Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 1289 (HP)

BHOOP RAM v. DEVKI DEVI

2014-09-17

SURESHWAR THAKUR

body2014
JUDGMENT : SURESHWAR THAKUR, J. 1. This revision petition is filed by the petitioner-tenant against the judgment rendered on 23.3.2006, by the learned Appellate Authority (II), Shimla, H.P., whereby the appeal filed by the petitioner-tenant was dismissed. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the original petitioner before the learned Rent Controller, is landlord of House No. 110/1, known as Tanwar Bhawan Lower Kaithu, Annadale, Shimla-3. The respondent is a tenant in accommodation consisting of two rooms, kitchen, and verandah in the first floor of the building on a rent of Rs. 200/- per month. The respondent was in arrears of rent. The premises are required by the original petitioner for his own use and occupation, as well as, for the use and occupation of the family members. So, the rent petition for eviction of the respondent-tenant on the ground of arrears of rent and bona fide requirement came to be filed. 3. The respondent-tenant has contested the petition and raised preliminary objections about maintainability, as the petitioner-landlord has got vacated two residential sets in the building within five years and estoppel. On merits, the respondent-tenant averred that he was not in arrears of rent and has already paid rent of the premises to the petitioner-landlord till 30.11.1999. The petitioner-landlord has got vacated two room set from Sh. Jia Lal Chauhan in the year 1995 and another set was got vacated from a tenant, who was doing tailoring work. The petitioner-landlord is having sufficient accommodation for him and his family members. The premises are not required by the petitioner-landlord for his occupation and for occupation of his family members. 4. In the rejoinder the petitioner-landlord controverted the allegations of the respondent-tenant and re-affirmed his case. 5. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed by the learned Rent Controller:- 1. Whether the petitioner is in arrears of rent as alleged? OPP. 2. Whether the premises in question are bonafidely required by the petitioner for his own use and occupation as well as his family? OPP. 3. Whether the petition is not maintainable? OPR. 4. Whether the petitioner is estopped from filing the present petition? OPR. 5. Relief. 6. On an appraisal of the evidence, adduced before the learned Rent Controller, the learned Rent Controller allowed the petition of the petitioner-landlord. OPP. 3. Whether the petition is not maintainable? OPR. 4. Whether the petitioner is estopped from filing the present petition? OPR. 5. Relief. 6. On an appraisal of the evidence, adduced before the learned Rent Controller, the learned Rent Controller allowed the petition of the petitioner-landlord. In appeal, preferred against the order of the learned Rent Controller by the respondent-tenant before the learned Appellate Authority, the learned Appellate Authority dismissed the appeal and affirmed the findings recorded by the learned Rent Controller. 7. Now the respondent-tenant has instituted the instant Civil Revision before this Court, assailing the findings, recorded by the learned Appellate Authority in its impugned judgment. 8. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent-tenant has contented with force and vigour before this Court that the Courts below have omitted to take into consideration or have excluded from consideration, the preponderant fact, as borne out from the admission of the petitioner-landlord comprised in his recorded deposition, of his having prior to the institution of the eviction petition against the respondent-tenant, got vacated and occupied the accommodation previously in the occupation of Jia Lal Chauhan and Kirpa Ram. Therefore, in the face of accommodation previously under occupation of the two tenants aforesaid under the petitioner-landlord and the latter having on both of the former aforesaid vacated the accommodation under their tenancies, theirs having acquired possession thereof, empowered them, with accommodation both sufficient and adequate, hence, dispels the espousal in the rent petition of theirs being in bona fide need of or in requirement of accommodation under the occupation of the respondent-tenant. The aforesaid contention addressed before this court by the learned counsel for the respondent-tenant has no force, nor any tenacity, inasmuch as, even if, assuming the said admission has been omitted to be taken into consideration by the Appellate Authority, nonetheless, the factum of vacation of premises in occupation of both the tenants under the petitioner-landlord, has not only been taken into consideration, but has also been ousted on the score of the legal proposition emanating from a string of judicial pronouncements, unequivocally voicing the view that even if the petitioner-landlord comes to acquire possession of premises on theirs having came to be vacated by both the previous tenants under the landlord, the said factum would not oust their petition for eviction against a person occupying premises under them as a tenant, as the sole person to determine the genuineness of the extant, as well as the future need for the premises sought to be vacated is the landlord alone. The said inherent right vested in the landlord to determine his genuine bona fide needs, being both extant and in futuro keeping in view the increase in the size of the family cannot be either fettered, nor curtailed by the respondent-tenant. In view of it, having been demonstrated by evidence on record that the family of the petitioner-landlord was growing in size, which necessitated theirs, as a corollary requiring accommodation more than what they possessed even after theirs having acquired possession of premises hitherto under the occupation of Jia Lal Chauhan and Kirpa Ram, the hitherto tenants under the petitioner-landlord, is to be construed to be a genuine and bona fide assessment of the need and requirement of the landlord qua the demised premises. The assessment of the need and requirement of the landlord both qua its bona fides, as also qua the extant accommodation available with the landlord, being insufficient to house the increasing size of the family, is too, hence, a bona fide and just assessment. Consequently, in face thereof and in face of the fact that the said determination by the learned Rent Controller has been accepted by the learned Appellate Authority and when this Court does not find any perversity or absurdity in the appreciation of the material as placed before both the courts below, hence, constrains it to draw the conclusion that the rent petition was decreeable, as tenably done. Consequently, there is no merit in the present petition and the same is accordingly dismissed. Judgments of both the courts below are maintained and affirmed. No order as to costs.