IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. Civil Revision No. 135 of 2008 and Civil Revision No. 136 of 2008. Judgment reserved on : 3.11.2009. Date of decision: 16.12. 2009. 1. Civil Revision No. 135 of 2008 Manohar Lal and another .…Petitioners. Vs Subhash Chand Karol and others ....Respondents. 2. Civil Revision No. 136 of 2008 Manohar Lal and another .…Petitioners. Vs Subhash Chand Karol and others ....Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kuldip Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting ? No For the Petitioners : Mr. Harsh Khanna, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. Rajnish K. Lal, Advocate for respondent No.1 in C.R. No. 135 of 2008. Mr. K.D.Sood, Advocate for respondent No.1. in C.R.No. 136 of 2008. None for respondents No. 2 & 3. __________________________________________________________ Kuldip Singh, Judge This judgment shall dispose of Civil Revision No. 135 of 2008 and Civil Revision No. 136 of 2008 both having arisen from the common judgment dated 1.4.2008 passed by the learned Appellate Authority, Shimla in Civil Misc. Appeal No. 33-S/14 of 2006 and Civil ______________________ 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the Judgment ? yes Misc. Appeal No. 34-S/14 of 2006, respectively. Both the revisions have been filed by the tenants. 2. The further relevant facts are that Subhash Chand Karol respondent-landlord had filed petition under Section 14 of the Himachal Pradesh Urban Rent Control Act, 1987 (for short ‘Act’) against the petitioners and proforma respondents on the grounds of arrears of rent, premises in question has become unsafe and unfit for human habitation, premises is required bonafide for reconstruction and tenants have ceased to occupy the premises. The petition was contested in which preliminary objections of maintainability, non- disclosure of relevant information were taken. The condition of the building as alleged by the landlord was denied. The premises in question is in occupation of tenants. The requirement of premises for re-building and re-construction was also denied. It was alleged that respondent No.1 has no source to raise reconstruction. The petition has been filed in order to harass the tenants. The plan of the building has not been sanctioned. The prayer was made for dismissal of the petition. The respondent No.1 filed rejoinder and re-affirmed the averments made in the petition. The following issues were framed by the learned Rent Controller:- 1. Whether the respondent is in arrears of rent, as prayed? …OPP. 2. Whether the demises premises has become unsafe and unfit for human habitation, as alleged? …OPP. 3. Whether the demised premises is required by the petitioner for reconstruction, as alleged? …OPP. 4. Whether the respondent has ceased to occupy the demised premises, as alleged? …OPP. 5. Whether the petition is not maintainable, as alleged? …OPR. 6. Relief. The issue No. 1 was answered partly in affirmative, issues No. 2 and 3 in affirmative and issues No. 4 and 5 in negative. The learned Rent Controller, partly allowed the petition on 20.1.2006. The tenants filed Civil Misc. Appeal No. 33-S/14 of 2006 and landlord filed Civil Misc Appeal No. 34-S/14 of 2006 against the order dated 20.1.2006. The learned Appellate Authority dismissed the Civil Misc. Appeal No. 33-S/14 of 2006 and allowed Civil Misc. Appeal No. 34- S/14 of 2006 by common judgment dated 1.4.2008, hence tenants have filed above revisions. 3. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for respondent No.1 in both the revisions and have also gone through the record. The learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that learned Appellate Authority has erred in dismissing Civil Misc. Appeal No. 33-S/14 of 2006 and allowing Civil Misc. Appeal No. 34-S/14 of 2006. In C.R. No. 135 of 2008, it has been submitted that landlord has not proved issues No.2 and 3. The authorities below have not properly appreciated the pleadings. The landlord has miserably failed to substantiate that the premises has become unfit and unsafe for human habitation. The premises in question has not been properly identified either in the pleadings or in the evidence led by the landlord. The plan for re-construction has not been sanctioned from the authorities. In C.R. No. 136 of 2008, it has been submitted that the issues No.2 and 4 have been wrongly decided by the learned Appellate Authority, the landlord has not proved issue No.2. The premises has not been properly identified. It has been wrongly held that tenants have ceased to occupy the premises. The learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1 in the revisions have supported the impugned judgment dated 1.4.2008. 