Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 829 (HP)

Shyam Sunder v. Anjna Sood

2014-07-02

RAJIV SHARMA

body2014
JUDGMENT Rajiv Sharma, J. 1. This petition is directed against the judgment dated 31.12.2009 passed by the Appellate Authority, Fast Track Court, Shimla in Rent Appeal No. 37-S/14 of 2008. 2. Key facts necessary for the adjudication of this petition are that the respondents-landlords (hereinafter referred to as the landlords for convenience sake) have filed application under section 14 of the H.P. Urban Rent Control Act, 1987 against the petitioner tenant (hereinafter referred to as the tenant for convenience sake). According to the averments contained in the application, landlords are owners of the premises situated opposite Government Senior Secondary School, Lalpani, Shimla. Tenant was inducted as tenant in the premises, i.e. Ground Floor, Balram Bhawan (East) opposite Government Senior Secondary School, Lalpani, Shimla on monthly rent of Rs. 100/- inclusive of all taxes. Landlords sought eviction of the tenant on the ground that tenant has failed to make the payment of arrears of rent with effect from 1.7.2004 till the filing of the application @ Rs. 100/- per month despite their repeated requests. The tenant was also liable to pay statutory interest @ 9% per annum. The premises under occupation of the tenant were bona fide required by the landlords for carrying out reconstruction work on old lines, which could not be carried out without vacation of premises in question by the tenant. The building in question is very old. It has outlived its life and has become unsafe and unfit for human habitation. The landlords have taken steps for getting the plan sanctioned for the construction of building on old lines from the competent authority. They are in possession of sufficient resources. 3. The application was contested by the tenant. According to the tenant, he has already paid rent up to December, 2004. The rent for the year 2004 was sent by the tenant to one of the landlords by way of money order on 13.7.2004. The rent was also tendered to the landlords but the landlords with mala-fide intention failed to receive the same. According to the tenant, the premises under his occupation were not required bona fide by the landlords for carrying out reconstruction work of the building on old lines. According to the tenant, the reconstruction could be done without vacation of the premises by the tenant. The condition of the building was good. It was denied that the landlords have sufficient funds. 4. According to the tenant, the reconstruction could be done without vacation of the premises by the tenant. The condition of the building was good. It was denied that the landlords have sufficient funds. 4. Rejoinder was filed by the landlords. Learned Rent Controller framed issues on 7.10.2005 and 2.3.2007. The Rent Controller allowed the application on 1.7.2008 on the ground that the tenant was in arrears of rent since 1.4.2004 till date @ Rs. 100/- per month with statutory interest @ 9% per annum till the realization of the entire amount. He was ordered to be evicted from premises in question. However, the tenant was not ordered to be evicted from the premises if he paid the arrears of rent due within 30 days from the date of passing of order. It was also held that the premises are bona fide required by the landlords for its reconstruction which cannot be carried out without the premises being vacated by the tenant. The tenant was ordered to be evicted from the premises as well. The tenant aggrieved by the judgment dated 1.7.2008 preferred an appeal before the Appellate Authority, Fast Track Court, Shimla. He rejected the same on 31.12.2009. Hence, the present petition. 5. Mr. Y.P. Sood has vehemently argued that both the authorities below have not correctly construed the oral as well as documentary evidence. According to him, the premises are not bona fide required by the landlords for the purpose of construction and reconstruction. He then contended that his client was not in arrears of rent. 6. Mr. Ashok Sood has supported the judgment dated 31.12.2009 passed by the Appellate Authority, Fast Track Court, Shimla and order passed by the Rent Controller. 7. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the order and judgment carefully. 8. PW-1 Suffal Kumar has specifically stated in his examination in chief that the building in question is in dilapidated condition. He has also deposed that Mehar Chand Sood is the owner of the western portion, but he is managing the affairs. He has no objection if the eastern portion is reconstructed by the landlords. 9. PW-2 Vivek Karol is an expert. He has deposed that the building was inspected by him at the instance of landlords. He has prepared report Ex.PW-2/A. He has also prepared location map Ex.PW-2/B and existing plan Ex.PW-2/C of the building. He has no objection if the eastern portion is reconstructed by the landlords. 9. PW-2 Vivek Karol is an expert. He has deposed that the building was inspected by him at the instance of landlords. He has prepared report Ex.PW-2/A. He has also prepared location map Ex.PW-2/B and existing plan Ex.PW-2/C of the building. According to him, the building is more than 100 years old. The same is made of Dhajji walls. The eastern portion of the building is not worth living. The walls are out of plumb. The wood is rotten. The rebuilding and reconstruction work cannot be undertaken without the premises being vacated by the tenant. No damage would be caused to the western portion of the building if the eastern portion is reconstructed. He has prepared the building plan. He has denied the suggestion that the condition of the building was good. 10. PW-3 Shyam Lal has testified that on the ground floor of the building there are two tenants, including present tenant. The building is more than 100 years old. It has outlived its life. The walls are out of plumb. The floors have sapped. The roof of the building has also sapped as the wood has rotten at many places with the passage of time. They want to demolish the entire existing structure and reconstruct the same on old lines. Eviction petitions have been instituted against all the tenants on the same