Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 693 (HP)

Shyam Lal v. Rajender Pal Dhawan

2014-06-02

RAJIV SHARMA

body2014
JUDGMENT Rajiv Sharma, Judge This petition is instituted against the judgment dated 16.11.2013 rendered by learned Appellate Authority, Mandi, in Rent Appeal No.03/2010. 2. “Key facts” necessary for the adjudication of this petition are that the respondents/landlords (hereinafter referred to as the “landlords” for the sake of convenience) filed a petition under Section 14 of the Himachal Pradesh Urban Rent Control Act, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act” for the sake of convenience) seeking eviction of the petitioner/tenant (hereinafter referred to as the “tenant” for the sake of convenience), from the premises comprised in 95/11, School Bazaar, Mandi Town, Ward No.11, Mohalla Tarna, Mandi. According to the landlords, the demised premises were let out to the tenants for non-residential purpose in the year 1968 at the monthly rental of Rs.15/-. The tenant was running a confectionery and General provision store in the premises. The demised premises were situated in the main business center of the Mandi Town. The tenant was in arrears of rent since January 1997. The petitioners were entitled for the increase of rent at the rate of 10% from the year 1993 and thereafter every five years. The demised premises were 80 years old having wooden structure of mud and stone masonry and slate roofed. The demised premises were bonafidely required by the landlords for the purpose of building/re-building, which could not be carried out without demised premises being vacated and demolished. The landlords were having sufficient means for re-constructing the disputed premises. 3 The petition was contested by the tenant. According to the tenant, he was inducted as tenant in the demised premises in the year 1968 on monthly rental of Rs.15/-. He denied that the demised premises were 80 years old and the condition of the disputed premises was not good. He had been paying rent to the landlords regularly and since 1997 onwards, the landlords refused to accept the rent and he had been sending the same through money orders from time to time. He also denied that the landlords were entitled to increase of rent at the rate of 10% since 1993 and thereafter every five years. According to the tenant, he is handicapped having 70% disability. He also denied that the demised premises were situated in the main business center of Mandi Town. 4 Rejoinder was also filed by the landlord. He also denied that the landlords were entitled to increase of rent at the rate of 10% since 1993 and thereafter every five years. According to the tenant, he is handicapped having 70% disability. He also denied that the demised premises were situated in the main business center of Mandi Town. 4 Rejoinder was also filed by the landlord. 5 The learned Rent Controller framed the issues on 15.12.2008 and allowed the eviction petition vide judgment dated 29.9.2010 on the ground of arrears of rent and bona fide use for the purpose of re-construction and re-building. The tenant was directed to hand over the vacant possession of the demised premises to the landlords within a period of one month. The landlords were also held entitled for arrears of rent from January 1997 to October 2007 at the rate of Rs.15/- per month along with interest at the rate of 9% along with increase of rent at the rate of 10% after every five years since 1993. 6 Feeling aggrieved by the judgment dated 29.9.2010, the tenant preferred an appeal before the learned Appellate Authority, who dismissed the same on 16.11.2013. Hence, the petition. 7 Mr. G.R. Palsra, learned Advocate, has vehemently argued that the demised premises are in good condition and the same are not required bonafidely by the landlords for the purpose of construction/re-construction. He then contended that his client was always ready and willing to tender the rent to the landlords, however, they refused to accept the same. He lastly contended that the learned authorities below have not correctly appreciated the oral as well as documentary evidence. 8 I have heard learned counsel for the parties and also gone through the record carefully. 9 What emerges from the facts enumerated hereinabove is that the tenant was inducted in the demised premises in the year 1968 at the monthly rental of Rs.15/-. He had not paid rent since 1997 to October 2007. The landlords were entitled to increase of rent at the rate of 10% since 1993 after every five years. The tenant had not denied that he was not in arrears of rent qua the disputed premises since 1997 onwards. His plea was that the landlords intentionally refused to accept the rent. According to RW1/B, dated 22.11.1997, the tenant had sent the rent to the landlord through money order for the period from 1.6.1996 to 31.11.1997. The tenant had not denied that he was not in arrears of rent qua the disputed premises since 1997 onwards. His plea was that the landlords intentionally refused to accept the rent. According to RW1/B, dated 22.11.1997, the tenant had sent the rent to the landlord through money order for the period from 1.6.1996 to 31.11.1997. He also sent rent from 1.12.1997 to 31.12.1998 vide Ext. RW1/C. He also tendered rent from 1.1.1999 to 31.3.2000 vide Ext. RW1/D, from 1.1.1999 to 31.12.2002 vide Ext.RW1/E, from 1.1.1999 to 31.12.2004 vide Ext. RW1/F and from 1.1.1999 to 31.12.2006 vide Ext.RW1/H. In case the landlords had not accepted the rent, it was always open for the tenant to deposit the same before the learned Rent Controller. The landlords were also entitled for increase of rent at the rate of 10% after expiry of every five years under Section 5(2) of the Act. The learned authorities below have rightly increased the rent of the landlords after expiry of every five years. 