Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 1034 (HP)

Thakur Sen Negi v. Sukh Lal

2019-07-25

SURESHWAR THAKUR

body2019
JUDGMENT : Sureshwar Thakur, J. The learned Rent Controller, upon, Rent Petition No. 11/2 of 2010, rendered a verdict, for, eviction of the tenant/petitioner herein, from the demised premises, on, the ground, of, the latter falling into arrears of rent. However, the learned Rent Controller, rendered findings adversarial, to the landlord, vis-a-vis, the latter bonafidely requiring the demised premises. The landlord/respondent herein being aggrieved, by the latter part of the verdict, rendered by the learned Rent Controller, hence, therefrom instituted Rent Appeal No. 1-S/14 of 2014, before the learned Appellate Authority, Solan, and, the latter allowed the landlords appeal, and, concomitantly accepted the landlords espousal, vis-a-vis, his bonafidely requiring the demised premises, for, his personal use, and, occupation. Now, the tenant/respondent being aggrieved therefrom, hence, rears the instant appeal before this Court. 2. Briefly stated that facts of the case are that the respondent herein/landlord had filed a petition for eviction of the tenant/petitioner herein from the residential building consisting of five rooms (3 rooms and 2 Varanda) on the grounds (a) the tenant has not paid the arrears of rent from 31.3.2008 onwards without any prejudice to the appeal and pending litigation; (b) the tenanted premises are required by the landlord bonafide for his own use and occupation as petitioner has no sufficient accommodation at Solan in his occupation and he has not occupied any building owned and occupied by him in the Urban Area of Solan town and he has not vacated any such building during the last 10 years. It has been averred that the respondent herein being the landlord of the residential building consisting of five rooms (3 rooms and 2 veranda) as detailed in plan situated at Ber Ki Ser, Ward No.4, Tehsil and District Solan, rented out the same to the tenant on monthly rent of Rs.625/- and tenancy is 7/8 years old and the tenant has made addition of a kitchen in the premises without the consent of the landlord. As the tenant has not paid the arrears of rent qua the tenanted premises to the landlord from 31.3.2008, the tenant is liable to be evicted from the tenanted premises on the ground of non payment of rent. Earlier, the tenant has taken the stand that there exists no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. As the tenant has not paid the arrears of rent qua the tenanted premises to the landlord from 31.3.2008, the tenant is liable to be evicted from the tenanted premises on the ground of non payment of rent. Earlier, the tenant has taken the stand that there exists no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. One Sukhdev son of Mast Ram being adopted son is the owner, whereas the tenanted premises was owned by the landlord as per the Gift Deed executed by late Smt. Parwati Devi, the brother's widow of the landlord and is duly been reflected in the revenue records. The rent was collected by Smt. Parwati Devi till her death and thereafter a rent petition was filed against tenant and others where the plea of adoption was taken up by Sukh Dev son of Mast Ram, which was negatived and further said Sukh Dev had vacated the premises and had made statement in court admitting that he was neither adopted son nor he had any concern with the property except that of tenancy and that the petitioner herein/tenant is also a tenant and the landlord is entitled to receive the rent from the tenant herein. The tenant has deposited rent in the earlier petition to the tune of Rs.65,000/- which was received by the landlord herein under protest on account of pendency of the appeal without prejudice to the rights and amount deposited by Sukh Dev. The tenant is estopped from denying the status of landlord and tenant between the parties. As the respondent has failed to pay rent since the death of Smt. Parwati, the aunt of the landlord without any basis, the tenant is liable to be evicted from the tenanted premises. The landlord lord has also sought eviction of the tenant on the ground of banafide necessity by alleging that the landlord has no sufficient accommodation at Solan in his occupation and he has not occupied any building owned and occupied by him in urban area at Solan. 3. The petition was resisted by the tenant by filing written statement, wherein, he has taken preliminary objections qua mantainability, cause of action, locus standi etc. On merits, denied that the rent of the tenanted premises is Rs.625/- per month. 3. The petition was resisted by the tenant by filing written statement, wherein, he has taken preliminary objections qua mantainability, cause of action, locus standi etc. On merits, denied that the rent of the tenanted premises is Rs.625/- per month. However, it is admitted that one rent petition was decided on 21.5.2008 by the learned Rent Controller, Solan by whom the fair rent of the tenanted premises was held to be Rs.625/- per month and later on the order of the Rent Controller has been challenged before the Appellate Authority and the matter is sub judice before the learned Appellate Authority. It is denied that the respondent herein is the landlord of the tenanted premises. In fact, one Sukhdev was landlord of the tenanted premises, and, rent was paid to him. The present landlord had also filed rent petition against Sukhdev, who contested the petition and pleaded himself one of the owner of the building of the petitioner. Later on a compromise between Sukh Dev and the respondent herein, and, the respondent herein/landlord has paid Rs. 4 lacs to Sukh Dev who surrerned his title, in his favour. Sukhdev issued various receipts to the present tenant, being the landlord of the tenanted premises against the payment of rent. In fact, the respondent herein/landlord and Sukhdev in collusion with each other wants to evict the tenant herein from the demised premises. Said Sukhdev has vacated the premises and handed over the possession of the same to the landlord herein. The requirement of the landlord has been fulfilled and satisfied by occupying the premises of Sukhdev. The landlord does not reside at Solan, rather he resides at Hamirpur. It is denied that the tenanted premises are required by the landlord bonafide. 