Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 474 (HP)

Sanjay Kapoor v. Charanji Lal

2025-03-24

BIPIN CHANDER NEGI

body2025
JUDGMENT : (Bipin Chander Negi, J.) The present petition has been filed against the judgement dated 03.09.2024 passed by the learned Appellate Authority (Mandi, H.P.) in Rent Appeal No.1 of 2024, whereby the learned Appellate Authority below has confirmed the eviction order dated 16.12.2023, passed by the learned Rent Controller (3) Mandi, District Mandi, HP in Rent Petition No.161 of 2013, titled Charanji Lal & Ors. Vs. Dalip Singh. 2. The present petitioner before this Court was the respondent before the Rent Controller. The facts, in the case at hand, are that the present respondents/landlords before the learned Rent Controller had filed a rent petition under Section 14 of the H.P. Urban Rent Control Act seeking eviction from the tenanted premises—a shop situated at 104/8 Darmyana Mohalla, Mandi Town, District Mandi, H.P., measuring 12.00 sq. meters, on a monthly rent of Rs.242/-. The eviction was sought on the grounds that the building was over 100 years old, in dilapidated condition and required reconstruction into a multi-storeyed RCC structure, for better returns. 3. The present respondent/landlords claimed that the premises had outlived their life, with cracks in the roof/slab, making them unsafe for habitation and that they had approved reconstruction plans from the Municipal Council, Mandi, along with sufficient funds to undertake rebuilding. Additionally, they pleaded bona fide personal requirement for self-occupation. 4. The present petitioner/tenants contested the petition, denying that the building was unsafe or required reconstruction. The tenants asserted that the structure was already RCC (around 50 years old) and in good condition, disputing its location, as being in Palakh Street rather than Balak Rupi Bazar. They also raised preliminary objections regarding the maintainability of the petition, misjoinder of parties, and non-compliance with Rent Control Rules. 5. The learned trial Court framed the following issues on 16.01.2016: 1. Whether the premises are bonafidely required by the petitioners for the purposes of reconstruction/ rebuilding which cannot be carried out without the premises being vacated and demolished? OPP 2. Whether the premises are bonafidely required by the petitioners for their own occupations, as: alleged?OPP. 3. Whether premises has outlived its life and has become unsafe for human habitation?OPP. 4. Whether the petition is non-maintainable, as alleged? OPR. 5. Whether the petition is bad for mis-joinder and non-joinder of necessary parties, as alleged? OPR 6. OPP 2. Whether the premises are bonafidely required by the petitioners for their own occupations, as: alleged?OPP. 3. Whether premises has outlived its life and has become unsafe for human habitation?OPP. 4. Whether the petition is non-maintainable, as alleged? OPR. 5. Whether the petition is bad for mis-joinder and non-joinder of necessary parties, as alleged? OPR 6. Whether the petition is not in accordance with rules as framed under HP Urban Rent Contract Act, as alleged? OPR. 7. Relief 6. After considering the evidence, the trial Court partly allowed the eviction petition on 16.12.2023, holding that the landlords had proved their bona fide requirement for reconstruction and that the building in question had outlived its life and had become unsafe for human habitation. Feeling aggrieved with this order, the present petitioner/tenant (Appellant before the Appellate Court) had challenged it, contending that the trial Court mis-appreciated the evidence, wrongly favouring the landlords and that the premises in question were in good condition (cemented, slab-posh) without any need for reconstruction. The Petitioner also alleged improper framing of issues and sought the setting aside of the impugned order with dismissal of the eviction petition with costs. The First Appellate Court post-considering the pleadings and the evidence concerned with the judgment of the learned trial Court. 7. Heard counsel for the parties, perused the petition and the documents appended along with. 8. In order to demonstrate the condition of the building the respondent herein i.e. landlord had examined one Shri Tejinder Kaushal (PW-3). The said individual is an Architect, Structural Engineer and registered with the Town and Country Planning Department. The age of the building is stated to be 65- 70 years old. The building is stated to be made out of stone, wood and is stated to be not in a proper condition. For the purpose of raising a new building thereupon the existing structure has to be vacated and demolished. 9. The building is located in the heart of Mandi town. Presently it is stated to be yielding rent at the rate of Rs.242/- per month. The building has a great locational advantage/commercial value. For pulling down the building in question and rebuilding thereupon, building plans stand approved and the same have been placed on record as Ext.PW- 2/A and the sanction letter in this regard issued by the concerned Nagar Parishad is Exhibit PW-2/B. 10. The building has a great locational advantage/commercial value. For pulling down the building in question and rebuilding thereupon, building plans stand approved and the same have been placed on record as Ext.PW- 2/A and the sanction letter in this regard issued by the concerned Nagar Parishad is Exhibit PW-2/B. 10. In view of the aforesaid Both the Courts have concurrently and correctly held after assessment of the pleadings, evidence on record that the need of the landlord, in the case at hand, is bona fide for the purpose of rebuilding and reconstruction. It is well-settled that when an eviction is sought on the ground of rebuilding and reconstruction, condition of the building is not required to be gone into. For the aforesaid reasons, the findings returned by both the courts below in this respect call for no interference. 11. Other than the aforesaid, in order to seek an eviction on the ground that the building in question has become unsafe or unfit for human habitation, a landlord does not have to wait for the building to collapse/crumble before seeking eviction of the tenant from the premises. Moreover, it is well settled that in case a substantial part of the demised building has become unsafe or unfit for human habitation, a tenant can be ejected from the demised premises forming part thereof, despite the fact that a particular portion in his possession or in the possession of the landlord may not be so. In this regard, a reference can gainfully be made to a Division Bench Judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Sardarni Sampuran Kaur vs. Sant Singh reported as AIR 1982 (Punjab and Haryana) 245, wherein the aforesaid had been laid down while considering pari-materia provisions under the concerned corresponding Rent Act. 12. I am of the considered view that both the Courts have taken the aforesaid view correctly and I see no legal valid reason to take a contrary view. Other than the aforesaid, the ground for eviction is that the building has become “unsafe or unfit” for human habitation and not “unsafe and unfit”. In this regard a reference can also be made to case reported as 2014(1) SLC 47, titled as Deepak Boot House and another vs. Dr. Piyare Lal Sood (para 37 to 40). 13. Other than the aforesaid, the ground for eviction is that the building has become “unsafe or unfit” for human habitation and not “unsafe and unfit”. In this regard a reference can also be made to case reported as 2014(1) SLC 47, titled as Deepak Boot House and another vs. Dr. Piyare Lal Sood (para 37 to 40). 13. Besides the aforesaid, the fact that the building has survived during the protracted litigation cannot be a ground to reject the eviction petition filed on the ground of the building having become unsafe or unfit for human habitation. It can never be a wish of the Court and of the parties that the building that is said to be uninhabitable must be such as would collapse and cause casualties to litigants during this long journey in the Court. 14. In view of the aforesaid, I see no error/material illegality in the impugned order dated 03.09.2024 passed by the learned Appellate Authority, Mandi Division, Mandi, HP, therefore, the present petition is dismissed and so also the pending application(s), if any. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.