Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 128 (HP)

Varinder Mohan Sood v. Krishan Gopal Sood

2025-01-10

VIRENDER SINGH

body2025
JUDGMENT : Virender Singh, J. Petitioner has filed the present Civil Revision Petition, under Section 24 (5) of the Himachal Pradesh Urban Rent Control Act, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act), against the judgment dated 27.12.2022, passed in Appeal No. 3-S/13b of 2021, by the Court of learned Additional District Judge, Shimla, (exercising the powers of Appellate Authority under the Himachal Pradesh Urban Rent Controller Act, 1987). 2. By way of judgment dated 27.12.2022, the learned Appellate Authority has allowed the appeal of the respondents and the judgment of the learned Rent Controller, Court No. II, Shimla, H.P. (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Rent Controller’), alongwith Rent Petition, filed by the petitioner, was ordered to be dismissed partly to the extent by virtue of which, the petition was allowed by the learned Rent Controller on the ground of bonafide requirement of the petitioner/landlord. 3. For the sake of convenience, parties to the present lis are referred to, in the same manner, in which, they were referred to, by the learned Rent Controller. 4. Brief facts, leading to filing of the present petition, before this Court, may be summed up as under: Petitioner/landlord Virender Mohan Sood, has filed the petition, under Section 14 of the Act, regarding the premises, described as 75, Second Floor, Lower Bazar, Shimla-I (hereinafter referred to be as ‘the demised premises’). The demised premises is residential in nature, consisting of two rooms, one kitchen and one toilet. Rent of the same has been pleaded @ Rs. 75/- per month, inclusive of municipal taxes. Father of the respondent was inducted as tenant in the said premises. 4.1 The eviction has been sought on the following grounds: i) That the respondent is stated to be in the arrears of rent from April, 2001 @ 75/- per month, and he has failed to pay the rent. As such, he is liable to be evicted and also to pay statutory interest @ 9 % plus costs. ii) The petitioner/landlord requires the demised premises for his own occupation and his family, as he is Non-Resident Indian and has now retired. iii) The petitioner/landlord is not occupying another residential building owned by him in the urban area of Shimla and the petitioner has not vacated such a building within five years of filing of the petition. ii) The petitioner/landlord requires the demised premises for his own occupation and his family, as he is Non-Resident Indian and has now retired. iii) The petitioner/landlord is not occupying another residential building owned by him in the urban area of Shimla and the petitioner has not vacated such a building within five years of filing of the petition. 4.2 The demised premises is stated to be fallen in the share of the petitioner, in the family settlement. Mutation, in this regard, has also been attested. Hence, the relief, as claimed, has been prayed to be granted to him. 5. When put to notice, respondent No. 1 has filed reply admitting the tenancy. However, according to respondent No. 1, after death of Amar Chand Sood, tenancy rights in the property were inherited by his legal heirs, i.e. respondents, as well as, his daughters, namely Santosh Sood and Sushma Sood. As such, the petition is stated to be bad for non-joinder of necessary parties. 6. The eviction petition has further been contested by pleading that rent of the demised premises used to be collected by Shri Mukesh Sood, younger brother of the petitioner and rent stands paid to him, upto December, 2001. Thereafter, rent was paid to him by cheque as per practice, but, he has not encashed the said cheques. It has further been pleaded that tenants never refused to pay the rent. 7. The grounds of bonafide requirement has also been contested on the ground that earlier, eviction petition under Section 14 of the Act was filed by Lalit Mohan, brother of the petitioner, on the ground of personal bonafide requirement, but, ultimately, the said petition was withdrawn by Lalit Mohan, when it has been proved that Lalit Mohan has nothing to do with the premises. 8. Petitioner and his family members are stated to be permanently settled in United Kingdom and as such, he has no intention of any kind whatsoever to settle in India. As such, a prayer has been made to dismiss the petition. 9. Respondent No. 2 has filed separate reply by taking preliminary objection that the petition is not maintainable and the same is an abuse of process of law. The petition has further been contested on the ground that the same is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties. As such, a prayer has been made to dismiss the petition. 