Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 957 (HP)

Devi Gautam v. Pardeep Giri

2015-07-27

RAJIV SHARMA

body2015
JUDGMENT : Rajiv Sharma, J. - This petition is instituted against the judgment, dated 11.11.2014, rendered by the learned Appellate Authority-IV, Shimla, H.P. in Rent Appeal No. 59-S/14 of 2014. 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) have instituted an eviction petition under Section 14 of the H.P. Urban Rent Control Act, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act" for the sake of convenience) seeking eviction of the petitioner/tenant. According to the averments made in the eviction petition, the building in question is more than 100 years old. It has outlived its normal life and not fit for human habitation at all. Its walls are out of plumb, floor has settled down, CGI sheets of roof have also become rotten and wooden work has also outlived its natural life. The value and utility of the premises has also impaired and further resulted in deteriorated condition of the premises. Thus, the building in question has become unsafe and unfit for human habitation. The premises were also bona fide required for the purpose of building and re-building, which cannot be carried out without the eviction of the tenant. 3. The petition was contested by the tenant. The tenancy was admitted. It was denied that the demised premises has outlived its life. It was also denied that the building in question is more than 100 years old. It was alleged that the demised premises is in good condition and it can withstand for another 20-30 years. It was denied that the demised premises is unfit and unsafe for human habitation and required to be reconstructed. 4. Rejoinder was filed by the landlords. The issues were framed by the learned Rent Controller, Court No. II, Shimla, District Shimla, H.P. on 20.05.2010. He allowed the eviction petition on 30.03.2013 and the tenant was ordered to vacate the demised premises. 5. The tenant preferred an appeal against the order, dated 30.03.2013. The learned Appellate Authority dismissed the same on 11.11.2014. Hence this petition. 6. Mr. G.D. Verma, learned Senior Advocate has vehemently argued that the findings recorded by both the Courts below are contrary to the documents as well as ocular evidence. He then contended that the building has not become unsafe for human habitation. The learned Appellate Authority dismissed the same on 11.11.2014. Hence this petition. 6. Mr. G.D. Verma, learned Senior Advocate has vehemently argued that the findings recorded by both the Courts below are contrary to the documents as well as ocular evidence. He then contended that the building has not become unsafe for human habitation. He lastly contended that the building was not required bona fide for the purpose of re-building. 7. Mr. Anil Jaswal, learned counsel for the respondents has supported the order, dated 30.03.2013, passed by the learned Rent Controller and the judgment, dated 11.11.2014, passed by the learned Appellate Authority. 8. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the judgment, dated 11.11.2014 and order, dated 30.03.2013, carefully. 9. PW-1 Sh. Jamuna Dass has produced the summoned record. According to him, the landlords had submitted the site plan to Municipal Corporation, Shimla vide diary No. 307/Commissioner/2009, dated 13.07.2009. The building plan had been submitted for reconstruction of the building on old lines. The file was under process. In his cross-examination, he has denied the suggestion that no reconstruction can be carried out in the core area, volunteered that on recommendation of Municipal Corporation, Shimla and after approval of map, reconstruction is permissible. 10. PW-2 Sh. Munish Giri is the GPA of P.C. Giri and his GPA is Ex. PW-2/A. According to him, the property in question was purchased by the landlords in the year 1931 vide sale deed Ex. PW2/C. He has placed on record the photographs of the building vide Ex. PW2/E to PW2/F. The building in question has become dilapidated. It is required to be reconstructed on old line after demolition of the building. The landlords have sufficient funds to reconstruct the building in question. He has proved the FDRs. Ex. PW2/G1 to Ex. PW2/G10. They had hired the services of Engineer to get the building plan approved. He has denied the suggestion that the building has remained habitable for about 20-30 years. 11. Sh. Suresh Sharma (PW-3) is an expert. He has prepared the spot map and inspected the Pine Lodge Estate. It comprises of five blocks. He proved his inspection report Ex. PW3/A and site plan Ex. PW3/B. According to him, the building in question is in dilapidated condition. It was more than 100 years old. The building in question cannot be reconstructed without getting the demised premises vacated. He has prepared the spot map and inspected the Pine Lodge Estate. It comprises of five blocks. He proved his inspection report Ex. PW3/A and site plan Ex. PW3/B. According to him, the building in question is in dilapidated condition. It was more than 100 years old. The building in question cannot be reconstructed without getting the demised premises vacated. The building was inspected by him on 15.06.2010. 12. The tenant has not led any evidence despite granting her various opportunities. 