IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA Civil Revision No. 21 of 2009 Date of Decision: 24th August, 2009 Chaman Lal Sharma Petitioner Versus Smt.Jagtamba Devi Respondent Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Karol,J. Whether approved for reporting1? No. For the petitioner: Mr.Harsh Khanna, Advocate. For the respondent: Mr. G.D.Verma, Sr. Advocate, with Mr. B.C.Verma, Advocate. Sanjay Karol, J. (Oral) The petitioner-tenant has assailed the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the Courts below. In terms of order dated 1.11.2007, Rent Controller-II, Shimla, District Shimla, H.P., allowed Rent Application No. 6/2 of 2004, titled as Jagdamba Devi vs. Chaman Lal Sharma, under the provisions of Section 14 of the H.P. Urban Rent Control Act, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) on the ground that the premises were bonafidely required for re-construction which cannot be carried out without the premises being Whether the reporters of Local Papers are allowed to see the Judgment? 2 vacated by the tenant and also on the ground that the tenant was in arrears of rent with effect from 1.3.1986 amounting to Rs.5313/- alongwith statutory interest @ 9% per annum. The ground that the tenant had changed the user of the demised premises, however, was not found to have been proved. The findings of the Rent Controller were assailed by the tenant before the Appellate authority and his appeal being Civil Misc. Appeal No. 70-S/14 of 2007, titled as Sh.Chaman Lal Sharma vs. Smt. Jagtamba Devi, was dismissed in terms of judgment dated 12.11.2008. Hence the present revision petition. Both the Courts concurrently held that premises in question under the tenancy of the petitioner herein was bonafidely required by the landlady for its reconstruction, which cannot be carried out without the premises being vacated. At the time of hearing Mr. Khanna, pointed out that the arrears of rent as adjudicated by the Rent Controller, stood deposited before the Appellate Authority and hence the order of ejectment on this ground by the Appellate Authority is thus erroneous and untenable in law. This Court, accepting the statement of the learned counsel for the petitioner to be true and correct, has 3 proceeded on the assumption that the amount stood deposited by the tenant within the statutory period, hence keeping in view Section 14 (2) (i) of the Act the eviction of the tenant on the ground of arrears of rent thus cannot take place. However, with regard to eviction on the ground of tenanted premises being bonafidely required by the landlady for reconstruction and rebuilding, I am afraid no ground for interference is made out. I have considered the entire material and also called for the records of the Courts below to satisfy judicial conscious. I find that the impugned orders have been passed after taking into account the entire material on record. There is nothing on record to prove that the appreciation of the same is perverse. The petitioner was the tenant in the premises which were purchased by the respondent-landlady. Her husband also purchased the entire building within which the premises in question are situated. It is contended that since the petitioner did not attorn to the respondent landlady hence the eviction petition was not maintainable. I am afraid the contention needs to be rejected for the simple reason that in his own statement the tenant has admitted having paid rent to the landlady. That apart, on the query of the Court Mr. Verma, learned Senior 4 counsel appearing for the landlady showed the sale deed in terms of which the tenanted premises stood sold in favour of the landlady and not her husband as was urged during the course of hearing. Undoubtedly, the building in which the tenanted premises is situated is 100 years old. It is made of mud mortar having Dhajji (wooden) walls. The landlady has examined an expert Shri Sanjeev Sharma (PW-1) to prove the existing condition of the building in terms of report Ext.PW- 1/A, which evidently shows that the brick masonry foundation and super structure have settled down considerably because of the settlement of the land and drifting of soil. The landlady herself has proved the bonafide requirement and necessary reconstruction cannot be carried out without the premises being vacated. The Court below has rightly considered the ratio of law laid down by the Court in Naresh Kumar and others vs. Surinder Pal, 2001(2) Shim.L.C.337, Om Prakash vs. Ganga Ram, Latest HLJ 2001 (HP) 161 and Amarjit Singh vs. Anju Rani, 1997 (1) Shim.L.C.492 to hold that sanction of plan from the Municipal Corporation is not a pre-requisite for seeking eviction. 5 Nothing has been shown that the intention of landlady is mala fide and the petition has been filed only to defeat the legitimate right of the tenant. Eviction is sought on the grounds contained in Section 14(3)(c) of the Act, which reads as under: “(c) in the case of any building or rented land, if he required it to carry out any building work at the instance of the Government or local authority or any Improvement Trust under some improvement or development scheme or if it has become unsafe or unfit for human habitation or is required bonafide by him for carrying out repairs which can not be carried out without the building or rented land being vacated or that the building or rented land is required bonafide by him for the purpose of building or re-building or making these to any substantial additions, or alterations and that such building or re-building or addition or alteration can not be carried out without the building or rented land being vacated; The provisions of Section 14(3)(c) of the Act came up for consideration before the Apex Court in Prem Chand alias Prem Nath versus Shanta Prabhakar (Smt), (1998) 1 SCC 274, wherein it has been held that the said provisions stipulated following different and independent situations and circumstances:- 6 "(i) When the tenanted premises are required by the landlord to carry out any building work at the instance of the Government or local authority or any Improvement Trust under some improvement or development scheme; or (ii) When the tenanted premises have become unsafe or unfit for human habitation; or (iii) When the tenanted premises are required bona fide by the landlord for carrying out repairs which cannot be carried out without such tenanted premises being vacated; or (iv) When the tenanted premises are required bona fide by the landlord for purposes of building or re-building or making thereto any substantial additions or alterations and that such building or re-building or addition or alteration cannot be carried out without the building or rented land being vacated." The said ratio holds the field even till date. Hence, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the building is not in a dilapidated condition or that there is no notice from the municipal authorities to the effect that the building is unsafe or unfit for human habitation is of no significance for the reason that the eviction is not sought on the ground that the building has become unsafe or unfit for human habitation but that the premises are 7 bonafidely required for carrying out repairs which cannot be carried out without the tenanted premises being vacated. In Jagat Pal Dhawan vs. Kahan Singh (dead) by LRs and others, (2003) 1 SCC 191, the relevant provisions of the Act again came up for consideration and the Apex Court held as under:- “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 eviction of tenant. However still, suffice it to observe, depending on the facts and circumstances of a given case, the court may look into such facts as relevant, though not specifically mentioned as ingredient of the ground for eviction, for the purpose of determining the bona fides of the landlord. If a 8 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 bona fide. The fact that demolition and reconstruction would result in modernization, making additional space available and/or would augment the earning of the landlord is relevant factors for determining the bona fides of the requirement for demolition and reconstruction.” There is nothing on record which would disentitle the landlady from invoking the provisions of the Act. The record does not remotely suggest that the petition has been instituted with malafide intention against the tenant. In the circumstances there is no merit in the petition instituted by the tenant which is accordingly dismissed. The Appellate Authority has already ordered that the order of ejectment shall become executable only after the plans for reconstruction are sanctioned by the competent authority. 24th August, 2009 (Sanjay Karol) (C) Judge. 9