Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 488 (HP)

Asha v. Krishan Kumar

2023-12-04

AJAY MOHAN GOEL

body2023
JUDGMENT : AJAY MOHAN GOEL, J. 1. By way of this petition filed under Section 24(5) of the Himachal Pradesh Urban Rent Control Act, 1987, the petitioners herein challenge the judgment passed by learned Appellate Authority. Chamba Division, Chamba, H.P. in Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 3 of 2006, titled as Krishan Kumar and Others vs. Smt. Bhoto and Others, in terms whereof, the learned Appellate Authority while allowing the appeal of the present respondents, set aside the order passed by learned Rent Controller, Chamba, District Chamba passed in Rent Petition No. 5 of 2003, titled as Krishan Kumar and Another vs. Smt. Bhoto and Others, dated 29.04.2006 and ordered the eviction of the petitioners on the ground of bonafide requirement for reconstruction by way of demolition. 2. Brief facts necessary for the adjudication of the present petition are that respondents/landlords (hereinafter to be referred as ‘the landlords’) filed an eviction petition under Section 14 of the Himachal Pradesh Urban Rent Control Act, 1987, against the present petitioners before the learned Rent Controller, Chamba. The eviction of the petitioners (hereinafter to be referred as ‘the tenants’) was primarily on the ground of bona-fide requirement of the demised premises for reconstruction by way of demolition. Learned Rent Controller dismissed the eviction petition after holding that evidence on record proved that the landlords had in the past forcibly evicted the tenants and they now wanted to take back the possession from the tenants by filing the eviction petition. Learned Rent Controller also held that the landlords had failed to establish the ingredients of Section 14(3)(c) of the Himachal Pradesh Urban Rent Control Act and their bona-fides that the shop was old and could not be rebuilt without being vacated. 3. In appeal, the Appellate Authority reversed the findings returned by the learned Rent Controller. Learned Appellate Authority held that as per record, the parties had long standing litigations amongst them, both civil and criminal. It further held that the learned Rent Controller in its order observed that PW1 had nowhere whispered that he had sufficient means to reconstruct the old shop in possession of the tenants which were incorrect findings as PW1 had categorically stated that the estimated cost of reconstruction of the shop was between Rs.1.50 Lac to Rs.2.00 Lac and that he and his brother were having this amount and both of them were shopkeepers. Learned Appellate Authority also held that RW1 Smt. Bhoto had admitted that shop of Ghhappi Shah was adjoining to the demised shop which stood newly constructed as a three storeyed shop and Yugal had also constructed a new shop and even Sardarji near to said shop had also constructed a new shop. Learned Appellate Court also held that admittedly Moti Restaurant was constructed adjoining to the shop of Lal Singh four years back and RW1 had admitted that jewelers who were having their shops near Banyan tree, had also demolished their shops and new two storeyed building has been constructed by them. Learned Appellate Court also took note of the fact that landlords had got sanctioned from the Municipal Council, Chamba, the building plan for the reconstruction of the shop and landlords were having sufficient means to carry out the reconstruction activity. On these counts, the learned Appellate Authority set aside the order passed by learned Rent Controller and allowed the appeal of the landlords for eviction of the tenants on the ground of bonafide requirement for reconstruction by way of demolition. 4. Feeling aggrieved, the tenants preferred this petition. 5. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has primarily argued that even if it was to be presumed that the demised premises was required for the purpose of reconstruction and that the landlords were having sufficient means to carry out said construction, the tenants were entitled for re-entry after the reconstruction of the shop in terms of the statutory provisions of the of the Himachal Pradesh Urban Rent Control Act. Accordingly, be submitted that the revision petition deserves to be allowed by modifying the judgment passed by the learned Appellate Authority to the extent that the petitioners herein be held entitled for re-entry after the reconstruction of the demised shop. 6. Opposing the contention of learned Counsel for the petitioner, learned Senior Counsel appearing for respondent No. 2 submitted that the judgment in issue passed by the learned Appellate Authority was dated 02.04.2007, whereas the statutory provisions relied upon by learned Counsel for the petitioners came into force by virtue of the amendment incorporated in the of the Himachal Pradesh Urban Rent Control Act, vide of the Himachal Pradesh Urban Rent Control Act, 1987 amendment 2009 w.e.f. 16.03.2012. Learned Senior Counsel by referring to the judgment passed by Hon’ble Coordinate Bench of this Court in CR No. 69 of 2009 and other connected matter, titled as Raj Singh vs. Ram Shakti (Deceased) through LRs. pronounced on 21.07.2023, submitted that the Hon’ble Coordinate Bench has been pleased to hold that as Section 14(3)(c) of the Act introduced an amendment to the substantive law governing the rights of the tenants, it can only have prospective operation and cannot be made applicable to the cases where eviction proceedings have been started before the amendment was introduced. Accordingly, he submitted that the present petition deserves to be dismissed. 7. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and carefully gone through the judgment passed by learned Appellate Authority. 8. Before dwelling on the issue argued by learned Counsel for the petitioners, this Court emphasizes that a perusal of the judgment passed by learned Appellate Authority demonstrates that the findings therein are not perverse and the same are clearly borne out from the record of the case. In fact, there is misreading as far as the learned Rent Controller is concerned, qua the statement of PW1 because this witness had categorically deposed in the witness box that the reconstruction of the shop required about Rs. 1.50 to Rs.2.00 Lac and he and his brother were monetarily in a position to carry out said reconstruction work. Similarly, the factum of many shops having been reconstructed in the close vicinity was duly admitted by RW1 Smt. Bhoto, the original respondent No. 1 before learned Rent Controller, and therefore, the findings to this effect recorded by learned Appellate Court, call for no interference. It is also a matter of record that the landlords have got sanctioned a building plan from Municipal Council, Chamba, for reconstruction of the shop in issue and therefore, the findings returned by learned Appellate Authority that the need of the landlords was bonafide, are correct findings. It is also a matter of record that the landlords have got sanctioned a building plan from Municipal Council, Chamba, for reconstruction of the shop in issue and therefore, the findings returned by learned Appellate Authority that the need of the landlords was bonafide, are correct findings. In fact, here is a case where it appears that because shops in close vicinity were reconstructed by the owners thereof, the landlords also felt the necessity to do the needful and accordingly, they applied for approval of the building plan for reconstruction of demised shop, which was granted to them by Municipal Council, Chamba, wherein after, they approached the learned Rent Controller for eviction of the tenants from the demised premises which was quiet old and katcha. 9. Now coming to the contention of learned Counsel for the petitioners herein that the judgment passed by learned Appellate Authority be modified in terms of Section 14(3)(c) of the Act, this Court is of the considered view that as the eviction petition was filed on 24.06.2003, which stood decided on 29.04.2006 and as the statutory appeal was filed on 01.11.2006, which stood decided on 02.04.2007, the amendment carried out in the Act, i.e. Section 14(3)(c) of the Act, does not comes to the rescue of the petitioners. It is settled law, as has been held by Hon’ble Coordinate Bench also, that substantive laws are prospective in operation unless expressly made retrospectively applicable by the legislature whereas the procedural laws are always retrospective in operation. Herein, the right that has been conferred by Section 14(3)(c) of the Act is a substantive right and the same is to have prospective effect only from the date the amendment was incorporated in the statute. Therefore, the petitioner cannot claim right of re-entry after reconstruction. 10. Accordingly, in view of what has been observed hereinabove, as this Court does not finds any merit in this petition, the same is dismissed. All pending applications, stand dismissed. Interim, if any, stand vacated.