, they were liable to be evicted from the premises. The tenants were directed to handover the vacant possession of the premises to the landlord. One of the tenants Madan Mohan filed an appeal before the Appellate Authority. The Appellate Authority dismissed the appeal on 16.10.2012. Hence, the present petition against the judgment dated 16.10.2012. 4. Mr. B.B. Vaid has vehemently argued that the landlord has failed to prove that the building was in good condition and there was no question of rebuilding the same. He has also argued that the landlord has failed to prove the bona fide requirement of the premises for own use and occupation. He has also contended that the tenants were not in arrears of rent. He has lastly contended that the procedure provided under order 18 rule 4 of the CPC has been wrongly followed by the Rent Controller while recording the evidence of the parties. 5. Mr. Karan Singh Kanwar has supported the judgment and order passed by both the courts below. 6. He has lastly contended that the procedure provided under order 18 rule 4 of the CPC has been wrongly followed by the Rent Controller while recording the evidence of the parties. 5. Mr. Karan Singh Kanwar has supported the judgment and order passed by both the courts below. 6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the records carefully. 7. The landlord Ishwar Chand has appeared as PW-4. He has tendered his affidavit in evidence under order 18 rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure. According to the affidavit, there are three rooms on the upper floor, which had been given to Kanti Narain, predecessor-in-interest of the tenants, at the rate of Rs. 125/- per month. The rent was enhanced from Rs. 125/- to Rs. 500/- per month with the consent of Kanti Narain. It was enhanced in the presence of Ramkishan Sharma and Gita Sharma. The entry to this effect was made in the diary Ex.P-9. Kanti Narain has paid the rent for the months of May, 1998 at the rate of Rs. 500/-. Thereafter, from June, 1998, the tenants have not paid rent at the rate of Rs. 500/- per month. He has received a sum of Rs. 5,125/- through bank draft under protest. According to him, the building was required by him for re-building, which could not be carried out without the building being vacated by the tenants. There are cracks in the walls of the building and plaster of the building is also damaged. The walls of the building are 1= feet in width and he wants to convert the same by raising walls of 9". His grand son and daughter are studying in Holy Heart School, Nahan. They are coming daily to Nahan from Shambuwala. He is not having any house at Nahan. He has not vacated any other residential building without sufficient cause in the urban area of Nahan within five years of filing the present petition. One of the tenants has purchased plot No. 63 from Housing Board. He has sufficient amount for reconstruction of building. He is having two FDRs of Rs. 2,00,000/-with him. The remaining amount will be arranged by him by raising loan. 8. PW-1 Smt. Veena Chauhan has testified that according to record, Ayush Gupta and Anshika Gupta are coming to Holy Heart School, Nahan from Shambuwala. She has proved Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-5. He has sufficient amount for reconstruction of building. He is having two FDRs of Rs. 2,00,000/-with him. The remaining amount will be arranged by him by raising loan. 8. PW-1 Smt. Veena Chauhan has testified that according to record, Ayush Gupta and Anshika Gupta are coming to Holy Heart School, Nahan from Shambuwala. She has proved Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-5. 9. PW-2 Smt. Kamlesh Goyal was posted in HIMUDA as Senior Assistant. She has brought the record of plot No. 63. It was allotted to Madan Swami, one of the tenants. 10. PW-3 Balkishan has proved the site plan Ex.P- 8, which was issued vide forwarding letter Ex.P-7. 11. PW-4 Ranbir Singh has deposed that he has seen the disputed house. It has two floors and four rooms are on the first floor and three rooms alongwith kitchen in the ground floor. The building was 100 years old. The life of the building was over. The floors of the building are damaged. There are cracks in the walls and the roof is also old. The life of the tin is also over. According to him, the reconstruction of the building was not possible without eviction of the same by the tenants. Rs. 5/6 lakhs would be required for reconstruction. The construction plan of building Ex.P-8 has been prepared by him. 12. PW-6 Ramkishan has led his evidence by way of affidavit. According to him, he was working as driver with Ishwar Chand on monthly payment of Rs. 2,000/-. On 28.3.1998, Kanti Narain, tenant of the landlord had come alongwith rent and handed over the rent to Ishwar Chand in his presence. On the same day, it was agreed that from April 1998, the rent will be Rs. 500/- per month. 13. One of the tenants Madan Mohan has appeared as RW-2. According to him, the disputed premises were taken on rent by his father from the landlord on monthly rent of Rs. 125/-. After the death of Kanti Narain, the house was in tenancy of the tenants being his successors. The electric meter was got installed by him in the year, 1992. No written agreement of the rent was ever executed between Kanti Narain and landlord. Kanti Narain was patient of paralysis. After the death of Kanti Narain, he had sent rent from April, 1998 to August, 2001 at the rate of Rs. The electric meter was got installed by him in the year, 1992. No written agreement of the rent was ever executed between Kanti Narain and landlord. Kanti Narain was patient of paralysis. After the death of Kanti Narain, he had sent rent from April, 1998 to August, 2001 at the rate of Rs. 125/- per month through bank draft dated 24.9.2001 to the landlord which was duly received and encashed by him. The landlord received the rent without any protest or objection. According to him, the entire building is made of bricks and cement and the walls of the building were very good. Neither the walls have bulged out nor plaster has given away and no cracks have appeared. The floors of the building were in good condition. Wooden planks in the roof were also in good condition. The landlord was not having sufficient funds for re-construction. He was having sufficient vacant land and building in Muhal Haripur near Jhanda Ji on Nahan-Shimla road. 14. RW-1 Rajeev Kumar has deposed that the electric meter initially in the name of Rangila Swami and now the meter was in the name of Madan Mohan. 