Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 555 (HP)

Guresh Kumar v. Khem Raj Sharma

2023-12-18

AJAY MOHAN GOEL

body2023
JUDGMENT : Ajay Mohan Goel, J. By way of this petition filed under Section 24(5) of the Himachal Pradesh Urban Rent Control Act, 1987, the petitioner has challenged order dated 16.06.2023, passed by the learned Rent Controller, Court No.II, Shimla, H.P., in terms whereof, the Rent Petition filed by the respondent herein for the vacation of the demised premises was allowed as well as against judgment dated 18.03.2023, passed by the Court of learned Appellate Authority, in terms whereof, the appeal filed by the petitioner against the order of eviction has been dismissed. 2. The eviction petition was filed by the respondent-landlord hereinafter referred to as the landlord on the ground that the premises in question was a shop and a godown beneath the shop being used for non-residential purpose which was in the occupation of the tenant and that the same was bonafidely required by the landlord for his personal use and occupation for running the business. The case of the landlord was that he was running a business of Kiryana (General Merchandise) in a rented shop at Totu. He wanted to expand his business in the said field and wanted to add other packed items to increase his business, for which he required additional accommodation for opening a modern business centre/showroom. Therefore, as per him, the demised premises were required for the said purpose after the eviction of the tenant. 3. The rent petition was inter alia resisted on the ground that the plea of the landlord that the premises were required on the ground of bona fide requirement was wrong. The tenant in fact denied that the demised premises were transferred in the name of landlord by his mother in a family settlement. He denied that the accommodation was required for the purpose of opening a modern business centre/showroom and it was stated that the accommodation, which was, in the possession of the landlord was sufficient and the petition stood filed just to have the premises vacated from the landlord. 4. Learned Rent Controller framed the following issues on the basis of the pleadings:- 5. Learned Rent Controller framed the following issues on the basis of the pleadings:- 1. Whether the demised premise is bonafide required by the petitioner for his personal use and occupation, as alleged? OPP. 2. Whether this petition is not maintainable? OPR. 3. 4. Learned Rent Controller framed the following issues on the basis of the pleadings:- 5. Learned Rent Controller framed the following issues on the basis of the pleadings:- 1. Whether the demised premise is bonafide required by the petitioner for his personal use and occupation, as alleged? OPP. 2. Whether this petition is not maintainable? OPR. 3. Whether the petitioner has suppressed the material facts from this Court? OPR. 4. Whether this petition is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties? OPR. 5. Relief. 6. On the strength of the evidence, which was made by the parties in support of their respective contention, the issues were decided as under:- Issue No.1 : Yes Issue No.2 : No. Issue No.3 : No. Issue No.4 : No. Relief : The petition of the petitioner is allowed as per operative part of the order. 7. The petition was accordingly allowed by the learned Rent Controller vide order dated 16.06.2022, in the following terms:- “In view of my findings on the issues above, the petition of the petitioner succeeds and the same is hereby allowed. The petitioner is held entitled for eviction of respondent from the tenanted premises i.e. shop in the top/first floor and godown beneath the shop in the ground floor of the building situated at Shimla Mandi Road at Tutu bounded on its side by tenanted shop of Joginder Lal and towards Jutogh side by the building of Late Sh. Faquir Chand on the ground of personal bona fide requirement. Further, respondent is liable to handover possession of the demised premises within 30 days from the date of this order. Memo of costs be prepared accordingly. The file, after its due completion be consigned to record room.” 8. In appeal, the findings were affirmed by the learned Appellate Court. Feeling aggrieved, the tenant has filed this Revision Petition. 9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and I have also carefully gone through the order passed by the learned Rent Controller as well as the order passed by the learned Appellate Authority. 10. Learned Rent Controller held that the landlord had proved his bona fide requirement qua the demised premises for running commercial premises, as it was an admitted fact that he was running his business from tenanted premises. 10. Learned Rent Controller held that the landlord had proved his bona fide requirement qua the demised premises for running commercial premises, as it was an admitted fact that he was running his business from tenanted premises. It further held that the tenant had not led any evidence to show that the landlord owns any other commercial premises apart from the building, in which, the tenanted premises were situated. It further held that, whereas, the landlord was running business from tenanted premises despite his owning commercial premises/building in Totu, which admittedly was a commercial hub and best suited for any business, as was admitted by the respondent witnesses, therefore, the bona fide of the landlord stood duly proved. 11. Learned Appellate Court while affirming these findings held that the landlord was running business in rented shop, whereas, he was owner of the commercial premises, which was under the tenancy of the tenant. The landlord intended to expand his business as per his need and requirement and law did not preclude him from doing so and getting the premises vacated in due course of law. Learned Appellate Court also held that the landlord as PW-1 had clearly and categorically stated in the Court that he required the premises for his personal bona fide use and requirement and this was duly substantiated by PW-2 Sh. Kamal Sharma also. Learned Appellate Court also held that on the basis of the evidence on record, landlord had in fact made out a strong case for eviction of the tenant under the provisions of the H.P. Urban Rent Control Act, 1987. 12. During the course of arguments before me, it could not be demonstrated by the petition that the findings, which were returned by the learned Rent Controller as well as learned Appellate Court were perverse and not borne out from the record of the case. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the averments made in para-18 of the Rent Petition were inconclusive or were not in consonance with the statutory provisions do not have any merit. This Court is of the considered view that a perusal of the Rent Petition demonstrates that it was clearly and categorically mentioned therein that as to how the petitioner was entitled for the possession of the demised premises in terms of the statutory provisions of Section 14(3)(a)(i) of the H.P. Urban Rent Control, Act, 1987. This Court is of the considered view that a perusal of the Rent Petition demonstrates that it was clearly and categorically mentioned therein that as to how the petitioner was entitled for the possession of the demised premises in terms of the statutory provisions of Section 14(3)(a)(i) of the H.P. Urban Rent Control, Act, 1987. Further, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner-tenant that the affidavit, which was filed by the landlord in his examination-in-chief in general and para-7 thereof in particular was also not in consonance with the statutory provisions or did not entitle him to make out a case for possession of the demised premises, also has no merit. In fact a perusal of this affidavit demonstrates that in para-7 thereof, it was averred by the landlord that he was not occupying any other similar non-residential premises owned by him nor he had acquired or vacated any such premises within 5 years of the filing of the present application. The contention of the learned counsel that the word “similar” created some kind of a doubt that the landlord was in fact having some other residential premises is also not worth merit because, then, the onus was upon the tenant to have had proved by placing on record cogent evidence that the landlord indeed was possessing other non-residential premises in the near vicinity, which he has not done. 13. Otherwise also, in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction, this Court is not to act as an Appellate Court and until and unless there is some perversity writ large on the face of the order passed by the learned Rent Controller or the learned Appellate Court, the Court need not interfere with the orders of the Courts below. 14. In the present case, as this Court does not finds any perversity or infirmity either in the order passed by the learned Rent Controller or the Appellate Authority, the petition is dismissed. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, also stand dismissed.