9. Respondent No. 2 has filed separate reply by taking preliminary objection that the petition is not maintainable and the same is an abuse of process of law. The petition has further been contested on the ground that the same is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties. The petition is barred under the provisions of Order 23 Rule 1 CPC and Section 11 of the CPC. 10. Elaborating his stand, it has been pleaded that earlier also, a rent petition on the similar ground, registered as Rent Petition No. 48/2 of 2002 was filed by the petitioner and his brothers Lalit Mohan Sood and Mukesh Sood, against the respondents, which was subsequently, withdrawn by them, without seeking the permission to file afresh. 11. On merit, the relationship of the tenant and landlord has not been disputed, but, the plea has been taken that the possession of the demised premises is with respondent No. 2 and one Sushma Sood. 12. The grounds upon which, the eviction has been sought, has also been contested by pleading that there is no bonafide requirement, intention and need to use and occupy the demised premises. The petition has also been contested on the ground that the adjoining residential set, which was occupied by the brother of the petitioner, Lalit Mohan was also recently sold by his legal heirs, in the year 2007 to one Gian Singh. 13. On the basis of above, a prayer has been made to dismiss the petition. 14. Rejoinder to the replies filed by respondents No.1 and 2 has also been filed by the petitioner. 15. Thereafter, the learned Rent Controller has framed the following issues, vide order dated 21.9.2007: 1. Whether the respondent is in the arrears of rent w.e.f.April, 2001 @ Rs. 75/- per month, as prayed? OPA 2. Whether the premises in dispute required by the landlord for his own use and occupation, as prayed? OPA 3. Whether the application is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties namely Santosh Sood and Sushma Sood, as alleged? OPR 4. Relief. 16. Thereafter, parties to the lis were directed to adduce evidence. 75/- per month, as prayed? OPA 2. Whether the premises in dispute required by the landlord for his own use and occupation, as prayed? OPA 3. Whether the application is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties namely Santosh Sood and Sushma Sood, as alleged? OPR 4. Relief. 16. Thereafter, parties to the lis were directed to adduce evidence. After closure of evidence and after hearing learned counsel for the parties, the learned Rent Controller has partly allowed the petition and landlord was held entitled to recover possession of the demised premises, i.e. for his own use and occupation, and respondents were directed to hand over the vacant possession of the demised premises, within the stipulated period, from the day of the order. However, eviction petition, on the ground of arrears of rent, has been ordered to be dismissed. 17. Against the said eviction order, tenants have filed the appeal, before the learned Appellate Authority. The learned Appellate Authority, vide order dated 27.12.2022 has allowed the appeal and the petition was ordered to be dismissed. 18. Against the judgment dated 27.12.2022, passed by the learned Appellate Authority, the present petition has been filed, before this Court, mainly on the ground that the learned Appellate Authority has mis-interpreted the evidence on record. 19. The findings of the learned Appellate Authority have also been assailed on the ground that during pendency of the appeal, before the learned Appellate Authority, the landlord has filed application under Section 151 CPC, seeking relief qua use and occupation charges of the demised premises @ Rs. 125/- per sq. ft. per month. The said application was allowed by the learned Appellate Authority, on 16.7.2022, by directing the tenant/respondent No. 1 to deposit the use and occupation charges @ Rs. 20,000/- per month, from the date of eviction order, passed by the learned Rent Controller, i.e., w.e.f. 1.10.2021 to 1.7.2022. The said order has not been complied with by the tenant, till date. 20. The findings of the learned Appellate Authority in para-16 of the impugned judgment are stated to be contrary to the findings recorded by the learned Rent Controller, mainly on the ground that the tenant, in his statement, has himself stated that the landlord intends to settle in India. This statement has rightly been taken as admission, for the purpose of establishing bonafide necessity. 21. This statement has rightly been taken as admission, for the purpose of establishing bonafide necessity. 21. The findings of the learned Appellate Authority have further been assailed on the ground that the learned Appellate Authority has wrongly relied upon sale deed Ext. RW3/A, while declining the relief to the landlord. The said sale deed is stated to be in respect of the property, jointly owned by the petitioner/landlord, alongwith his sister, namely, Harindra, D/o Sant Ram, and being the joint owner of the said property, the petitioner was compelled to sell the same. The said property is not stated to be suitable for the petitioner/landlord, for the purpose of settling and residing permanently in Shimla, as the same was commercial property. 