15. RW-3 Saneh Kashyap has led his evidence by way of affidavit. He has testified that on 20.11.2006, he at the instance of the tenants visited the spot and inspected the building. He found the building in good condition. It was fit for habitation. This is the entire oral as well as documentary evidence led by the parties. 16. The landlord has proved building plan Ex.P-8. It is duly established from the statement of PW-4 Ishwar Chand and PW-5 Ranbir Singh that the house is in dilapidated condition. There are cracks in the roof and walls of the house. The reconstruction of the building was not possible without its being vacated by the tenants. The landlord was having sufficient funds for reconstruction of the building. The landlord wanted to reconstruct the building in order to make it more profitable. 17. Their Lordships of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Metalware and Co. etc. Vs. Bansilal Sarma and Co. etc. The reconstruction of the building was not possible without its being vacated by the tenants. The landlord was having sufficient funds for reconstruction of the building. The landlord wanted to reconstruct the building in order to make it more profitable. 17. Their Lordships of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Metalware and Co. etc. Vs. Bansilal Sarma and Co. etc. AIR 1979 SC 1559 , 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 S. 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". 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 including not merely the factors of the landlord being possessed of sufficient means or funds to under take 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. All these factors being relevant must enter the verdict of the Rent Controller on the question of the bona fide requirement of the landlord under S. 14(1)(b). In a sense if the building happens to be decrepit or dilapidated it will readily make for 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. Conversely a landlord being possessed of sufficient means to under take the project of demolition and reconstruction by itself may not be sufficient to establish his bona fide requirement if the building happens to be a very recent construction in a perfectly sound condition and its situation may prevent its being put to a more profitable use after reconstruction. In any case these latter factors may cast a serious doubt on the landlord's bona fide requirement. It is, therefore, clear to us that the age and condition of the building would certainly be a relevant factor which will have to be taken into account while pronouncing upon the bona fide requirement of the landlord under S. 14(1)(b) of the Act and the same cannot be ignored. 7. We would like to observe that each side has adopted an extreme stand on the question at issue which is obviously incorrect. 7. We would like to observe that each side has adopted an extreme stand on the question at issue which is obviously incorrect. On the one hand counsel for the appellant urged that the words 'bona fide required' refer to the condition of the building and not to the honest or bona fide intention entertained by the landlord to undertake demolition and reconstruction, suggesting thereby that the condition of the building should be a decisive factor while counsel for the respondent on the other hand contended that that aspect was totally irrelevant and the bona fide requirement of the landlord should be determined on the basis of factors such as the financial capacity of the landlord to undertake the project and whether he had taken any steps in that behalf etc. We do not agree that old age and dilapidated condition of the building is a sine qua non or a decisive factor for eviction under S. 14(1)(b) nor is it possible to accept the view that the said circumstances in totally irrelevant in pronouncing upon the bona fide requirement of the landlord. We are clearly of the view that the age and existing condition of the building - whether it is a recent construction or very old and whether it is in a good and sound condition or has become decrepit or dilapidated - are relevant factors forming part of 'all the circumstances' that having to be considered while determining the bona fide requirement of the landlord under S. 14(1)(b) of the Act and in the totality of the circumstances these factors may assume lesser or greater significance depending upon whether in the scheme of the concerned enactment there is or there is not a provision for reinduction of the evicted tenant into the new construction. Such a view would be in accord with the main objective of the benign legislation enacted with the avowed intention of giving protection to the tenant." 18. In P.ORR and Sons (P) Ltd. Vs. Associated Publishers (Madras) Limited[OVERRULED], (1991) 1 SCC 301 , their Lordships of the Hon'ble Supreme Court have held that the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control Act, 1960 does not accept the requirement by the landlord as a bona fide requirement within the meaning of the provision unless the condition of the building, in the context of the relevant circumstances, requires demolition. Their Lordships have held as under: "30. We accordingly hold that S. 14(1)(b) is satisfied only if the building is bona fide required by the landlord for the "immediate", i.e., direct, sole and timely purpose of demolishing it with a view to erecting a new building on the site of the existing building. Various circumstances such as the capacity of the landlord, the size of the existing building, the demand for additional space, the condition of the place, the economic advantage and other factors justifying investment of capital on reconstruction may be taken into account by the concerned authority in considering an application for recovery; but the essential and overriding consideration which, in the general interests of the public and for the protection of the tenants from unreasonable eviction, the legislature has in mind is the condition of the building that demands timely demolition by reason of the extent of damage to its structure making it uneconomical or unsafe to undertake repairs. While the condition of the building by itself may not necessarily establish the bona fide requirement under clause (b), that condition is not only one of the various circumstances which may be taken into account by the Controller, but it is the essential condition in the absence of which it would not be possible for the land-lord to prove that he has a bona fide requirement which is timely, directly and solely for the purpose of demolition of the building. The Act does not accept the requirement by the landlord as a bona fide requirement within the meaning of the provision unless the condition of the building, in the context of the relevant circumstances, requires demolition. These are matters which are to be proved by evidence." 