Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 2121 (HP)

Des Raj Rana v. Sumer Nath

2018-11-30

SURESHWAR THAKUR

body2018
JUDGMENT : Sureshwar Thakur, J. The instant civil revision petition, stands directed against the concurrent verdicts, recorded by the learned Courts below, whereunder, on the proven ground of the apposite building, in building whereof, the demised premises exist, hence necessitating its rebuilding, and, reconstruction, (i) they proceeded to order the eviction of the tenant/petitioner herein, from, the demised premises. The tenant/petitioner herein is aggrieved therefrom, hence, has instituted, the, instant civil revision petition before this Court. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case, are, that the landlord on the strength of an application cast under the provisions of Section 14 of the Himachal Pradesh Rent Control Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act), had claimed the eviction of the tenant from the shop on the top floor (at Lower Bazar level) of building No. 124/1, Lower Bazar, Shimla, H.P., on the grounds that the building including the demised premises is bonafide required by the landlord for the purpose of rebuilding and reconstruction which cannot be carried out without its being vacated. It was further pleaded that the building is more than 90 years of age, and, is in dilapidated condition and has outlived its normal span of life, the landlord has sufficient funds to carry out necessary construction and reconstruction. The eviction was also claimed on the ground that the tenant without the written consent of the landlord, carried out unauthorised additions and alterations in the tenanted premises which have diminished the value and utility of the tenanted premises, as a result of which the landlord had been compelled to file civil suit No.31/1 of 2003 in the court of learned Sub Judge, Court No.5, Shimla for injunction, wherein the tenant has been directed to maintain status quo qua nature of construction till the pendency of the civil suit. 3. The respondent/tenant, in his reply, filed to the eviction petition, has taken preliminary objections qua maintainability, and, the petition being not properly verified. On merits, the averments made in the application were termed as wrong and incorrect. It was disputed that the first floor of the building No.124/1, Lower Bazar, Shimla, is in his occupation but has set up a case that he is in occupation of shop in building No.125/2, Lowner Bazar, Shimla. On merits, the averments made in the application were termed as wrong and incorrect. It was disputed that the first floor of the building No.124/1, Lower Bazar, Shimla, is in his occupation but has set up a case that he is in occupation of shop in building No.125/2, Lowner Bazar, Shimla. It was disputed that the building including the tenanted premises is bona fide required by the landlord for the purpose of rebuilding and reconstruction or the tenant is making unauthorized repairs, additions or alterations and on the basis of said averments, the respondent had claimed dismissal of the eviction petition. 4. The landlord/respondent herein filed rejoinder to the reply of the tenant/petitioner herein, wherein, he denied the contents of the reply and re-affirmed and reasserted the averments, made in the petition. 5. On the pleadings of the parties, the learned trial Court struck following issues inter-se the parties in contest:- 1. Whether the premises in dispute required bona fide by the applicant for rebuilding and reconstruction, which cannot be carried out without premises being vacated? OPA 2. Whether the respondent has carried out such unauthorized additions and alterations in the premises in dispute which have diminished its value and utility? OPA 3. Whether the present application is not maintainable? OPR 4. Whether the present application is not properly verified, constituted and instituted as per law. If so, its effect? OPR 5. Relief. 6. On an appraisal of evidence, adduced before the learned Rent Controller, the learned Rent Controller, hence, allowed the petition of the landlord/respondent herein. In an appeal, preferred therefrom, by, the tenant/petitioner herein, before, the learned Appellate Authority, the Appellate Authority, hence, dismissed the appeal, and, affirmed the order/verdict recorded by the learned Rent Controller. 7. Now the tenant/petitioner herein has instituted the instant Civil Revision Petition, before this Court, wherethrough, he hence assails the findings recorded, in its impugned order, by the learned Appellate Authority. 8. The learned Courts below, in rendering hence affirmative findings, upon, the afore contentious issue, rather aptly depended, upon, the report borne, in, Ex.AW2/A, wherewith stood appended map Ex.AW2/B, exhibits whereof, stand, proven by AW-2, H.S. Bisht, a retired Executive Engineer from the HPPWD. 8. The learned Courts below, in rendering hence affirmative findings, upon, the afore contentious issue, rather aptly depended, upon, the report borne, in, Ex.AW2/A, wherewith stood appended map Ex.AW2/B, exhibits whereof, stand, proven by AW-2, H.S. Bisht, a retired Executive Engineer from the HPPWD. There occurs, a, categorical disclosure therein qua (a) the building, in part whereof, the demised premises are located, being unsafe, and, unfit for human habitation, (b) and for saving the lives, of the occupants thereof, the dismantling of the building being imperative, (c) and further echoings, are, borne therein qua the afore rebuilding of the apt building, after its being dismantled, rather being possible only after eviction therefrom, of, the tenants. The afore report proven by AW-2, hence, falls squarely in tandem, with, the deposition of the landlord. The afore rendered testifications, of, AW-2, and, of the landlord also acquire corroboration, from, the apt photographic evidence, embodied in Ex.PW5/A-1, to, Ex.AW5/A-3, (i) conspicuously when a perusal of the afore photographs, hence, makes an imminent disclosure, qua, the building, in part whereof, the petitioner herein is housed as a tenant, rather being in a dilapidated condition. 