10 Now, the court will advert to whether the demised premises are required bonafidely by the landlords for the purpose of building/re-building, which cannot be carried out without evicting the tenant and demolishing the demised premises. 11 PW1, Rajender Pal, deposed that the disputed premises were situated in the main Mandi Town having commercial value. The building was made of mud, stones and wood having slate roof without having required foundation of RCC structure. The building had outlived its life. He had submitted plan Ext.PW1/A of new building to Municipal Committee, which was sanctioned vide letter Ext.PW1/B. According to him, construction cannot be carried out without vacating and demolishing the demised premises. He had sufficient means for re-building. He retired as Regional Manager from HRTC. His son was also running a business. 12 PW2, Parveen Sharma, deposed that he had prepared the building plan, Ext.PW1/A. According to him, the building, in which the disputed premises were situated, was old having stone masonry. It was slate roofed. New construction could not be carried out without disputed premises being vacated and demolished. 13 PW3, Lalit Katoch, proved building plan, Ext.PW1/A and sanction letter, Ext.PW1/B. 14 PW4, Dev Raj Sharma, deposed that he had seen the disputed building. It was made of wood, stones, sand and soil was having slate. The building was 70 years old. New construction could not be carried out without disputed premises being vacated and demolished. 13 PW3, Lalit Katoch, proved building plan, Ext.PW1/A and sanction letter, Ext.PW1/B. 14 PW4, Dev Raj Sharma, deposed that he had seen the disputed building. It was made of wood, stones, sand and soil was having slate. The building was 70 years old. The wooden ceiling of the upper floor of the building was totally decayed. According to him, in case the building was to be reconstructed as per plan, Ext.PW1/A, the same was to be demolished because there was no foundation in the building for raising RCC structure. 15 RW1, Shayam Lal, in his cross-examination admitted that in case the building, where the disputed premises were situated, was to be constructed, then the building had to be demolished and the disputed premises had to be vacated. According to him, the building was in good condition. He also admitted that the landlords had got approved the plan of the proposed building from the Municipal Committee. 16 RW2, Surender Pal, deposed that the building in question was in good condition and was not required any reconstruction. 17 RW3, Natha Singh proved photographs, Ext.RW3/A-1 to Ext.RW3/A-9 of the disputed building. 18 RW4, Tejinder Kaushal also deposed that demised premises were in good condition and same were not required any reconstruction. 19 It is duly established on record on the basis of statement of landlord read in conjunction with statements of PW2 and PW4 that the building was old and it could not be reconstructed without the same being vacated by the tenant. The wooden ceiling of the upper floor of the building was totally decayed. The building was made of wood, stone, soil etc.. The landlords had got approved the map from the Municipal Committee, Mandi. The landlords need not require to prove that the building in question was old or not in order to establish that the same was required by them bonafidely for reconstruction and it could not be carried out without eviction of the tenant. What is to be seen is that the landlords require the demised premises bonafidely or not. In the instant case, the building was situated in main business center of Mandi Town The commercial value of the building would definitely increase if the same is constructed of modern lines by raising RCC structure. What is to be seen is that the landlords require the demised premises bonafidely or not. In the instant case, the building was situated in main business center of Mandi Town The commercial value of the building would definitely increase if the same is constructed of modern lines by raising RCC structure. The landlords have also proved that they have sufficient means for the reconstruction of the building. The tenant himself has admitted that the reconstruction cannot be carried out without vacating the same by him. The learned authorities below have correctly appreciated oral as well as documentary evidence. There is no illegality or irregularity in the impugned judgments. 20 Accordingly, in view of the observations and discussion made hereinabove, the petition is disposed of and the judgment dated 29.9.2010 passed by the learned Rent Controller is modified as under:- The tenant is directed to hand over the vacant possession of the demised 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 after obtaining the statutory permissions. The tenant shall be re-inducted on the basis of the observations made hereinabove after one month of the construction of the building. The tenant should be re-inducted in the same place, location and area should be equivalent to the area which was in occupation of the tenant before the orders passed by the learned Rent Controller. The tenant is directed to comply with the judgment dated 29.9.2010 passed by the learned Rent Controller by depositing arrears of rent, if not already deposited, before the learned Rent Controller within a period of three months. The pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. No order as to costs.