4. The landlord/respondent herein filed rejoinder to the reply of the tenants/petitioner herein, wherein, he denied the contents of the reply and re-affirmed and re-asserted the averments, made in the petition. 5. On the pleadings of the parties, the learned Rent Controller struck following issues inter-se the parties in contest:- 1. Whether the respondent is in arrears of rent @ Rs.625/- per month, w.e.f. 31.3.2008 onwards as alleged? OPP. 2. Whether the premises are required by the petitioner for his bonafide use and occupation, as alleged? OPP. 3. Whether the petition is not maintainable as there is no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties? OPD. 4. Whether the respondent is in arrears of rent @ Rs.625/- per month, w.e.f. 31.3.2008 onwards as alleged? OPP. 2. Whether the premises are required by the petitioner for his bonafide use and occupation, as alleged? OPP. 3. Whether the petition is not maintainable as there is no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties? OPD. 4. Whether the petitioner is estopped to file the present petition due to his own acts, conduct and acquiescence? OPR 5. Whether the petitioner has no locus standi to file the present petition? OPR. 6. Relief. 6. On an appraisal of evidence, adduced before the learned Rent Controller, the learned Rent Controller, hence, partly allowed the apt petition preferred therebefore by the landlord/respondent herein, on the ground of arrears of rent. In an appeal, preferred therefrom, by, the landlord/respondent herein, before, the learned Appellate Authority, the latter allowed the appeal preferred by the tenants/petitioners herein, hence, modified the verdict, of, the learned Rent Controller concerned. 7. A perusal of the grounds of eviction, reared in the apposite rent petition, discloses qua though apart, from, the demised premises, the landlord also possessing premises hitherto occupied by one Sukh Dev, (i) yet even upon combining the areas, of both the afore premises, nonetheless, given the sizes of the family, of, the landlord, theirs being insufficient, for use, by his family members, (ii) and, thereupon, he strived to constrain a conclusion, vis-a-vis, his bonafidely requiring the demises premises, for his personal use, and, also for the use of his family members. 8. The afore purported bonafide requirements, of, the landlord, vis-a-vis, the demised premises, was endavoured, to be stained, with a vice of malafides, (i) on anvil of his concealing, and, suppressing the factum qua even apart, from, the afore premises, his, upon, the demise, of, the previous landlady, one, Parwati, rather holding derivative possession of three rooms, as stood occupied by the afore, during, her life time. The afore contention, reared by the petitioner herein/tenant, in his reply, to the eviction petition, and, as borne, in paragraph No.12, of, the apposite reply, (i) was neither pointedly nor with apt aplomb, hence meted, a graphic denial, (ii) and, given no pointed graphic denial being meted by the landlord, vis-a-vis, the afore contention, reared in paragraph No.12, of the tenant's reply, to the corresponding para, of, the eviction petition, (iii) obviously carries, the requisite sequeling effects, qua the landlord acquiescing, qua his holding possession, of, the afore premises, and, when there is obviously no explanation emanating, from, the landlord, that, upon, combining the area of the afore premises, with the area of the premises, already in his possession, (iv) thereupon, too, he would face deficit or shortfall, in accommodation, for his meteing, the bonafide requirement, for housing himself, and, his family members. 9. Be that as it may, since for want of apt denial, vis-avis, the afore trite factum, neither any issue stood struck nor any evidence stood adduced, nor as aforestated any explanation emanated from the landlord, hence, coaxes a firm conclusion, from this Court, that the petition for eviction, is stained, with gross stain of mala fides, thereupon, the verdict impugned before this Court, and, appertaining to the landlord bonafidely requiring the demised premises, for his personal use, and, also for the use of his family members, being amenable hence for interference. 10. For the foregoing reasons, the instant civil revision petition is allowed, and, the impugned orders rendered, on 20.06.2014, upon, Rent Appeal No. 1-S/14 of 2014 are quashed and set aside, whereas, the verdict of the learned Rent Controller, rendered, on 26.11.2013, upon, Rent Petition Nos.11/2 of 2010, is, affirmed and maintained. However, if the tenant/petitioner herein has not deposited the entire arrears of rent, vis-a-vis, demised premises hence within the statutory period, thereupon, alone it shall be amenable, for apt possession thereof, being realized, by the landlord from the tenant, through coercive mechanisms. All pending applications also stand disposed of. Records be sent back forthwith.