IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Civil Revision No. 183 of 2003. Date of Decision: 14.6.2010. _______________________________________________ Raghujeet Singh and others. ….Petitioner. Versus. Narinder Singh. ….Respondent. Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dev Darshan Sud, Judge. Whether approved for reporting1? Yes. For the petitioner : Mr. K.D.Sood, Advocate. For the Respondent. : Mr. Bhuvnesh Sharma, Advocate. Dev Darshan Sud, J.(Oral). This revision petition has been preferred by the petitioner-landlord herein challenging the order passed by the learned appellate authority declining an order of eviction to the petitioner-landlord herein against the respondent-tenant inter alia on the ground of material impairment of the value of the suit property. 2. The petitioner herein, instituted the eviction proceedings against the respondent on various grounds. The learned trial court accepted the petition only on the finding of non-payment of rent and that the respondent-tenant had materially impaired the value of the building. Whether reporters of the Local papers are allowed to see the judgment?yes. 2 3. The learned appellate authority, accepting the appeal filed by the respondent-tenant and restricted the eviction on the ground of non-payment of rent. 4. During the pendency of the revision before this Court, the entire building collapsed. CMP No. 352 of 2009 was instituted by the petitioner-landlord praying for permission to place on record subsequent events including the fact that the building had collapsed because of the wrongful acts of the respondent. On 8.9.2009, this court by its order directed: “This application has been filed by the petitioner herein for bringing on record subsequent events which have a material bearing on the outcome of this revision petition. The petitioner seeks permission to place on record evidence including photographs of the suit premises showing that the building has collapsed because of installing heavy machinery which he attributes to the acts on the part of the respondent. It is now well settled that this Court can take notice of subsequent events. However, the allegations made in this application would require evidence. This application is sent to the Court of the learned Appellate Authority, Hamirpur for recording evidence on the allegations as made in this application. He shall afford an opportunity to lead evidence oral or documentary. The findings shall be sent to this Court immediately and not later than one month from the date when the parties first appear before the learned Appellate Authority. Parties to appear before the learned Appellate Authority on 23rd October, 2009. The record be sent to the learned Appellate Authority who shall send it back to this Court after due compliance.” 5. Pursuant to that order, the learned appellate authority, granted opportunity to the parties to lead evidence and return its finding holding that the building had, in fact, 3 collapsed but he could not conclude as to whether it was the fault of the respondent or not. The court held: “In compliance of the order of the Hon’ble High Court, this Authority has recorded statements of AW.1 Raghujit Singh, AW2 Pawan Rana, a neighbourer, AW3 Ravi Singh, Photographer and AW4 Rajinder Dogra. On the other hand, Narender Singh, respondent has examined himself as RW1 and he has also tendered in evidence documents Ext. RA, copy of petition under Section 14 of the H.P. Urban Rent Control Act, 1987, reply thereto, copy of judgment of learned Sub Judge Ist Class, Hamirpur in Civil Suit No. 30 of 1992, dated August 27, 1999, titled Avtar Singh Vs. Ram Singh and others, copy of decree sheet Ext. RC-1, copy of plaint in Civil Suit No. 132/08 filed by Narender Singh (respondent) against the present Landlord, copy of written statement Ext. RE in the aforesaid suit, copy of application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC Ext. RF and copy of petition under Order 39 Rule 2-A CPC read with Section 151 CPC Ext. RG filed by Narender Singh against against his landlord, Raghujit Singh. A perusal of the statement of Sh. Raghujit Singh, AW1 landlord shows that the building in question has now collapsed fully and this is also evident from the photographs Ext. AW3/A-1 to Ext. AW3/A. Before these photographs were taken, a letter Ext. AW4/A was also issued by the Executive Officer, Municipal Council, Hamirpur requiring the landlord to demolish the building and to reconstruct it after getting the building plan approved as per law. So one fact is clear from the aforesaid evidence on record that the building in question has now collapsed on the spot. Whether or not the building has collapsed due to installation of heavy machinery, it is not possible to make any submissions on the same by this authority, because there is only the statement of the landlord and of AW Pawan Rana about it and Pawan Rana has also only stated the probability of 4 the building having collapsed due to installation of heavy machinery.” 6. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the building having collapsed, the petitioner is entitled for an order of eviction as one of the other grounds urged before the learned Rent Controller was that the shop is required bonafide for re-building and re-construction. He submits that since the building has now collapsed, the fact proves itself and now the right of the landlord/petitioner to reconstruct cannot be circumscribed. 