4. The learned Rent Controller while deciding issue No.1 regarding arrears of rent has held that landlord is entitled to eviction on the grounds of arrears of rent w.e.f. 1.7.2000 to 20.1.2006 along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum which comes to Rs. 6054.12 and ordered that tenants shall not be evicted in case arrears of rent are deposited within a period of one month from the date of order. The learned Appellate Authority in para 33 of the impugned judgment has observed that findings on arrears of rent were not assailed before him at the time of arguments and, therefore, the learned Appellate Authority has affirmed the order of ejectment on arrears of rent. This finding of the learned Appellate Authority has not been seriously assailed by the learned counsel for the petitioners. Therefore, ejectment of petitioner on the grounds of arrears of rent is affirmed. 5. PW-4 Subhash Chand has stated that structure is 55-60 years old. He has stated that premises was lying closed for the last 8 – 10 years prior to filing of the petition. The premises is in dilapidated condition. There was no electricity and water connection in the premises. The walls are out of plumb and floors are broken. The doors and windows are rotten. The premises cannot be re- constructed unless it is vacated. He has stated that he wants to reconstruct the building. He is income tax assessee. The premises was got inspected from Vivek Karol. In cross-examination, he has denied that tenant was occupying the premises. He has denied that he has filed the petition for enhancement of rent. 6. PW-1 Vivek Karol has stated that he has done engineering in the year 1994 from Pune University. Thereafter, he is doing private practice. He has experience of designing, construction, maintenance of buildings. The premises in question was inspected by him on 20.1.1999. The building is 60 – 65 years old and resting on retaining wall. The condition of the building is dilapidated. There were virtually no doors and windows in the premises at the time of inspection. There was no entrance gate. The wooden parts in the building were rotten. There were cracks in the floor, walls and walls were out of plumb. The retaining wall was also out of plumb. The repair work cannot be carried out in the premises unless it is vacated. The retaining wall itself requires reconstruction before reconstruction of the premises. He prepared report Ex.PW-3/A and plan Ex.PW-3/B according to the position at site. In cross-examination he has denied that the disputed premises was not shown to him. He has also denied that he had not actually seen the disputed premises. This witness was not cross-examined on the point that the report Ex.PW-3/A is not of the premises in question. 7. PW-1 Tek Chand, Additional Assistant Engineer, Municipal Corporation, Shimla has stated that meter No. 75JP half inch was installed in Devi Saran building No.82 in the year 1920. This connection was plugged /disconnected in the year 1986. M/s Rai Chand Diwan Chand had applied for re-connection on 9.5.2000 and the connection was opened on 19.5.2000. The connection remained plugged from the year 1986 to 19.5.2000. PW-2 Rameshwar Chauhan, Junior Assistant, HPSEB, Ridge Electrical Sub Division, Shimla has stated that the connection was given on 3.10.2000 in the name of M/s Rai Chand Diwan Chand with A/C No.S132A- 440-C. This connection has been given in 82-Ganj Road.As per record, the connection was given on the application of Manohar Lal. The permission of landlord is not on record. In cross-examination, he has denied that the connection was already there. He has rather stated that the connection is new. 8. RW-1 Manohar Lal has stated that the condition of the building is good. The premises does not require re-construction. The premises was never remained closed. The premises was got inspected from H.S. Bist, retired Engineer. In cross-examination, he has stated that the premises is single storey. The premises was taken on rent by his father in the year 1940-42 but he does not know when the premises was constructed. The electricity and water supply was very much in the premises. PW-2 H.S.Bist, has stated that he retired from HPPWD as Executive Engineer after serving 34 ½ years. He inspected the premises on 14.6.2003 and prepared report Ex.RW-2/A and plan Ex.RW-2/B which are correct. In cross- examination, he has stated that the premises in question is a single storey structure. The building rests on retaining wall from one side. This witness in the statement has not stated that the building does not require reconstruction. 