22. According to the petitioner (landlord), the case law, which was relied upon, by the learned counsel for the landlord, has also not been considered by the learned Appellate Authority. 23. On the basis of above facts, Mr. Narender Bhardwaj, Advocate has prayed that the present petition may kindly be allowed by setting aside the judgment, passed by the learned Appellate Authority, and by restoring the judgment of eviction, passed by the learned Rent Controller. 24. Per contra, Mr. Romesh Verma, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Mr. Sumit Sharma, Advocate, has supported the judgment passed by the learned Appellate Authority and submitted that power of this Court in Civil Revision is limited, only to see the infirmity, illegality and irregularity of the decision of the learned Appellate Authority. 25. In order to buttress his contention, Mr. Romesh Verma, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Mr. Sumit Sharma, Advocate has relied upon the decision of a constitutional Bench of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited versus Dilbahar Singh, reported in (2014) 9 Supreme Court Cases 78. 26. In this case, the learned Rent Controller had allowed the eviction petition, mainly on the ground that the tenanted premises is liable to be evicted on account of personal bonafide requirement of the petitioner/landlord. In appeal, the learned Appellate Authority has set aside the eviction, on account of bonafide need of the landlord, for his own occupation. 27. 26. In this case, the learned Rent Controller had allowed the eviction petition, mainly on the ground that the tenanted premises is liable to be evicted on account of personal bonafide requirement of the petitioner/landlord. In appeal, the learned Appellate Authority has set aside the eviction, on account of bonafide need of the landlord, for his own occupation. 27. The learned Appellate Authority has relied upon the evidence of RW Satish Kumar, who has deposed that first floor of the building had also the similar accommodation, which is with the tenant and petitioner Varinder Mohan had obtained the possession of the residential accommodation of the first floor, in the month of January, 2013 from the heirs of Kartar Singh and further sold the same in the month of April, 2013. 28. Findings of the learned Rent Controller have been interfered by the learned Appellate Authority also, on the ground that on the basis of a stray sentence, deposed by RW-5, regarding the fact that petitioner/landlord himself disclosed to him that he wants to reside in the demised premises, as such, he requested the respondent/tenant to get the same vacated. In this regard, this Court is of the view that evidence of the petitioners is to be taken as a whole, and not in piecemeal and no inference can be drawn, on the basis of stray sentence, deposed by RW-5, as in the next line, this witness has deposed that he does not know whether the petitioner/landlord has retired from his job or not. 29. On the basis of said statement, learned Rent Controller has concluded that the tenant himself has stated that the petitioner intends to settle in India and on the basis of above facts, the bonafide requirement of the landlord has been concluded. 30. The learned First Appellate Court has rightly considered the evidence of the petitioners, as well as, RW-5/tenant and reversed the findings, qua this fact, i.e. bonafide requirement of the landlord. 31. If the facts and circumstances of the present case are seen in the light of Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd.’s case, then the findings of the learned Appellate Authority do not require to be interfered with, by this Court, under the revisional jurisdiction. Relevant paragraphs of the aforesaid judgment, are reproduced as under: “42. 31. If the facts and circumstances of the present case are seen in the light of Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd.’s case, then the findings of the learned Appellate Authority do not require to be interfered with, by this Court, under the revisional jurisdiction. Relevant paragraphs of the aforesaid judgment, are reproduced as under: “42. The observation in Ramdoss that the High Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction cannot act as an appellate court/authority and it is impermissible for the High Court to reassess the evidence in a revision petition filed under Section 25 of the Act is in accord with Rukmini and Sankaranarayanan. Its observation that the High Court can interfere with incorrect finding of fact must be understood in the context where such finding is perverse, based on no evidence or misreading of the evidence or such finding has been arrived at by ignoring or overlooking the material evidence or such finding is so grossly erroneous that if allowed to stand, will occasion in miscarriage of justice. Ramdoss does not hold that the High Court may interfere with the findings of fact because on re-appreciation of the evidence its view is different from that of the first Appellate Court or Authority. The decision of this Court in V.M. Mohan is again in line with the judgment of this Court in Rukmini. 