19. It will be apt at this stage to refer to section 14(b) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control Act, 1960, which reads thus: "14(b)- that the building is bona fide required by the landlord for the immediate purpose of demolishing it and such demolition is to be made for the purpose of erecting a new building on the site of the building sought to be demolished." 20. Section 14(b) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control Act, 1960 is not pari materia with section 14(3)(c) of the Himachal Pradesh Urban Rent Control Act, 1987. Section 14(b) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control Act, 1960 is not pari materia with section 14(3)(c) of the Himachal Pradesh Urban Rent Control Act, 1987. Section 14(3)(c) of the Himachal Pradesh Urban Rent Control Act, 1987 reads thus: "14(3)(c)- in the case of any building or rented land, if he requires it to carry out any building work at the instance or the Government or local authority or any Improvement Trust under some improvement or development scheme or if it has become unsafe or unfit for human habitation or is required bonafide by him for carrying out repairs which can not be carried out without the building or rented land being vacated or that the building or rented land is required bonafide by him for the purpose of building or rebuilding or making these to any substantial additions, or alterations and that such building or re-building or addition or alteration can not be carried out without the building or rented land being vacated." 21. Their Lordships of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Shyamlal Agarwal Vs. Ratanlal Malviya (dead) by Lrs., AIR 1991 SC 353 : (1991) 2 SCC 449 Supp had the occasion to construe section 12(1)(h) of M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961. Section 12(1)(h) of the Act permits eviction of tenant from any accommodation on the ground that the accommodation is required bona fide by the landlord for the purpose of building or rebuilding or making therein any substantial addition or alteration. The language employed in section 12(1)(h) of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 is more akin to the phraseology employed in section 14(3)(c) of the Himachal Pradesh Urban Rent Control Act, 1987. Their Lordships after interpreting section 12(1)(h) have held that the building should be in a dilapidated condition requiring repair or demolition was not a statutory requirement. Their Lordships have further held that there is no statutory requirement that while considering the bona fide need of the landlord for reconstruction of the accommodation the building must necessarily be in a dilapidated condition requiring repair without demolition. Their Lordships have further held that there is no statutory requirement that while considering the bona fide need of the landlord for reconstruction of the accommodation the building must necessarily be in a dilapidated condition requiring repair without demolition. However, their Lordships have held that even in the absence of such a provision dilapidated or otherwise, condition of the building would be one of the relevant circumstance while considering the bona fide of the landlord u/s 12(1)(h) of the Act although that could not be a decisive circumstance in determining the question of bona fide need. Their Lordships have held as under: "3. Learned counsel for the appellant urged that the High Court has failed to record any finding that the shop in dispute was in dilapidated condition or that, it required reconstruction, in the absence of such a finding the landlord' & bona fide need could not be upheld. He placed reliance on a number of decisions but since none of them relate to interpretation of S. 12(1)(h) of the Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act, 1961, it is not necessary to refer to those decisions. S. 12(1)(h) of the Act permits eviction of tenant from any accommodation on the ground that the accommodation is required bona fide by the landlord for there purpose of building or rebuilding or making therein any substantial, addition or alteration. There is no statutory requirement that while, considering the bona fide need of the land-lord for reconstruction of the accommodation the building must necessarily be in a dilapidated condition requiring repair, or demolition. Unlike other Rent Control Laws the Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Act does not expressly provide for any such condition. But even in the absence of such a provision dilapidated or otherwise, condition of the building would be one of the relevant circumstance while considering the bona fide need of the landlord under S. 12(1)(h) of the Act, although that could not be a decisive circumstance in determining the question of bona fide need. Bona fide requirement of the landlord under S. 12(1)(h) may include many relevant factors i.e. the need of the landlord to put the building for better use to obtain higher income, the condition of the building, shortage of accommodation and necessity of having larger accommodation. the capacity of the landlord to rebuild the accommodation, his financial resources etc. Bona fide requirement of the landlord under S. 12(1)(h) may include many relevant factors i.e. the need of the landlord to put the building for better use to obtain higher income, the condition of the building, shortage of accommodation and necessity of having larger accommodation. the capacity of the landlord to rebuild the accommodation, his financial resources etc. All these factors are relevant for the purposes of determining the question whether the accommodation is required bona fide by the landlord for the purpose of rebuilding the accommodation." 