Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 779 (HP)

Suresh Kumar v. Om Prakash

2016-05-12

DHARAM CHAND CHAUDHARY

body2016
JUDGMENT : Dharam Chand Chaudhary, J. Heard. Learned counsel on both sides are in agreement that this petition can be disposed of at this stage itself in view of the law laid down by the apex Court in Hari Dass Sharma versus Vikas Sood & Others (2013) 5 SCC 243 . In this judgment, the apex Court has held as under: “13. In Jagat Pal Dhawan v. Kahan Singh (dead) by L.Rs. & Ors. (supra), this Court had the occasion to consider the provisions of Section 14 (3) (c) of the Act and R.C. Lahoti J. writing the judgment for the Court held that Section 14 (3) (c) does not require that the building plans should have been duly sanctioned by the local authorities as a condition precedent to the entitlement of the landlord for eviction of the tenant. To quote from the judgment of this Court in Jagat Pal Dhawan v. Kahan Singh (dead) by L.Rs. & Ors. (supra): (SCC p. 194, para 6) “6…….The provision also does not lay down that the availability of requisite funds and availability of building plans duly sanctioned by the local authority must be proved by the landlord as an ingredient of the provision or as a condition precedent to his entitlement to eviction of the tenant. However still, suffice it to observe, depending on the facts and circumstances of a given case, the court may look into such facts as relevant, though not specifically mentioned as ingredient of the ground for eviction, for the purpose of determining the bona fides of the landlord. If a building, as proposed, cannot be constructed or if the landlord does not have means for carrying out the construction or reconstruction obviously his requirement would remain a mere wish and would not be bona fide.” It will be clear from the aforesaid passage that this Court has held that availability of building plans duly sanctioned by the local authorities is not an ingredient of Section 14 (3) (c) of the Act and, therefore, could not be a condition precedent to the entitlement of the landlord for eviction of the tenant, but depending on the facts and circumstances of each case, the Court may look into the availability of building plans duly sanctioned by the local authorities for the purpose of determining the bonafides of the landlord. 17. 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 plan 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. (2002) 5 SCC 229 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.” 2. In this petition, the order of eviction of the petitioner-tenant on the ground of reconstruction of the demised premises is under challenge. The demised premises is consisting of three rooms, one verandah in a building situate in Ward No.6, Municipal Council Area near Subzi Mandi, Up Mohal Hamirpur, Tehsil and District Hamirpur. In area, it is measuring 36.53 square meters. The challenge to the impugned judgment is on the grounds inter alia that there is no sanctioned plan qua reconstruction of the building and the same can be re-constructed without resorting to the eviction of the petitioner-tenant. 3. Learned counsel representing the petitioner-tenant has conceded such claims in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble apex Court in the judgment cited supra and rightly so, because the Hon’ble apex Court has categorically held that the landlord is not required to produce a sanctioned plan nor to disclose the funds required for reconstruction and the eviction of the tenant on the ground of rebuilding and reconstruction of the building can be sought without it. The Act itself provides re-induction of the tenant in that much area as was with him/her in the building before its demolition and reconstruction. 4. Mr. Thakur, learned counsel, on instructions, submits that the petitioner-tenant is ready and willing to hand over the vacant possession of the demised premises subject to the respondent-landlord agrees to re-induct him as tenant in that much area, which he presently is occupying in the building in question. According to Mr. Thakur, the rent on re-induction may be left open to be determined by the Rent Controller concerned. Mr. Thakur, on instructions, further submits that the possession of the demised premises will be handed over to the respondent- landlord by 30th October, 2016. 5. Mr. According to Mr. Thakur, the rent on re-induction may be left open to be determined by the Rent Controller concerned. Mr. Thakur, on instructions, further submits that the possession of the demised premises will be handed over to the respondent- landlord by 30th October, 2016. 5. Mr. R.K. Sharma, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Ms. Anita Pramar, Advocate is not averse to the offer so made on behalf of the petitioner-tenant. It is stated at the Bar that construction work will be completed within one year from the date i.e. 30th October, 2016, when the possession of the demised premises is to be handed over to the respondent-landlord. Mr. Sharma further submits that the petitioner-tenant will be re-inducted in equal area in the newly constructed building within one month i.e. on or before 30th November, 2017 from the date of completion of the construction work i.e. 31.10.2017. Mr. Sharma also agreed to the fixation of rent on re-induction of the petitioner-tenant at the market rates prevalent in the area where the demised premises situate by the Rent Controller concerned. 6. In view of the above, nothing is left to be adjudicated upon in this petition on merits. The same, therefore, is disposed of with a direction to the petitioner-tenant to hand over the vacant possession of the demised premises to respondent-landlord on or before 31st October, 2016. He shall pay the use and occupation charges till 31st October, 2016 at the rates, he is paying at present. On his failure to hand over the vacant possession by the aforesaid date, the respondent-landlord shall have the right to execute the order of eviction and in that event the petitioner-tenant shall also have no right to claim his re-induction in the newly constructed building. There shall be a direction to the respondent-landlord to complete the construction on the spot on or before 31st October, 2017. He shall re-induct the petitioner-tenant in equal area i.e. 36.53 square meters, presently occupied by him in the demised premises within one month thereafter i.e. by 30th November, 2017. On the failure of the respondent-landlord to compete the construction within the stipulated period and re-induction of the petitioner-tenant in the newly constructed building, he shall be liable to pay the damages at the rate of Rs.1,000/- per day from 1.12.2017 onwards till he is re-inducted as tenant. 7. On the failure of the respondent-landlord to compete the construction within the stipulated period and re-induction of the petitioner-tenant in the newly constructed building, he shall be liable to pay the damages at the rate of Rs.1,000/- per day from 1.12.2017 onwards till he is re-inducted as tenant. 7. As regards the rent on re-induction, the parties shall file a joint application for the purpose in the Court of learned Rent Controller at Hamirpur. The application so filed shall be decided by learned Rent Controller, in accordance with law and taking into consideration the rates prevalent in the area where the demised premises situate, after affording an opportunity of being heard to the parties on both sides. Pending application (s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.