Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 246 (HP)

Ashok Sharma v. Ram Dass Sharma

2015-03-26

SANJAY KAROL

body2015
JUDGMENT Sanjay Karol, J. - Law with regard to scope of interference in a Civil Revision, filed under the provisions of Section 24 of the H.P. Urban Rent Control Act, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), is now well settled. 2. Landlords, petitioners herein, have assailed the concurrent findings of fact, so returned by the Courts below. Petition for ejectment was filed by the Landlord, against the respondent herein, on the ground of (I) nonpayment of rent, (ii) diminishing the value and utility of the rented premises, (iii) change of user on the part of the tenant, and (iv) tenant acquiring an alternate premises within the Municipal limits. 3. Petition was allowed only on a limited ground of non-payment of rent, vide order dated 11.12.2001, passed by Rent Controller, Una, District Una, Himachal Pradesh, in Rent Case No.13/97, titled as Chaman Lal vs. Ram Dass Sharma. Operative portion of the order reads as under: "Thus, for the reasons recorded for deciding the aforesaid issues, this petition succeeds on the ground of non-payment of rent, therefore, an order for eviction of the respondent is granted in favour of the petitioner and against the respondent. However, this order shall not be executable if the balance arrears of rent at the rate of Rs. 20/- per month for the period from 1.2.1993 to 28.2.1994 and at the rate of Rs. 120/- per month from 1.3.1994 to 31.1.1998 and at the rate of Rs. 132/- per month w.e.f. 1.2.1998 till date after adjusting Rs. 2000/- paid on 19.6.1998 to the petitioner in the court, alongwith interest at the rate of 9% per annum and costs assessed at Rs. 1000/- are deposited within 30 days from the date of this order. Memo of costs be prepared accordingly. File, after completion, be consigned to Record Room." 4. In appeal, so filed by the landlord, findings of fact, so returned by the Rent Controller, stand affirmed by the Appellate Authority. 5. Tenant has not assailed the findings qua nonpayment of rent. 6. From the conjoint reading of testimonies of landlord Chaman Lal (PW-2), and his witnesses Mehar Singh (PW-3) and Rajinder Kumar (PW-4), it cannot be proved that the tenant has carried out any structural changes or repairs, which would, in any manner, impair the value and utility of the premises. Tenant has not assailed the findings qua nonpayment of rent. 6. From the conjoint reading of testimonies of landlord Chaman Lal (PW-2), and his witnesses Mehar Singh (PW-3) and Rajinder Kumar (PW-4), it cannot be proved that the tenant has carried out any structural changes or repairs, which would, in any manner, impair the value and utility of the premises. Mere opening of a window or removal of racks and almirahs, in no manner, has diminished the value or utility. Racks so installed were temporary in nature. Repairs so carried out have been effected only to optimize the potential and use of the premises. In fact, value of the premises stands enhanced. 7. Undisputedly, there is no lease agreement, exhibiting the purpose for which the premises were let out. Courts below, appreciating the testimonies of the witnesses, so examined on both sides, concurrently have held that the respondent herein, who is an Advocate, has been using the premises as his Office and not residence. The findings cannot be said to be perverse, erroneous or illegal in any manner. Premises having been let out for commercial use, and not being a "residential building", so as to fall within the definition prescribed under the Act, acquisition of residential premises by the tenant, within the very same municipal limits, would in no manner entitle the landlord for ejectment of his tenant. 8. Findings of the Courts below, based on the decision rendered by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, in Sewa Singh v. Ravinder Kaur, (1971) 3 SCC 981 , cannot be said to be illegal. Sub Section (3) of Section 14 of the Act restricts the right of the landlord to seek ejectment of a tenant. It can be done only in cases of residential building. Appellate Authority below has clearly dealt with all these aspects, while dismissing the appeal filed by the landlord. Findings are based on complete and correct appreciation of the material on record as also the law. 9. As such, it cannot be held that findings returned by the authorities below are illegal, perverse and/or erroneous, warranting interference by this Court. Petition stands dismissed, so also pending applications, if any.