22. Their Lordships of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Vijay Singh etc. etc. Vs. Vijayalakshmi Ammal, AIR 1997 SC 47 had again the occasion to consider section 14(1)(b) of the Tamil Nadu Rent Control Act. Their Lordships have culled out the following principles: "For granting permission u/s 14(1)(b) the Rent Controller is expected to consider all relevant materials for recording a finding whether the requirement of the landlord for demolition of the building and erection of a new building on the same site is bonafide or not. For recording a finding that requirement for demolition was bonafide, the Rent Controller has to take into account: (1) bonafide intention of the landlord for from the sole object only to get rid of the tenants; (2) the age and condition of the building; (3) the financial position of the landlord to demolish and erect a new building according to the statutory requirements of the Act. These are some of the illustrative factors which have to be taken into consideration before an order is passed u/s 14(1)(b). NO court can fix any limit in respect of the age and condition of the building. That factor has to be taken into consideration along with other factors and then a conclusion one way or the other has to be arrived at by the Rent Controller." 23. The principle laid down in Vijay Singh etc. etc. Vs. Vijayalakshmi Ammal, were explained and reiterated in Amaiyappa Transport Vs. N.S. Rajulu, (2002) 9 SCC 437 as well. 24. In R.V.E. Venkatachala Gounder Vs. Venkatesha Gupta and Others, AIR 2002 SC 1733 their Lordships of the Hon'ble Supreme Court have laid down the following parameters u/s 14(1)(b) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960: "11. We may refer to two decisions of Madras High Court. In S. Raju and 9 others Vs. 24. In R.V.E. Venkatachala Gounder Vs. Venkatesha Gupta and Others, AIR 2002 SC 1733 their Lordships of the Hon'ble Supreme Court have laid down the following parameters u/s 14(1)(b) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960: "11. We may refer to two decisions of Madras High Court. In S. Raju and 9 others Vs. K. Nathamani, the Constitution Bench decision has been followed and it has been held that when new buildings with modern amenities have come up in that locality, naturally the building in question may become unsuitable to the surroundings and a liability, in its present condition, to the landlord. Keeping the building in the same condition will amount to asking the landlord to shoulder the burden for ever. Tenants may be satisfied with the present state of the building since they have to pay only a nominal rent but the Rent Control Legislation, beneficial to the landlord and the tenant both, should be interpreted in that way. For the purpose of proving his bona fides the landlord need only show that he has got the capacity to raise the necessary funds. In A.N. Srinivasa Thevar Vs. Sundarambal alias Prema, (1995) 2 LW 14 : (1995) 2 MLJ 247 , even before the decision by Constitution Bench in Vijay Singh's case was available, it was held in the light of the decision in P. Orr & Sons that the availability of the following factors was sufficient to make out a case of bona fide requirement u/s 14(1)(b): "(a) Capacity of the landlord to demolish and to reconstruct is undisputed and also proved satisfactorily; (b) The size of the existing building occupies only one third of the site, leaving two third behind vacant and unutilized; (c) Demand for additional space: The demised premises is situated in a busy locality. Therefore, there is a great demand for additional space in the locality which could be met by demolishing the existing small building and putting up a larger building providing for future development vertically also, by building pucca terraced building; (d) The economic advantage: A modern construction of a larger building shall certainly yield better revenue and also appreciate in value, when compared to the asbestos sheet roofed old building." In that case, it was observed that the existing building was an old, out-model asbestos sheet building proposed to be replaced with better and modern building which would provide for better quality accommodation to the needs of the present days as the preservation of such building in a busy locality of a town shall not only be an eyesore but also against the souring public demand for additional space. Viewed from the angle of general interest of the public which, according to the decision in P. Orr & Sons is one of the considerations, it was observed that a big site should yield to a larger modern building with an increased and enlarged accommodation having better facilities to solve the ever increasing demand for more space. Stalling growth and development for the sake of one tenant who is in occupation of an old model building constructed with mud and mortar and asbestos sheets occupying only one third of the site was held to be not conducive to public interest. We approve the statement of law and the approach adopted by Madras High Court in both the above said decisions. The structural and physical features and the nature of the construction of the building cannot be ignored. Even in P. Orr & Sons, this Court was of opinion that various circumstances, such as the capacity of the landlord, size of the existing building, the demand for additional space, the condition of the place, the economic advantage and other factors, justifying investment of capital on reconstruction may be taken into account by the concerned authorities, while considering the requirement for reconstruction of the building as the essential and overriding consideration in the general interest of the public and for the protection of the tenant from unreasonable eviction." 