43. We hold, as we must, that none of the above Rent Control Acts entitles the High Court to interfere with the findings of fact recorded by the First Appellate Court/First Appellate Authority because on re-appreciation of the evidence, its view is different from the Court/Authority below. The consideration or examination of the evidence by the High Court in revisional jurisdiction under these Acts is confined to find out that finding of facts recorded by the Court/Authority below is according to law and does not suffer from any error of law. A finding of fact recorded by Court/Authority below, if perverse or has been arrived at without consideration of the material evidence or such finding is based on no evidence or misreading of the evidence or is grossly erroneous that, if allowed to stand, it would result in gross miscarriage of justice, is open to correction because it is not treated as a finding according to law. In that event, the High Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction under the above Rent Control Acts shall be entitled to set aside the impugned order as being not legal or proper. The High Court is entitled to satisfy itself the correctness or legality or propriety of any decision or order impugned before it as indicated above. However, to satisfy itself to the regularity, correctness, legality or propriety of the impugned decision or the order, the High Court shall not exercise its power as an appellate power to re-appreciate or re-assess the evidence for coming to a different finding on facts. Revisional power is not and cannot be equated with the power of reconsideration of all questions of fact as a court of first appeal. Where the High Court is required to be satisfied that the decision is according to law, it may examine whether the order impugned before it suffers from procedural illegality or irregularity.” 32. Another fact, which has rightly been highlighted by the learned senior counsel, appearing for the respondents, is that in para-26 of the judgment passed by the learned Appellate Authority, document i.e. sale deed, Ext. RW3/A has rightly been considered, as from the said document, it has been concluded that Varinder Mohan and his sister Harindra had sold the property, vide sale deed Ext. RW3/A, on 5.4.2012. In this document itself, there is a recital that the property was in occupation of the different tenants, but now the same is vacated by the sellers with their own efforts. 33. The eviction petition was filed on 12.12.2006 and during pendency of the petition, before the learned Rent Controller, he had sold the residential premises, situated as 1/2th undivided share measuring 33.17 sq. metrs. in the entire ground floor on the Lower Bazar Road Level and the same share measuring 33.17 sq. metrs. in the entire first floor, above the shops, total built up area 66.34 sq. metrs. in both the floors of the four storyed building, known as, ‘Shop No. 75 and 75/1, Lower Bazar, Shimla to Balwant Kukreja and Ashok Kukreja. 34. Even after the execution of the sale deed, the land lord has not bothered to get the eviction petition amended by mentioning this material fact, in his petition. metrs. in both the floors of the four storyed building, known as, ‘Shop No. 75 and 75/1, Lower Bazar, Shimla to Balwant Kukreja and Ashok Kukreja. 34. Even after the execution of the sale deed, the land lord has not bothered to get the eviction petition amended by mentioning this material fact, in his petition. It has rightly been pointed by the learned senior counsel for the tenant that the earlier petition filed by the landlord and his brother Mukesh Sood and Lalit Mohan Sood, copy of which, is Ext. RW4/A, against the present tenant, for the bonafide requirement of real brother of the petitioner, namely, Lalit Mohan Sood (petitioner No. 1), was dismissed as withdrawn, as deposed by RW-4. 35. When, the earlier petition, which was filed by the present landlord, alongwith his brother Lalit Mohan Sood, for the same relief, has been dismissed as withdrawn, then, this Court finds no infirmity, illegality or irregularity, in the orders passed by the learned Appellate Authority. 36. In view of aforesaid discussions and observations, there is no merit in the present petition, and the same is dismissed. 37. Record be sent back. 38. The pending application(s), if any, are also disposed of.