9. RW-1 Manohar Lal has stated that premises in question was taken on rent by his father in the year 1940-42, but he does not know when the premises in question was constructed. RW-2 H.S.Bist, in his report dated 11.7.2003 Ex.RW-2/A at one place under the heading ‘General’ has stated that building is not more than 30 to 40 years and in conclusion, he has stated that the age of the building is not more than 40 years. Therefore, as per report Ex.RW-2/A, the premises in question was constructed about 40 years ago which comes to the year 1963. RW-1 has contradicted report Ex.RW-2/A when he has stated that his father had taken premises in question on rent in the year 1940-42. PW-1 has stated that meter was installed in Devi Saran building No. 82 in the year 1920. In para No.1 of the petition name of the building has been pleaded ‘Devi Saran’ which has not been denied in corresponding para 1 of the reply. Therefore, report Ex.RW-2/A regarding the age of the building is wrong in view of the statement of RW-1 Manohar Lal. In report Ex.RW-2/A, a sweeping observation has been made regarding the condition of the building. There are no photographs attached with report Ex.RW-2/A in order to substantiate the condition of the building. 10. In report Ex.PW-3/A, PW-3 Vivek Karol has given the age of the building 62-65 years. The report Ex.PW-3/A is dated 25.1.1999. The age of the building given in report Ex.PW-3/A gets corroboration from the statement of RW-1 Manohar Lal, who has stated that his father had taken the premises in question on rent in the year 1940-42 but he does not know when the building was constructed. PW-1 has stated that meter was installed in Devi Saran building in the year 1920. PW-3 Vivek Karol has appeared in the witness box. He has been cross-examined at length but tenants could not extract anything favourable to them from the cross-examination of PW-3. PW-1 is the witness regarding water connection in the premises in question. He has stated that as per their record the connection was given in the year 1920 but it was plugged/disconnected in the year 1986 and was again reconnected on 19.5.2000. PW-2 Rameshwar Chauhan has stated that electricity connection was given in the premises on 3.10.2000. In other words, before 3.10.2000 there was no electricity in the premises. Similarly, there was no water connection from 1986 to 19.5.2000 in the premises. The petition was filed on 26.2.1999. This proves the case of the landlord that the premises remained unoccupied for many years. 11. The learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the premises in question has not been identified either in the pleadings or in the evidence but this contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners has no force. The premises in question has been duly identified. The landlord has specifically stated that the condition of the building is not good which requires reconstruction which cannot be carried out unless the premises is vacated. This stand of the landlord has been corroborated by PW-3 Vivek Karol. The sanctioning of plan for reconstruction is not absolutely necessary to prove ground of bonafide reconstruction to be carried out by landlord. 12. The learned Rent Controller has allowed the petition on the grounds of arrears of rent, building has become unfit and unsafe for human habitation and bonafide requirement for reconstruction, but rejected the claim of the landlord that the tenant has ceased to occupy the premises. The Appellate Authority after due appreciation of the evidence has allowed the eviction petition on all the grounds. In revision, the facts cannot be re-appreciated unless it is shown that the impugned judgment is perverse or some evidence which goes to the root of the case has not been considered or inadmissible evidence has been relied. But in the present case, this is not the situation. The learned Appellate Authority has after due appreciation of record has passed the ejectment order on all grounds. The learned counsel for the petitioners has failed to make out any case for interference. 13. No other point was urged. 14. The result of the above discussion, both the revisions are liable to be dismissed and accordingly dismissed. No costs. December 16, 2009. ( Kuldip Singh ), (GR) Judge.