25. Their Lordships of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Jagat Pal Dhawan Vs. Kahan Singh (Dead) by Lrs. Their Lordships of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Jagat Pal Dhawan Vs. Kahan Singh (Dead) by Lrs. and Others, (2003) 1 SCC 191 had the occasion to interpret clause (c) of sub-section (3) of section 14 of the Himachal Pradesh Rent Control Act, 1987. Their Lordships have held that while trying eviction petition on the ground of demolition and reconstruction, Court may look into the age and condition of building, availability of necessary funds, and whether building plans have been sanctioned by local authority in order to assess landlords' bona fides, even if the statute concerned has not specifically made them ingredients of the ground for eviction. Their Lordships have further held that eviction should be allowed where no material is placed on record to show that landlord's real intention is only to evict the tenant rather than to raise new construction. In this case also the building was located in a busy commercial locality, landlord had received sanction for his building plans, had sufficient funds and wished to demolish the 100 year old suit building to construct a more spacious three storey structure. Their Lordships have further held that if statutory provision is silent on the subject, bona fide, cannot be doubted solely on ground that building concerned is not in danger of collapse, though old and outdated. Their Lordships have held as under: "6. Section 14(3)(c) provides inter alia that a landlord may apply to the controller for an order directing the tenant to put the landlord in possession of tenancy premises in case of any building or rented land being required bona fide by him for the purpose of building or rebuilding which cannot be carried out without the building or rented land being vacated. The provision does not have as an essential ingredient thereof and as a relevant factor the age and condition of the building. The provision also does not lay down that the availability of requisite funds and availability of building plans duly sanctioned by the local authority must be proved by the landlord as an ingredient of the provision or as a condition precedent to his entitlement to eviction of tenant. The provision also does not lay down that the availability of requisite funds and availability of building plans duly sanctioned by the local authority must be proved by the landlord as an ingredient of the provision or as a condition precedent to his entitlement to eviction of tenant. However still, suffice it to observe, depending on the facts and circumstances of a given case, the court may look into such facts as relevant, though not specifically mentioned as ingredient of the ground for eviction, for the purpose of determining the bona fides of the landlord. If a building, as proposed, cannot be constructed or if the landlord does not have means for carrying out the construction or reconstruction obviously his requirement would remain a mere wish and would not be bona fide. 10. The locality where the premises are situated has, with the lapse of time, become a busy commercial locality. The structure of the building is more than 100 years old. It is in mud mortar and with slates' roofing. Instead of outdated two floor space, the landlord proposes to construct a modern three storeyed building which would obviously provide additional space and much better return to the landlord. The landlord has stated that he had no other residential house of his own available with him and having reconstructed the building he would like to shift his residence too in his own newly constructed house. The bona fides of such a requirement could not have been doubted solely on the ground that the structure of the building, though old and outdated, had not gone so weak as was needed to be demolished immediately. 11. So far as the neighbours are concerned, none has objected to the proposed reconstruction. In any case that is a matter to be settled by the landlord with his neighbours. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted during the course of hearing, and rightly in our opinion, that even if the neighbours were not agreeable to have the common wall demolished and replaced by a new wall the appellant was prepared to raise additional walls of his own next to the common walls, if any, and rest his entire structure on such walls. This obviates the need of proving consent of the adjoining building owners for the proposed reconstruction. 14. This obviates the need of proving consent of the adjoining building owners for the proposed reconstruction. 14. In the above said circumstances we are clearly of the opinion that relief of eviction as sought for could not have been denied to the appellant. There is no material available to hold that the landlord has something else in his mind such as getting rid of the tenant without raising construction. Sub-section (5) of section 14 of the Act protects the interest of the tenant by guarding against malafide evictions. It provides that where a landlord has obtained possession of the building or rented land for the purpose of building or rebuilding and puts the building to any other use or lets it out to any tenant other than the tenant evicted from it, the tenant who has been evicted may apply to the controller for an order directing that he shall be restored to possession of such building or rented land and the controller shall make an order accordingly. This provision would not permit the building from which the tenant is being evicted being subjected to any other user or misuse." 26. Their Lordships of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in P.S. Pareed Kaka and Others Vs. Shafee Ahmed Saheb, AIR 2004 SC 2049 have held that even a good building can be demolished if landlord considers it to be unsuitable for him and there is no need for the landlord to prove that condition of the building was such that it required immediate demolition. Their Lordships have held as under: "11. Law is well settled on this aspect. Even if the building is in a good condition, if it is not suitable for the requirement of the landlord, he can always demolish even a good building and put up a new building to suit his requirements. It is not necessary for the landlord to prove that the condition of the building is such that it require immediate demolition particularly when the premises is required by the landlord. Therefore, it has to be held that the finding of the trial Court cannot be sustained and the High Court on re-appreciation of the evidence, rightly so, held that the landlord has established that his need for all the four petition schedule premises is bona fide and reasonable." 