Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 504 (HP)

Hari Dass Sharma v. Surinder Kaur

2014-04-30

RAJIV SHARMA

body2014
Judgment : Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge (oral). This revision petition is directed against the judgment dated 30.11.2013 rendered by the Appellate Authority in Rent Appeal RBT No. 28-S/14 of 2013/11. 2. “Key facts” necessary for the adjudication of this petition are that respondent-landlady (hereinafter referred to as the “landlady” for convenience sake) has filed eviction petition against the petitioner-tenant (hereinafter referred to as the “tenant” for convenience sake). According to the landlady, she is owner of the building known as “Nagina Singh Building”, the Mall Shimla. The premises comprised of two rooms in the basement of the building was let out for non-residential purposes to the tenant on rent of Rs. 550/-per month. The building is more than 100 years of age. Father-in-law of landlady, by way of family settlement, gave undivided share in the building known as “Nagina Singh Building”, The Mall Shimla to her. She alongwith other co-owners of the building purchased the free hold rights and title of the building from H.P. Government vide sale deed No.145/2007 registered on 17.2.2007. The premises were bona fide required for reconstruction or rebuilding of the building, which could not be done without eviction of the tenant. Tenant has also sought permission from Municipal Corporation for reconstruction of the building. 3. According to the reply filed by tenant, there are other legal heirs of late Sh. Amrik Singh. He was inducted tenant by Sh. Amrik Singh. It is denied that accommodation comprised of two rooms in the basement. According to the tenant, measurement of the rooms is 12x10 feet and one hall alongwith bathroom and latrine in the ground floor of ‘Nagina Singh Building’ on monthly rent of Rs. 400/-. The landlady has not sought permission to raise construction of the building from the Municipal Corporation. 4. The Rent Controller framed the issues on 13.10.2009. The Rent Controller allowed the petition on 7.4.2011. Tenant was directed to handover the vacant possession of the demised premises. Tenant preferred an appeal before the Appellate Authority. He dismissed the same on 30.11.2013. Hence, the present petition. 5. Mr. G.D. Verma, learned Senior Advocate has vehemently argued that the premises were not required bona fide for reconstruction and rebuilding. According to him, landlady was not in possession of sufficient funds. He has also contended that the building plan has not been approved by the Municipal Corporation. He dismissed the same on 30.11.2013. Hence, the present petition. 5. Mr. G.D. Verma, learned Senior Advocate has vehemently argued that the premises were not required bona fide for reconstruction and rebuilding. According to him, landlady was not in possession of sufficient funds. He has also contended that the building plan has not been approved by the Municipal Corporation. The property comprised of four rooms, kitchen and bath room. He has lastly contended that both the authorities below have not correctly appreciated the evidence of expert brought by the tenant. 6. Mr. G.S. Rathore has supported the judgme nt and order passed by both the authorities below. 7. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the pleadings carefully. 8. AW-1 Gulab Singh has proved the sale deed No.145/2007 Ex.AW-1/A. 9. Surinder Kaur, landlady, has appeared as AW 2. According to her, old building was burnt. Temporary sheds were constructed. The tenant was using premises as godown. The premises were given by her father-in-law on tenancy at the rate of Rs. 550/-per month. Her father-in-law died in the year 1997. The premises have been purchased from the Government of H.P. vide sale deed Ex.AW-1/A. The building plan has been approved by the Municipal Corporation. The disputed premises came in her share. She has further stated that rebuilding and reconstruction was not possible without eviction of tenant. She has sufficient source for the purpose of construction. She has denied the suggestion that tenancy comprised of four rooms, one hall, toilet and bathroom. She has also denied the suggestion that the rent was Rs.400/- per month. 10. AW-3 Sanjay Kumar has deposed that he is constructor by profession. Landlady was known to him. 11. AW-4 Partap Singh has proved Ex.PW-4/A. AW-5 Jamna Dass, A.P. Branch Municipal Corporation, Shimla has proved Ex.PW-5/A. According to him, Ex.PW-5/A was sanction letter issued by Commissioner vide No.148 (AP) dated 13.4.2007. 12. AW-6 H.S. Bisht has visited the premises and has prepared map of disputed premises Ex.PW-6/A. He has visited the premises on 30.4.2009 and 2.5.2009. He has denied the suggestion that reconstruction was possible without eviction of tenant. 13. RW-1 Hari Dass has deposed that he was tenant in premises for the last 30 years. He was inducted as tenant by Sh. Amrik Singh. He has denied the suggestion that reconstruction was possible without eviction of tenant. 13. RW-1 Hari Dass has deposed that he was tenant in premises for the last 30 years. He was inducted as tenant by Sh. Amrik Singh. According to him, he is in possession of four rooms 10 x 12 feet, one hall 50x12 feet, latrine and bathroom. According to him, no cracks have developed in the building. The premises fall in heritage zone. According to him, the Municipal Corporation has not approved the building plan. 14. RW-2 B.C. Sharma has deposed that premises are situated in basement comprised of four rooms, kitchen and bathroom. He has taken photographs of the disputed premises Ex.PW-2/C to Ex.RW-2/K. 15. The present building is built with stone and Dhajji (wooden planks) walls. Landlady wants to construct RCC structure. It has come in her statement that she has sufficient resources. Landlady can reconstruct the building to get better value of the property. The property is situated on the Mall Road. AW-6 H.S. Bisht has categorically deposed that the premises are situated in upper Mall Road side. According to him, reconstruction is not possible without vacating the premises by tenant. Even RW-2 B.C. Sharma has admitted that foundation of premises consists of stone masonry and walls are built with stone and Dhajji (Wooden planks) walls. The building plans have already been approved by the Municipal Corporation as per the statement of AW-5 Jamna Dass. Landlady has specifically proved that the disputed premise s consist of two rooms measuring 12x10 feet. It was not even necessary for the landlady to prove that the premises are dilapidated. The reconstruction of building would definitely increase its value. Learned courts below have correctly appreciated the oral as well as documentary evidence, including technical reports Ex.PW-6/A, Ex.PW-6/B and Ex.RW-2/B. 16. There is neither any perversity nor any infirmity the manner in which both the courts below have appreciated the evidence. 17. Accordingly, in view of discussion and analysis made hereinabove, there is no merit in the petition and the same is dismissed. The tenant is directed to handover the possession of the premises to the landlady within a period of three months from today. Thereafter, the landlady shall complete the construction within a period of one year and the tenant shall be put back in possession thereafter. The tenant is directed to handover the possession of the premises to the landlady within a period of three months from today. Thereafter, the landlady shall complete the construction within a period of one year and the tenant shall be put back in possession thereafter. It is made clear that the tenant shall be re-inducted as a tenant in the suit premises as per the details/measurements of the disputed premises given in the petition filed by the landlady under section 14 of the H.P. Urban Rent Control Act, 1987. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. No costs.