9. Even though, the afore evidence adduced by the landlord, in proof, of the afore contentious issue, is, merit worthy, nonetheless, the tenant/petitioner herein strived to rip apart the efficacy of, afore evidence, by his relying, upon, photographs borne in Ex. R-3 to R-18. However, the reliance thereon by him, in efficacious, as the afore photographs, do not, disclose, as AW2/A discloses, the external facade of the building, rather, the, afore photographs relied upon by the tenant, unravel, only the internal condition of the tenanted premises. Furthermore, the petitioner herein also depended upon Ex.R-2, proven by B.C. Sharma, for ripping apart, the efficacy of the evidence adduced by the landlord. Furthermore, the petitioner herein also depended upon Ex.R-2, proven by B.C. Sharma, for ripping apart, the efficacy of the evidence adduced by the landlord. However, the afore report, as, tendered into evidence, by RW-1 is infirm, vis-a-vis, Ex.AW2/A, (a) as, the author of AW2/A, evidently holds, a, qualification superior, vis-a-vis, the qualification held by RW-1, (b) and, given his being also evidently disabled, to, adjudge the identity of the building, quawherewith he prepared Ex.R-2, rendering hence Ex.R-2, to remain unproven, to be connected, with, the demised premises, (c) and, his omitting to mention the age of the building, whereas, AW-2 in consonance, with Ex.AW2/A, hence testifying qua the building being aged 80 to 90 years, (d) thereupon, the trite factum qua the age of the building, the material used, for its construction, and, the concomitant longevity of the building, obviously remains omitted to be recited in Ex.R- 1. Reiteratedly, hence, no reliance, for, the relevant purpose can be placed thereon, as aptly, done, by both the learned Courts below. 10. Undisputedly, the building in portion whereof, the demised premises exist, is located in a core area. The contention of the counsel, for the petitioner herein/tenant, that given the relevant building being located in a core area, whereat there being a complete interdiction, against approvals being meted vis-a-vis rebuildings and reconstructions of the relevant building, (i) thereupon, the ground reared by the landlord, of, his bonafide requiring “it”, for rebuilding and reconstructing it, renders it to beget a stain of malafides, (ii)hence, this Court being constrained, to, render dis-affirmative findings, upon, the aforesaid issue. However, the aforesaid submission warrants rejection, as it stands propounded by this Court in a judgment recorded in Naresh Kumar and others versus Surinder Paul, 2001(2) Shim.L.C. 337 , (i) that the mere location of the apposite building in a core area, not per se, dis-entitling the landlord, to seek eviction of the tenant holding occupation in a part thereof, (ii) especially when even in core areas, approvals for holding reconstruction or rebuilding activities, “can be”/may be granted by the State Government. Since, the site plan is pending for approval, before the authorities concerned (iii) also when the State Government, may grant approval, to the apposite plan, submitted by the landlord, (iv) thereupon, it would be unbefitting to conclude that merely given the apposite building, hence, existing in a core area, (v) thereupon, the site plan submitted by the landlord, to the authorities concerned, ipso facto suffering the ill-fate of its rejection, not, per se holding any strength, nor therefrom any inference being derivable, that per se thereupon the petition for eviction, hence, standing stained, with a vice of malafides. Since, the relevant building is evidently located within the jurisdiction of Municipal Corporation, Shimla, thereupon, with a statutory obligation standing entailed, upon, the landlord, “to” prior to his holding it, to reconstruction or rebuilding activities, his receiving consent in respect thereto “from” the appropriate government, (vii) whereas, with the apposite building plan, still awaiting sanction being purveyed thereon, by the authorities concerned, thereupon till the authorities concerned purvey/mete sanction upon the relevant building plan, the concurrently recorded verdicts, may not, be put to execution. 11. Furthermore, the tenants/petitioners, if they nowat evidently hold possession of the demised premises, they, in accordance with law, and, also within the permissible ambit, of, the decisions of this Court, reported in Jaswinder Singh and another versus Kedar Nath and another, Latest HLJ (2012) (HP) 1452 and Chaman Lal Bali versus State of H.P. and another, ILR 2016 (HP) 1450, “shall” upon the relevant building being reconstructed/rebuilt, be entitled to reinduction therein in an area equivalent, to, the area of the nowat demised premises. 12. The above discussion unfolds qua the conclusions arrived by both the learned Courts below with respect to the imperativeness, of, eviction of the tenant/petitioner from the demised premises, on count of bonafide requirement of the landlord of the building, in part whereof, the demised premises exist, to rebuild it, being based upon a proper and mature appreciation of evidence on record. While rendering the apposite findings, both the learned Courts below have not excluded germane and apposite material from consideration. 13. In view of above discussion, the present petition is dismissed, with, the afore observations, and, the verdicts impugned hereat are affirmed and maintained. All pending applications also stand disposed of. No order as to costs.