27. Their Lordships of the in S. Venugopal Vs. Therefore, it has to be held that the finding of the trial Court cannot be sustained and the High Court on re-appreciation of the evidence, rightly so, held that the landlord has established that his need for all the four petition schedule premises is bona fide and reasonable." 27. Their Lordships of the in S. Venugopal Vs. A. Karruppusami and Another, AIR 2006 SC 1930 had again the occasion to consider section 14(1)(b) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent) Control Act, 1960. Their Lordships have held that even if the building is not in a dilapidated condition, it may be demolished for the purpose of erecting a new building on the same site. Their Lordships have enumerated the following factors: i) Increase in commercial value of the location which would fetch landlord higher returns from his property apart from serving his own needs, ii) Funds available with the landlord to reconstruct may not be relevant when builders, financiers and banks are willing to advance the requisite funds, moreover, when the landlord has obtained plan approval for construction. 28. Their Lordships have further held that the Court has to take into account bona fide intention of the landlord, the age and condition of the building and the financial position of the landlord to demolish and erect a new building. Their Lordships have held as under: "7. On the question of demolition and reconstruction of the premises in question, much was sought to be made out of the fact that the condition of the building had not been ascertained and, while according to the tenants it was not in a dilapidated condition, according to the landlord it was in a dilapidated condition. We do not attach much importance to the question as to whether the building was or was not in a dilapidated condition because Section 14(1)(b) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 (for short "the Act") contemplates a building which is bona fide required by the landlord for the immediate purpose of demolishing it, and such demolition is to be made for the purpose of erecting a new building on the site of the building sought to be demolished. Therefore, Section 14(1)(b) does not contemplate that the building sought to be demolished must necessarily be in a dilapidated condition. Therefore, Section 14(1)(b) does not contemplate that the building sought to be demolished must necessarily be in a dilapidated condition. Even if a building is not in a dilapidated condition, it may be demolished for the purpose of erecting a new building on the same site. 8. In the instant case, it is obvious that the locality in which the premises in question is located has developed into a commercial locality. The building needed by the landlord is a single-storey building, whereas a large number of multi-storeyed buildings have come up in that locality. The landlord realises that if he demolishes the old structure and erects a new multistoreyed building, he will get a much better return of his investment. He, of course, asserts that in the newly constructed building he also requires space for conducting his own business. 9. There is also evidence on record to establish that the landlord had applied to the competent authorities and got the plans approved for construction of a new building after demolishing the old structure. The landlord also asserted that he wanted to invest a sum of Rs. One-and-a-half lakhs on the construction. The High Court, however, after recording a finding' of fact that the building was in a dilapidated condition, rejected the claim of the landlord on the ground that he had not satisfactorily established before the Court that he had the means to reconstruct the building and that he had not given details relating to his means to construct a new building. Moreover, he had not disclosed, how was he going to raise funds for reconstruction. 10. It is true that in granting permission u/s 14(1)(b) of the Act, all relevant materials for recording a finding about the requirement of the landlord for demolishing the building and reconstruction of a new building have to be taken into account. The Rent Controller reached the conclusion that the landlord bona fide requires the premises for demolition and reconstruction of a new building. This Court has observed in Vijay Singh etc. etc. Vs. Vijayalakshmi Ammal, that the court must take into account the bona fide intention of the landlord, the age and condition of the building, and the financial position of the landlord to demolish and erect a new building. These are some of the illustrative factors which have to be taken into account and, they are by no means conclusive. 11. Vs. Vijayalakshmi Ammal, that the court must take into account the bona fide intention of the landlord, the age and condition of the building, and the financial position of the landlord to demolish and erect a new building. These are some of the illustrative factors which have to be taken into account and, they are by no means conclusive. 11. In the instant case, we find that the property owned by the landlord, whatever may have been its value in the past, has acquired commercial value and, therefore, the landlord wishes to demolish the old single-storey structure and to construct a multi-storeyed building which may fetch him higher rent, apart from serving his own needs. The landlord had already applied to the competent authorities and got the plans approved. Taking into consideration all these reasons, we are convinced that the landlord bona fide intends to demolish the old building and to construct a new one. Raising funds for erecting a structure in a commercial centre is not at all difficult when a large number of builders, financiers as well as banks are willing to advance funds to erect new structures in commercial areas. This is apart from the fact that the landlord has himself indicated that he was willing to invest a sum of Rs. One-and-a- half lakhs of his own, and he owns properties and jewellery worth a few lakhs. 