Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 1576 (HP)

Janmejai Sood v. Ram Gopal Sood

2014-11-04

RAJIV SHARMA

body2014
JUDGMENT : Rajiv Sharma, J. This revision petition is instituted against the judgment rendered by the learned Appellate Authority (II), Shimla in Civil Appeal No. 19-S/13 (b) of 2007, dated 26.11.2012. 2. Key facts necessary for the adjudication of this revision petition are that the respondents (hereinafter referred to as the landlords) have filed a rent application No. 1-2 of 2002 in the Court of learned Rent Controller (5), Shimla under Section 14 of the H.P. Urban Rent Control Act, against the petitioner and proforma respondents (hereinafter referred to as the tenants). The premises were previously owned and possessed by one Sh. Shanti Swaroop son of Sh. Wadhwa Mal. From the original owner the demised premises was purchased vide registered sale deed dated 14.8.1989 by late Sh. Rama Nand and Sh. Ram Gopal Sood, sons of late Sh. Jai Karan Dass; and their respective sons namely, Chander Harsh, Vijay Kumar and Sanjay Karol (sons of Rama Nand) and Sh. Rakesh Sood, Raman Sood and Ashwani Sood (sons of Ram Gopal Sood). The premises fell exclusively to the share of the landlords in the family settlement vide arbitration award dated 1.10.2001 registered on 2.10.2001. The eviction petition was filed on the following grounds: A) That the premises were bonafide required by the landlords for re-construction and rebuilding on old lines, which could not be carried out, unless the tenants vacates the same. B) The building in question is more than 100 years old. It is in dilapidated condition. It has outlived its life span. The entire building stood constructed in old stone work i.e. “surkhi” and lim masonry. They have carried out addition and alteration resulting in putting additional load on entire load bearing structure and walls of the building. The walls are out of plumb and have bulged out due to weight. Damage has been caused to the building. The stone walls had started crumbling down. C) The building has become unsafe and unfit for human habitation. The condition of the building was dangerous to the life and property of the occupants and other residents of the locality. D) The rent has not been paid w.e.f. 1.3.1985 till 30.11.2001. 3. The tenants contested the petition. According to them, the building was situated in core area wherein any construction activity has been banned by the government. There was no bonafide requirement. No additions and alterations have been undertaken. D) The rent has not been paid w.e.f. 1.3.1985 till 30.11.2001. 3. The tenants contested the petition. According to them, the building was situated in core area wherein any construction activity has been banned by the government. There was no bonafide requirement. No additions and alterations have been undertaken. The building has not become unsafe and unfit for human habitation. The tenants were not liable to pay rent to the landlord as they were not the landlords of the demised premises. 4. Rejoinder was filed. The Rent Controller framed issues on 26.10.2002. He ordered the eviction of the tenants vide order dated 1.10.2007 on the ground of bonafide requirement of the landlord for the purpose of rebuilding/reconstruction that the demise premises has become unfit and unsafe for human habitation and that the respondent is in arrears of rent to the tune of Rs. 6305/-. The tenants were directed to hand over the vacant possession of the demise premises to the applicants within a period of 60 days from the date of the order. 5. The tenants feeling aggrieved by order dated 1.10.2007 preferred appeal before the learned Appellate Authority. The learned Appellate Authority, partly set aside and modified the order on 26.11.2012, hence this petition. 6. Mr. Ajay Kumar, Sr. Advocate, has vehemently argued that the premises in question were not bonafide required by the landlord for the purpose of re-building and reconstruction. He also contended that the building has not become unsafe and unfit for human habitation. The tenants were not bound to pay the rent to the landlords. On the other hand, Mr. Bhupinder Gupta, Sr. Advocate, has supported the order and judgment dated 1.10.2007. 7. I have heard the learned Advocates and gone through the pleadings and record very carefully. 8. The copy of the sale deed Ext. PW-3/A has been duly proved on record by registration Clerk. The arbitration award Ext. PW- 9/A was duly proved. It was a duly registered document. On the basis of the sale deed Ext. PW-3/A, arbitration award Ext. PW-9/A and from the revenue record Ext. PW-1/A, it has rightly been held by the Courts’ below that Sh. Ram Gopal Sood, Sudesh Sood, Rakesh Sood, Raman Karol, Ashwani Sood and Manu Karol have become landlords of the demise premises. 