Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 900 (HP)

RAM KUMAR v. KACH KUMAR

2014-07-14

RAJIV SHARMA

body2014
JUDGMENT : RAJIV SHARMA, J. 1. This petition is directed against the judgment dated 31.8.2013 passed by the Appellate Authority (II), Kangra at Dharamshala in Rent Appeal No. 1-A/K/2008. "Key facts" necessary for the adjudication of this petition are that respondents No. 1 to 3/land-lords (hereinafter referred to as the "landlords" for convenience sake) have filed petition u/s 14(1)(3) of the H.P. Urban Rent Control Act, 1987 against the petitioner as well as proforma respondents (hereinafter referred to as the "tenants" for convenience sake) seeking their eviction from double storeyed non-residential house bearing House No. 16/140, situated in Ward No. 8, Main Bazaar, Kangra on the ground that initially Sh. Raj Singh, predecessor-in-interest of tenants, was the tenant of the demised premises and after his death he was succeeded by the present tenants. Rent of the demised premises agreed between the parties was Rs. 16/- per month. Tenants did not pay the rent after June, 2001 till the date of filing the petition. The building was more than 70 years old and has outlived its life. The building has been constructed with Kucha bricks with mud plaster. The wood used in the building has been damaged and has become unsafe for human habitation. The building was required bona fide by the landlords for reconstruction, which could not be carried out without the same being vacated by the tenants. Landlords have financial capacity to rebuild the new building. 2. The petition was contested by the tenants. On merits, they have not disputed the status of the landlords. They have admitted the rent. They have also admitted that the building is old, but denied that the same was very very old and that it has outlived its life. Tenants have asserted that the walls of the building are 20" wide and the building was in perfect condition. Bricks and the wood used in the building were also in good condition. No notice has ever been issued by the Municipal Committee, Kangra. 3. Issues were framed by the trial court on 2.8.2006. The trial court allowed the petition and ordered the eviction of the tenants on 20.2.2008 directing the tenants to pay the arrears of rent alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from June, 2001 to November, 2004, within a period of 30 days from the date of passing of the order till actual eviction. The trial court allowed the petition and ordered the eviction of the tenants on 20.2.2008 directing the tenants to pay the arrears of rent alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from June, 2001 to November, 2004, within a period of 30 days from the date of passing of the order till actual eviction. They were also directed to handover the vacant and peaceful possession of the demised premises to the landlords within 30 days from the date of passing of order. Tenant preferred an appeal before the learned Appellate Authority (II), Kangra at Dharamshala. He dismissed the same on 31.8.2013. Hence, the present petition. 4. Mr. G.D. Verma, learned Senior Advocate has vehemently argued that both the authorities below have misread and misconstrued the oral as well as documentary evidence led by the parties. According to him, landlords have failed to prove that the premises were required bona fide for reconstruction which could not be carried out without evicting the tenants. 5. Mr. Neeraj Gupta has supported the judgment and order passed by both the authorities below. 6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the pleadings carefully. 7. The issue of arrears of rent was not pressed by the landlords, as per the statement of one of the landlords. 8. Now, the Court will advert to the issue: whether the suit premises were required bona fide by the landlords for reconstruction, which could not be done without evicting the tenants. One of the landlords, Kach Kumar, has appeared as PW-1. He has deposed that the suit premises have been given on rent at the rate of Rs. 16/- per month. The building was 70-80 years old. It was constructed of Kucha bricks with mud plaster. The building was in dilapidated condition. The wood of the premises has decayed. The building was required by the landlord bona fide for reconstruction, which could not be done without the same being vacated by the tenants. They had financial capacity to rebuild the same. The new building would supplement their income. 9. PW-2 Sujata, Record Keeper, M.C. Kangra has testified that the landlords have got approved the building plan vide resolution No. 927 dated 30.12.2004 vide map Ex. PW-2/A. 10. PW-3 Mohan Singh has deposed that a loan of Rs. five lakhs has been sanctioned in favour of the landlords. 11. The new building would supplement their income. 9. PW-2 Sujata, Record Keeper, M.C. Kangra has testified that the landlords have got approved the building plan vide resolution No. 927 dated 30.12.2004 vide map Ex. PW-2/A. 10. PW-3 Mohan Singh has deposed that a loan of Rs. five lakhs has been sanctioned in favour of the landlords. 11. PW-4 Inder Mohan has deposed that the building was Kucha and it was in dilapidated condition and unfit for human habitation. 12. Tenants have examined RW-2 Kamal Kant, Junior Engineer. He has admitted in his cross-examination that the building was 70-80 years old. It was constructed with Kucha bricks and mud plaster. 13. One of the tenants, Chaman Kaur, has appeared as RW-5. In her cross-examination, she has admitted that the demised premises are 70-80 years old. RW-2 Kamal Kant and RW-5 Chaman Kaur, in their cross-examination, have admitted that reconstruction of the building is not possible unless the same is vacated. It has come on record by way of Ex. PW-1/A to Ex. PW-1/G that landlords are in possession of sufficient resources to rebuild the building. The maps have already been approved as per resolution No. 927 dated 30.12.2004. Landlords have duly proved that the building is old. It has outlived its utility. It was made of kucha bricks and mud plaster. The wood has decayed. The building situate in the heart of Kangra town. It would definitely augment the income of the landlords after the same is reconstructed. Landlords have proved to the hilt that the premises are required by them bona fide for the purpose of reconstruction, which could not be done without the same being vacated by the tenants. Both the authorities below have correctly appreciated the oral as well as documentary evidence. Accordingly, in view of the analysis and discussion made hereinabove, there is no merit in the petition and the same is dismissed. The tenants are 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 tenants are 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 tenants 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 @ Kallu Khan etc., Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. No costs.