Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 122 (HP)

Ami Chand v. Pardeep Chand Giri

2014-02-25

RAJIV SHARMA

body2014
Judgment Rajiv Sharma, J. This petition is directed against the order passed by learned Rent Controller on 14.1.2013 in case No. 74-2 of 2010/2009. 2. “Key facts” necessary for the adjudication of this petition are that the respondents-landlords (hereinafter referred to as the “landlords” for convenience sake) filed an eviction petition under section 14 of the H.P. Urban Rent Control Act, 1987 against the petitioner-tenant (hereinafter referred to as the “tenant” for convenience). According to the landlords, premises under the occupation of tenant have become unfit and unsafe for human habitation. The building is 100 years old and has outlived its life due to dilapidated condition. The premises are bonafide required for the purpose of building or rebuilding or making additions or alterations and the same cannot be carried out without the building in question being vacated by the tenant. The building and rebuilding work is to be carried out strictly as per old lines. Necessary steps for obtaining statutory permission from the Municipal Corporation have been initiated. The landlords have sufficient funds with them and can raise funds for carrying out building and rebuilding work . 3. Tenant has filed reply to the petition. He has moved an application under order 6 rule 17 read with section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking amendment of the reply by adding the following: “That in case this Hon’ble Court comes to the conclusion that the petitioner is entitled for the eviction of the premises in question in that eventuality as per amendment made in the provision of section 14 of H.P. Rent Control Act, the replying respondent/tenant will have right to re-entry in the premises in the rebuilt building equivalent in area to the original premises.” 4. Landlords have filed detailed reply to the application. According to the landlords, the petition was filed before the amendment to the Act. Learned Rent Controller (6), Shimla dismissed the application on 14.1.2013. Hence, the present petition. 5. Mr. Vivek Darhel has vehemently argued that amendment is necessary and required to settle the real controversy between the parties in view of the amendment carried out in the H.P. Urban Rent Control Act, 1987. The submission of the landlords is that the amendment carried to H.P. Urban Rent Control Act, 1987 will not apply retrospectively. 6. 5. Mr. Vivek Darhel has vehemently argued that amendment is necessary and required to settle the real controversy between the parties in view of the amendment carried out in the H.P. Urban Rent Control Act, 1987. The submission of the landlords is that the amendment carried to H.P. Urban Rent Control Act, 1987 will not apply retrospectively. 6. I have heard the learned counsel for the tenant and have gone through the pleadings and impugned order carefully. 7. The application has been filed by the tenant at the stage when the case was fixed for recording statements of PWs. Eviction has been sought on the ground that the premises have become unsafe and unfit for human habitation and for building and rebuilding which cannot be carried out without the eviction of tenant. The right of re-entry can be granted to the tenant only when the eviction order is passed on the ground of rebuilding and reconstruction. Learned Rent Controller has rightly come to the conclusion that the expression “mutual agreement” included in the proviso in the amendment under section 14 (3) (c) of the H.P. Urban Rent Control Act, 1987 would come into operation only at the relevant time. This plea is otherwise also available to the tenant under the law. The application filed by the tenant is pre-mature. There is neither any illegality nor any perversity in the order passed by the learned Rent Controller. 8. Accordingly, there is no merit in the petition and the same is dismissed. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. However, it is made clear that tenant shall be entitled to re-induction as per law laid down by this Court in Civil Revision No. 49/2006, titled as M/s R.S. Puran Mull Trust vs. M/s Dyal Sons decided on 8.7.2013 in case his eviction is ordered on the ground of building and rebuilding by the Rent Controller. There shall, however, be no order as to costs.