9. One of the landlords has appeared as PW-11. According to him, the premises were 100 years old. PW-9/A and from the revenue record Ext. PW-1/A, it has rightly been held by the Courts’ below that Sh. Ram Gopal Sood, Sudesh Sood, Rakesh Sood, Raman Karol, Ashwani Sood and Manu Karol have become landlords of the demise premises. 9. One of the landlords has appeared as PW-11. According to him, the premises were 100 years old. These were in dilapidated condition and have outlived its life. The building has been damaged by the tenants. The load bearing walls have bulged out. The foundation of the building has also settled down. The portion of the wall had fallen. The M.C. Shimla has issued notice vide letter Ext. PW-11/C wherein the building in question was declared unsafe. The photographs of the building have been produced by Sh. Harinder Singh vide Ext. PW-10/A to Ext. PW-10/C and its negatives Ext. PW-10/D to Ext. PW-10/F. Sh. Vivek Karol has appeared as PW-6. He is a graduate in Civil Engineering. He has inspected the building on 6.12.2001. He prepared report Ext. PW-6/A. According to his inspection report, the building was in bad condition. Its walls have bulged out. The stone work was falling. The building was more than 100 years old. 10. The tenants have examined one expert witness H.S.Bist. He appeared as RW-2 and stated that he is a retired Ex. Engineer from the department of HP PWD. He inspected the demise premises on two occasions i.e. firstly in December, 2001 and thereafter in June, 2002. He prepared his report Ext. RW-2/A and copy of map Ext. RW-2/B. According to him the building was in good condition and is very much habitable. RW-1 Kulbhushan Sood, RW-3 Sanjeev Kuthiala and RW-4 Ashutosh Aggarwal deposed that the building was in good condition. On the basis of the statement of the landlord read in conjunction with the statement of PW-6 Vivek Karol, the Courts below have rightly concluded that the building was 100 years old. It was in dilapidated condition. It has become unsafe and unfit for human habitation. 11. Now, as far as the issue of construction of the building on old lines is concerned, one of the landlord has appeared as PW-1. It is evident from Ext. PW-7/A, PW-7/A-1 to Ext. PW-7/A-8 that the landlords possesses sufficient funds. They have also got their plan sanctioned in this regard from the M.C. Shimla vide Ext. PW-2/A and the map as Ext. PW-11/A. Sh. It is evident from Ext. PW-7/A, PW-7/A-1 to Ext. PW-7/A-8 that the landlords possesses sufficient funds. They have also got their plan sanctioned in this regard from the M.C. Shimla vide Ext. PW-2/A and the map as Ext. PW-11/A. Sh. Vivek Karol has deposed that if the landlords wanted to re-construct the building the same could not be carried out without the same being vacated by the tenants. Though, RW-2 has deposed that the building can be re-constructed/rebuild without being vacated, however, in view of the overwhelming evidence led by the landlords, it can be safely concluded that the building can not be built or re-built without the same being vacated by the tenants. The tenants are found to be in arrears of rent w.e.f. 1.3.1985 up to February, 2007. 12. The learned Appellate Authority has wrongly set aside and modified partly the order passed by the learned Rent Controller by observing that the executing Court would not execute the order of eviction on the ground of rebuilding and reconstruction unless duly sanctioned plan is produced by the petitioner therein. This issue is no more res integra in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Hari Dass Sharma vrs. Vikas Sood and others, reported in (2013) 5 SCC 243 . 13. Now, it is not the requirement of the law that for the purpose of re-building the landlord should obtain building permission from the Municipal Authorities. Accordingly, the operative portion of the judgment whereby the appeal has been partly allowed and the order has been modified is set aside. 14. Accordingly, the Civil Revision is disposed of as under : “The tenant is directed to hand over the vacant possession of the premises to the landlords within a period of three months. Thereafter the landlords shall commence the construction within a period of six months and complete the same within a further period of one year. The tenants should be re-inducted in the same place, location and area should be equivalent to the area which was in occupation of the tenants before the orders passed by the learned Rent Controller. The rate of rent after the induction of the tenants by the landlords would be determined as per the law laid down by their lordships of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Syed Jameel Abbas and others Vs. Mohd. The rate of rent after the induction of the tenants by the landlords would be determined as per the law laid down by their lordships of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Syed Jameel Abbas and others Vs. Mohd. Yamin alias Kallu Khan, reported in (2004) 4 SCC 781 .”