13. According to report Ex. PW3/A, the building blocks are Dhajji walls. The Dhajji walls are not in right angle or straight and they are partly shifted towards outer or inner side. There are cracks in external and internal walls of building blocks. According to PW-3 Suresh Sharma, Dhajji walls, wooden planks used in flooring, wooden members, tin used for roofing and cement concrete topping etc. are in worse condition and unstable. 14. The evidence led by the landlords has remained unrebutted. The Courts below have rightly come to the conclusion that the building has become unsafe and unfit for human habitation. The landlords have led sufficient evidence to establish that the building is required by them bona fide for building rebuilding, which cannot be carried out without the eviction of the tenant. The landlords have sufficient means. The building plan has already been submitted to the Municipal Corporation as per the statement of PW-1 Sh. Jamuna Dass. 15. Mr. G.D. Verma, learned Senior Advocate has vehemently argued that till the building plan is not approved, the eviction cannot be ordered. It is now well settled that under the HP Urban Rent Control Act, the approval of sanction of building plan is not sine qua non seeking eviction of the tenant. 16. Their Lordships of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Hari Dass Sharma v. Vikas Sood and others, (2013) 5 SCC 243 , have held that under section 14 (3) (c) of the H.P. Urban Rent Control Act, 1987 duly sanctioned building plan is not a condition precedent for entitlement of landlord for eviction of tenant. Their Lordships have held as under: 17. Their Lordships have held as under: 17. In fact, the only question that we have to decide in this appeal filed by the appellant is whether the High Court could have directed that only on the valid revised/renewed building plant being sanctioned by the competent authority, the order of eviction shall be available for execution. The High Court has relied on the decision of this Court in Harrington House School v. S.M. Ispahani & Anr. (supra) and we find in that case that the landlords were builders by profession and they needed the suit premises for the immediate purpose of demolition so as to construct a multi-storey complex and the tenants were running a school in the tenanted building in which about 200 students were studying and 15 members of the teaching staff and 8 members of the non-teaching staff were employed and the school was catering to the needs of children of non-resident Indians. This Court found that although the plans of the proposed construction were ready and had been tendered in evidence, the plans had not been submitted to the local authorities for approval and on these facts, R.C. Lahoti, J, writing the judgment for the Court, while refusing to interfere with the judgment of the High Court and affirming the eviction order passed by the Controller, directed that the landlords shall submit the plans of reconstruction for approval of the local authorities and only on the plans being sanctioned by the local authorities, a decree for eviction shall be available for execution and further that such sanctioned plan or approved building plan shall be produced before the executing court whereupon the executing court shall allow a reasonable time to the tenant for vacating the property and delivering the possession to the landlord and till then the tenants shall remain liable to pay charges for use and occupation of the said premises at the same rate at which they are being paid. 18. In the present case, on the other hand, as we have noted, the Rent Controller while determining the bonafides of the appellant-landlord has recorded the finding that the landlord had admittedly obtained the sanction from the Municipal Corporation, Shimla, and has accordingly passed the order of eviction and this order of eviction has not been disturbed either by the Appellate Authority or by the High Court as the Revision Authority. In our considered opinion, once the High Court maintained the order of eviction passed by the Controller under Section 14 (4) of the Act, the tenants were obliged to give vacant possession of the building to the landlord and could only ask for reasonable time to deliver vacant possession of the building to the landlord and hence the direction of the High Court that the order of eviction could only be executed on the revised plan of the building being approved was clearly contrary to the provisions of Section 14 (4) of the Act and the proviso thereto." 19. Accordingly, there is no merit in this petition and the same is dismissed. Tenant is now directed to handover the vacant possession to the landlords within a period of eight weeks from today. Thereafter, the landlords shall commence construction within a period of six months and complete the same within a period of one year after obtaining the statutory permissions. Tenant shall be re-inducted in the demised premises after one month of the construction of the building in the same place, location and area equivalent to the area which was in occupation of the tenants before the orders were passed by the Rent Controller. The rate of rent after induction of the tenant by the landlords would be determined as per the law laid down by their Lordships of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Syed Jameel Abnbas and others v. Mohd. Yamin alias Kallu Khan (2004) 4 SCC 781 . Pending applications, if any, also stands disposed of. No Costs.