7. Learned counsel relies upon the decision of the Supreme Court in Lekh Raj Vs. Muni Lal and others, AIR 2001 S.C. 996 holding: “11 The law on the subject is also settled. Incase subsequent event or fact having bering on the issues or relief in a suit or proceeding, to which any party seek to bring on record, the Court should not shut its door. All laws and procedures including functioning of courts are all in aid to confer justice to all who knocks its door. Courts should interpret the law not in derogation of justice but in its aid. Thus, bringing on record subsequent event, which is relevant, should be permitted to be brought on record to render justice to a party. But the court in doing so should be cautious not to permit it in a routine. It should refuse where a party is doing so to delay the proceedings, harass other party or doing so for any other ulterior motive. The courts even before admitting should examine, whether the alleged subsequent event has any material bearing on issues involved and which would materially effect the result………………………”(PP 999 ) 5 8. The Court relied upon two other decisions, namely, Pasupuleti Venkateswarlu V. Motor & General Traders, (1975) 1 SCC 770 and Ramesh Kumar Vs. Kesho Ram, 1992 SC 700 ruled: “12 The normal rule is that in any litigation the rights and obligations of the parties are adjudicated upon as they obtain at the commencement of the lis. But this is subject to an execution. Wherever subsequent events of fact or law which have a material bearing on the entitlement of the parties to relief on aspects which bear on the moulding of the relief occur, the Court is not precluded from taking a ‘cautious cognizance’ of the subsequent changes of fact and law to mould the relief……………….”. ( PP 1000) 9. He submits that once the Local Commissioner has examined the building, he could only report with respect to the fact of the existing condition of the building and not as to who brought it to that condition. Reliance is placed upon Lekh Raj’s case (supra): “19 The question whether the roof was damaged by the landlord or was damaged because of the building being old and dilapidated is a question of fact., proof of it could only be, if at all, through leading evidence and not through a local Commissioner. A local Commissioner could only report the fact of existing condition of the building and not who did it. It was open for him, if appellant so desired for praying to the Court to grant time to lead evidence in this regard. Since Court permitted, a local Commissioner to report, so it would have granted the prayers for leading evidence………….”(PP 1001) 10. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents submits that now the building has collapsed, this will be used a ruse to dispossess him in violation of law. This submission of the learned counsel cannot be accepted as it is now well 6 settled that even in execution proceedings the tenant can impeach the bonafides of his landlord. 11. In Harrington House School Vs. S.M.Ispahani and another (2002) 5 SCC 229, the supreme Court held: “8………………….The decree as passed by the High Court is sustained but it is directed that the landlords shall submit the plans of reconstruction for the approval of the local authority. Only on the plans being sanctioned by the local authority the decree for eviction shall be available for execution. Such sanctioned or approved plans shall be produced before the executing court whereupon the executing court shall allow a reasonable time to the tenant for vacating the property and delivering possession to the landlord decree-holders. Till then the tenant shall remain liable to pay charges for use and occupation of the suit premises at the same rate at which they are being paid. Along with the plans the landlords shall also file an undertaking before the executing court as required by clause (b) of sub section (2) of Section 14 of the Act. Subject to the said modification the decree as passed by the High Court is maintained. The appeal stands disposed of No order as to the costs.” (PP 233-234 ) 12. In Jagat Pal Dhawan Vs. Kahan Singh (Dead) by LRs. And others (2003) 1 SCC 191, the Court holds: “6 Section 14(3)(c) of the H.P. Urban Rent Control Act, 1987 provides inter alia that a landlord may apply to the Controller for an order directing the tenant to put the landlord in possession of tenancy premises in case of any building or rented land being required bona fide by him for the purpose of building or rebuilding which cannot be carried out without the building or rented land being vacated. The provision does not have as an essential ingredient thereof and as a relevant factor the age and condition of the building. The provision also does not lay down that the availability of requisite funds and availability of building plans duly sanctioned by the local authority must be proved by the landlord as an ingredient of the provision or as a condition precedent to his entitlement to 7 eviction of tenant. However, the court may look into such facts as relevant, though not specifically mentioned as ingredients of the ground for eviction, for the purpose of determining the bonafides of the landlord. If a building, as proposed, cannot be constructed or if the landlord does not have means for carrying out the construction or reconstruction obviously his requirement would remain a mere wish and would not be bonafide.” 13. This petition is, therefore, accepted and the petition of the landlord is allowed on the ground of re- construction. Order of eviction is accordingly passed against the respondent. The apprehension expressed by the respondent that if an order of eviction is granted, it would seriously affect his rights, cannot be accepted. The petition is accordingly disposed of. It will be open to the respondent to urge in execution proceedings if any which may be brought against him to show that the petitioner herein has been unable to establish bonafide inasmuch as he does not have sanctioned plan or the petitioner herein does not possess sufficient fund for re-construction of the building etc. (Dev Darshan Sud), Judge. June 14,2010 (R)