29. Now, the court will advert whether the building was required by the landlord bona fidely. The landlord has duly proved that he is residing far away from Nahan town. His grand son and daughter are coming to Nahan town from Sambhuwala. He has no other house in Nahan town. One of the tenants Madan Mohan has purchased plot No. 63 and has constructed house in Nahan. It is for the landlord to decide where he would like to reside taking into consideration his convenience. 30. Their Lordships of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in R.C. Tamrakar and Another Vs. Nidi Lekha, AIR 2001 SC 3806 have held that the landlord himself is the best judge of what his requirements are, i.e. neither tenant nor court may endeavour to show the landlord how he should adjust himself. Their Lordships have held as under: 10. 30. Their Lordships of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in R.C. Tamrakar and Another Vs. Nidi Lekha, AIR 2001 SC 3806 have held that the landlord himself is the best judge of what his requirements are, i.e. neither tenant nor court may endeavour to show the landlord how he should adjust himself. Their Lordships have held as under: 10. Law is well settled that it is for the landlord to decide how and in what manner he should live and that he is the best judge of his residential requirement. In deciding the question of the bona fide requirement, it is unnecessary to make an endeavour as to how else landlord could have adjusted himself. 31. The findings recorded by the courts below with regard to arrears of rent are based on correct appreciation of evidence. The Rent Controller has rightly come to the conclusion that the tenants were liable to pay Rs. 18,118.75 paise with effect from September 2001 to 30.4.2010. 32. The evidence has been led by the landlord and tenants by way of affidavit as per order 18 rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The tenants have not raised any objection at the time when the evidence was recorded by following the provisions prescribed under order 18 rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The tenants are estopped from taking this plea before this Court. It is true that all the provisions of the CPC are not applicable to the proceedings in application for eviction under the Act, but the principles are applicable to the proceedings. 33. The Full Bench of Punjab and Haryana High Court in Banke Ram v. Shrimati Sarasvati Devi, 1977 (1) RCR 595 has held as under: "7. Thus, it is clear from the above discussion that the predominant view of this Court has been that it is imperative for the landlord to plead the ingredients of Sub-clauses (b) and (c) of Section 13(3)(a). Even after the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in Krishan Lal Seth's case (1961-63 Pun LR 865) (supra) to the contrary, Mahajan, J., (as he then was) one of the Judges on this Division Bench expressed a contrary view in Darshan Singh's case (1974 Ren CR 99) (Punj) (supra). Even after the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in Krishan Lal Seth's case (1961-63 Pun LR 865) (supra) to the contrary, Mahajan, J., (as he then was) one of the Judges on this Division Bench expressed a contrary view in Darshan Singh's case (1974 Ren CR 99) (Punj) (supra). It is well established and salutary principle of law that in any civil proceeding, it is essential for a party to plead the ingredients of any facts in the pleading on which he wants to rely and in proof of which he may produce evidence. Order VI, Rule 2, Code of Civil procedure, specifically provides for the same. It is reproduced below:-- "Every pleading shall contain, and contain only, a statement in a concise form of the material facts on which the party pleading relies for his claim or defence, as the case may be, but not the evidence by which they are to be proved, and shall when necessary, be divided into paragraphs, numbered consecutively. Dates, sums and numbers shall be expressed in figures." Though all the provisions of the CPC are not applicable to the proceedings in applications for eviction under the Act, but the principles which are the basis and foundation for the administration of justice as the one incorporated in Order VI, Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, will be undoubtedly applicable to these proceedings also. The purpose in following the procedure for framing of issues in eviction applications is also intended to pin-point the parties to the matter in controversy between them so that none of the parties may be taken by surprise and subsequently none of them may allege that he was in any way prejudiced. If there is no specific pleading about certain matter, the respondent would have no opportunity to controvert the same and consequently, no issue would be framed. In these circumstances, the parties will be in the dark as to whether to lead evidence in affirmation or in rebuttal and thus, some important matter in controversy may be overlooked deliberately or inadvertently. If there is no specific pleading about certain matter, the respondent would have no opportunity to controvert the same and consequently, no issue would be framed. In these circumstances, the parties will be in the dark as to whether to lead evidence in affirmation or in rebuttal and thus, some important matter in controversy may be overlooked deliberately or inadvertently. Even the Division Bench in Krishan Lal Seth's case (supra), appreciated the weight of the principle of law and observed,-- "It is generally incompetent for a tribunal to adjudicate upon any controversial matter which does not find place in the pleadings of the parties." In AIR 1930 57 (Privy Council) , which is the basic judgment on the subject, it was held,-- "Where a claim has been never made in the defence presented, no amount of evidence can be looked into upon a plea which was never put forward." The ratio of the decision in the above-said case was approved by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Bhagat Singh v. Jaswant Singh, AIR 1966 SC 1861 ." 