ground. They have got the building inspected from PW-2 Sh. Vivek Karol, Engineer, who has opined that the building has out lived its ordinary span of life. According to Vivek Karol, the building is required to be demolished to be reconstructed on old lines. According to his opinion, rebuilding/reconstruction work cannot be undertaken until and unless all the tenants of the building vacate the premises. If new RCC construction is raised, it will increase the space. It will also enhance the value and utility of the building. They have sufficient funds for undertaking rebuilding/reconstruction work. The proposed building plan Ex.P-3 was forwarded to the Municipal Corporation under registered cover vide postal receipt Ex.P-4. He has retired from the Army in the year 1988. His sons are working. He has proved Ex.P-5 to P-13 copies of fixed deposits. According to him, Rs. 11 lakhs were readily available for starting construction work. The proposed building plan Ex.P-3 was forwarded to the Municipal Corporation under registered cover vide postal receipt Ex.P-4. He has retired from the Army in the year 1988. His sons are working. He has proved Ex.P-5 to P-13 copies of fixed deposits. According to him, Rs. 11 lakhs were readily available for starting construction work. In his cross-examination, he has admitted that the walls of the building are common. He has denied the suggestion that the land underneath the building is owned by the Himachal Government. He has admitted that the building plan has not been approved by the Municipal Corporation. He has denied that reconstruction work can be carried out without the vacation of the premises. He has also denied that eastern portion cannot be rebuilt/reconstructed until and unless the western portion is reconstructed. 11. PW-4 Jamna Dass Supervisor has deposed that the building plan Ex.P-2 has already been submitted by the landlords of the building on old lines. The map was under process. 12. RW-1 H.S. Bisht has testified that the building was inspected by him on 13.3.2005. The same is 70 years old. He has proved his report Ex.RW-1/A. He also prepared Ex.RW-1/B. According to him, the building can be reconstructed on old lines without the same being vacated by the tenants. In his cross-examination, he has deposed that no notice was given by him to the owners of the building before inspecting the same. He has denied that the building has sapped and the walls are out of plumb. He has also denied that the wood is rotten. He has admitted that if a new RCC building is erected in place of old, its value and space would increase. 13. RW-2 Sita Ram has supported the version of tenant. He has denied the suggestion that the wood was rotten and he has given the statement to avoid his eviction. 14. RW-3 Shyam Sunder in his examination in chief has deposed that he was not aware that the building was 100 years old. He has denied that the building is in dilapidated condition and made of Dhajji walls. He has denied that the building is not worth living. He has denied that the rebuilding/reconstruction work cannot be carried out without the vacation of the suit premises. 15. What emerges from the evidence discussed hereinabove is that the suit premises are more than 70-80 years old. He has denied that the building is not worth living. He has denied that the rebuilding/reconstruction work cannot be carried out without the vacation of the suit premises. 15. What emerges from the evidence discussed hereinabove is that the suit premises are more than 70-80 years old. It has outlived its utility. The floors have sapped. The walls are made of Dhajji. Case of the landlords has been corroborated by PW-2 Vivek Karol. He has proved his technical report Ex.PW-2/A. He has also proved the location map Ex.PW-2/B. According to him also, the building cannot be rebuilt and reconstructed without the same being vacated by the tenant. The landlords have sufficient funds with them to undertake rebuilding and reconstruction of the building. The building plan has already been submitted by the landlords. PW-4 Jamna Dass has deposed that the plans have already been submitted and the same are under process. 16. RW-1 H.S. Bisht has admitted in his cross-examination he has not issued any notice to the landlords when he inspected the premises. However, he has admitted that if new RCC building is raised in place of old, its value and space would increase. He has also admitted that in his report he has mentioned the age of building as 80-85 years and when he appeared before the Court he has deposed that the building was 70 years old. It has come in the statement of PW-1 Suffal Kumar that he has no objection if new building is constructed. Both the authorities below have rightly come to the conclusion that the tenant was in arrears of rent since 1.4.2004. The tenant has not taken steps to deposit the same in the Court as per law. Both the authorities have also correctly appreciated the oral as well as documentary evidence. 17. Accordingly, in view of the analysis and discussion made hereinabove, there is no merit in the petition and the same is dismissed. The tenant is directed to handover the vacant possession of the premises to the landlords within a period of three months. Thereafter, the landlords shall commence the construction work within a period of six months and complete the same within a further period of one year after obtaining the statutory permissions. The tenant is directed to handover the vacant possession of the premises to the landlords within a period of three months. Thereafter, the landlords shall commence the construction work 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 after one month of the construction of the building in the same place, location and area equivalent to the area which was in his occupation before the order passed by the learned Rent Controller. The terms and conditions of the tenancy shall be as per the law laid down by their Lordships of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Syed Jameel Abbas and others vs. Mohd. Yamin alias Kallu Khan, (2004) 4 SCC 781 . The tenant shall also pay the rent, if not already paid and the future rent as well. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. No costs.