34. The Division Bench of Kerala High Court in K.V. Joseph v. Devayani Amma, 1991 (1) RCR 324 has held that courts constituted for deciding purely civil questions between the persons seeking civil rights should be considered to be civil courts though they may be constituted under Rent Act. The Division Bench has held as under: 3. Section 14 of the Act is as follows: "14. The Division Bench has held as under: 3. Section 14 of the Act is as follows: "14. Execution of orders-- Every order made u/s 11 (or Section 12) or Section 13 or Section 19 or Section 33 and every order passed on appeal u/s 18 or on revision u/s 20 shall, after the expiry of the time allowed therein be executed by the Munsiff or if there are more than one Munsiff--by the principal Munsiff having original jurisdiction over the area in which the building is situated as if it were a decree passed by him: Provided that an order passed in execution under this section shall not be subject to an appeal but shall be subject to revision by the Court to which appeals ordinarily lie against the decisions of the said Munsiff." From the above provision it is evident that an order for eviction of the tenant passed u/s 11 shall be executed by the Munsiff or the principal Munsiff, as the case may be, having jurisdiction over the area in which the building is situated as if it were a decree passed by him. No appeal is provided against the order passed u/s 14 but such order shall be subject to revision by the Courts to which the appeals ordinarily lie against the decisions of the said Munsiff. In the present case, Exts. P3 and P5 orders were passed by the principal Munsiff and the District Judge respectively u/s 14 of the Act. The question that requires to be examined in this context is whether those Courts will come within the meaning of 'Civil Courts'. It is not brought to our notice that the expression 'Civil Court' has been specifically defined in any Act or the Code. However the CPC in its preamble indicates that it is an Act to consolidate and amend the laws relating to the procedure of the Courts of Civil Judicature, in other words the Courts which have jurisdiction to deal with the civil disputes and rights pertaining to property and persons. Generally speaking Courts constituted for deciding purely civil questions between the persons seeking their civil rights should be considered to be Civil Courts though they may be constituted by special statutes like the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965. Generally speaking Courts constituted for deciding purely civil questions between the persons seeking their civil rights should be considered to be Civil Courts though they may be constituted by special statutes like the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965. What is referred to in Section 14 is the Munsiff or principal Munsiff having jurisdiction over the area and he is conferred with the power to execute the orders of eviction as it were a decree passed by him. The revisional Court is the District Court to which appeals ordinarily lie against the decisions of the Munsiff. That being so, we have no hesitation to hold that the Courts which passed Exts.P3 and P5 orders u/s 14 of the Act are coming within the meaning of the 'Civil Courts'." 35. The Division Bench of Delhi High Court in Kamal Kumar Modi and Another Vs. Krishan Saigal, AIR 2003 Delhi 349 has held that order 18 rule 4 of the CPC caters to convenience of parties and is aimed at quick disposal of cause. The Division Bench has held as under: "5. This provision refers to the right of parties to begin and says that plaintiff would have the right to begin unless the defendant admits his claim but where he disputes his entitlement either on some point of law or some additional facts, it would be the defendant who would have the right to begin. This right to begin contemplated by Order 18 Rule 1 has nothing to do with the requirement of submitting the examination-in-chief of the witnesses on an affidavit as prescribed by amended Rule 4. Nor does it impinge upon or militate against this right. All that new Rule 4 does is to require parties to file the examination-in-chief of their witnesses on an affidavit. This method has been devised for the convenience of the parties and to save their time and that of the Court. It does not reflect upon or take away a party's right to cross-examine the witness of the opponent. That right is very well safeguarded because the witnesses have to be summoned in any case, wherever needed, for cross-examination before the Commissioner or the Court. Moreover it is not understandable how cross-examination of a plaintiff's witness was relevant or crucial for the examination-in-chief of the defendants witness. That right is very well safeguarded because the witnesses have to be summoned in any case, wherever needed, for cross-examination before the Commissioner or the Court. Moreover it is not understandable how cross-examination of a plaintiff's witness was relevant or crucial for the examination-in-chief of the defendants witness. Because the rationale behind cross-examination was to test the veracity of deposition made in the examination in chief. Therefore, examination-in-chief of a defendant's witness had nothing to do with cross-examination of a plaintiff's witness and was to be made and recorded independently. The judgment cited by Appellant's Counsel is also out of context. 6. We accordingly hold that the new amended Rule 4 of Order 18 requiring the parties to file examination-in-chief of their witnesses on an affidavit caters to the convenience of the parties and is aimed at quick disposal of the cause. It does not in any way run counter to the spirit and scheme of Order 18 Rule 1 which only refers to the parties right to begin." 36. The Rent Controller has rightly recorded the evidence under order 18 rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The purpose of enactment of the Himachal Pradesh Urban Rent Control Act, 1987 is to resolve the dispute between the landlords and tenants expeditiously. The procedure prescribed under order 18 rule 4 of the CPC is to cut short the period of recording evidence to facilitate the quick disposal of the petition before the Rent Controller. The Rent Controller/Appellate Authority may not be courts stricto sensu or in technical sense but they have all the trapping of the courts. Accordingly, in view of the observations and discussions made hereinabove, there is no merit in the petition and the same is dismissed. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. The tenants are directed to handover the vacant possession of the premises in question to the landlord within a period of three months from today. No costs.