IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Civil Revision No. 128 of 2009 Reserved on : 22.2.2010. Date of Decision: 2.3.2010 Brij Lal and another …Petitioners Versus Sanatan Dharam Sabha ..Respondent. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kuldip Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting ?1 Yes For the Petitioner : Mr. S. R.Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondent : Mr. Balwant Kukreja, Advocate. Kuldip Singh , Judge This revision has been directed against the judgment dated 30.9.2009 passed by the learned Appellate Authority, Fast Track Court, Shimla in Rent Appeal No. 8-S/14 of 2007 affirming the order dated 28.2.2007 passed by the learned Rent Controller (II), Shimla in case No. 11/2 of 1994. 2. The facts, in brief, are that respondent had filed a petition under Section 14 of the Himachal Pradesh Urban Rent Control Act, 1987 (for short ‘Act’) against the petitioners for ejectment on the grounds of arrears of rent, sub-letting, impairing of the value and utility of the premises and the 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the Judgment ? Yes 2 premises has become unsafe and unfit for human habitation. The further case of the respondent is that originally the premises was rented out to Laturia Ram father of the petitioners at the rate of Rs.1,000/- per month and after the death of Laturia Ram petitioners became the tenants of the premises. There is no written agreement, the petitioners have not paid arrears of rent at the rate of Rs.1000/- per month w.e.f. 1.1.1975 to 30.11.1993 amounting to Rs. 1,25,000/- alongwith interest at the rate of 9% per annum Rs. 59,062/-. Thus, the total arrears of rent alongwith interest comes to Rs. 1,84,062/- which is due and payable by petitioners to respondent. It has also been alleged that after the commencement of the Act, the petitioners without the written consent of the respondent have sublet the premises to some other persons who are in possession and control of the premises. The petitioners have carried out major additions and alterations without the consent of the respondent and have thus materially impaired the value and utility of the premises. The premises has become unsafe and unfit for human habitation. 3. The petitioners have contested the petition by filing reply and have taken preliminary objections that there is no relationship of landlord and tenant between the respondent and the petitioners. The petition lacks mandatory information under the Act, no legal and valid notice has been served upon the petitioners. On merits, it has been alleged that petitioners 3 are landlords of the premises in question and have let out the same to different persons. The father of the petitioners Laturia Ram was tenant of land and houses. The land was being used for agriculture purposes alongwith the houses. The petitioners have been conferred proprietary rights of the property in question under the H.P.Tenancy and Land Reforms Act, 1972. The petitioners are owners in possession of the premises after the death of Laturia Ram. They continued to occupy the premises openly, peacefully and hostile to the title of the respondent for the period of 12 years. The respondent never objected to such right of the petitioners. The petitioners are exercising their right being the landlords after the death of their father in the year 1966 and let out the rooms to different persons. Laturia Ram had also exercised the same rights of letting out to different persons. The respondent has no locus standi to file the petition. There is no parting of the possession of the premises nor the premises has been let out after the commencement of the Act. It has also been denied that petitioners have impaired the value and utility of the premises or the premises has become unsafe and unfit for human habitation. In rejoinder, the respondent has reiterated its stand taken in the petition. 4. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed:- 1. Whether the respondent is in arrears of rent? If so, to what amount? OPA 4 2. Whether the respondent has sub-let the premises? OPA. 3. Whether the respondent has impaired the value and utility of the premises? OPA 4. Whether the premises in dispute are unsafe for human habitation? OPA 5. Whether there is no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties? OPR 6. Relief. The issues No.1, 2 and 4 were answered in affirmative whereas issues No.3 and 5 were answered in negative. The learned Rent Controller on 28.2.2007 allowed the petition on the grounds of arrears of rent, sub-letting and the premises has become unsafe and unfit for human habitation. The petitioners were held to be in arrears of rent at the rate of Rs.1000/- per month from 1.1.1975 till the date of the order with the statutory interest at the rate of 9% per annum. The petitioners had filed appeal against the order dated 28.2.2007. The learned Appellate Authority has dismissed the appeal on 30.9.2009. The petitioners have filed the present revision against the judgment dated 30.9.2009. 5. I have heard Mr. S.R.Sharma, Advocate, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Balwant Kukreja, Advocate, learned counsel for the respondent and have also gone through the record. It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioners that the petition has not been filed by a competent person, the 5 respondent is not a juristic person. There is no averment in the petition as to under which provision the respondent is registered. The respondent has miserably failed to plead and prove the arrears of rent, sub-letting and the premises has become unsafe and unfit for human habitation. The petitioners are owners of the premises. There is no sub-letting after the commencement of the Act. The respondent has not produced the accounts. There is no evidence of letting out of the premises. The jamabandis which have come in evidence have not been properly appreciated. The premises has become unsafe and unfit for human habitation has also not been proved. The learned counsel for the petitioners has relied Susheela Verma and others Vs. Sh. Gopal Mandi Sabha 2006 (2) SLC 293 and Wazir Chand Vs. Ambaka Rani and another 2005 (2) SLC 498. The learned counsel for the respondent has supported the impugned judgment and has submitted that two authorities below have recorded a finding of fact. It has not been established that the two authorities below have recorded perverse findings. He has submitted that respondent has proved all grounds on which eviction has been ordered. 6. Mr. S.R.Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that respondent is not a juristic person, nor the petition has been filed by competent person. In para 3(a) of the petition, the respondent has given the name and address of the landlord by referring “as detailed above” 6 and such detail is given in the title of the petition. In Susheela Verma (supra) the tenant had taken a specific plea that petition had not been properly filed and the President had no authority to file the petition. In the reply to the ejectment petition, the petitioners have taken three preliminary objections but neither in the preliminary objections nor in reply on merits, the petitioners have taken specific objection that respondent is not a juristic person nor an objection that the petition has not been filed by a competent person. In Susheela Verma after noticing Bal Niketan Nursery School Vs. Kesari Prasad, AIR 1987 Supreme Court 1970, the learned Single Judge has observed that the Apex Court held that the school was not a non-entity in the eyes of law. Further, no objection with regard to the maintainability of the suit had been taken at the initial stage. It was held that High Court was in error in accepting the belated objection taken by the tenants regarding the competence of the school to file the suit. In the present case, the objections of competency of filing the petition and respondent is not a juristic person were not taken at the initial stage, therefore, the petitioners are precluded from taking the objections now that the respondent is not a juristic person and the petition has not been filed by a competent person. 7. Ex.PW-6/G is the certified copy of the judgment dated 25.6.1984 in case No.66/1 of 1980 which was filed by petitioners against the respondent. In fact, in that suit 7 defendant No.1 was Sanatan Dharam Sabha, Ganj, Shimla and defendant No.2 Sanatan Dharam Sabha Ganj, Shimla through its Secretary Bal Ram Sharma. Thus, Sanatan Dharam Sabha in that suit was sued in its own capacity as well as through Secretary Bal Ram Sharma. The suit was for declaration that petitioners had become owners of the property situated at Darni Bagicha. The eviction petition has been filed by respondent through Secretary Bal Ram Sharma. In view of Ex.PW-6/G, it cannot be said that Bal Ram, Secretary through whom the ejectment petition was filed by the respondent was not competent to file the petition or the respondent is not a juristic person. In Ex.PW-6/G, it has been held that the owners of the property are defendants and plaintiffs have not acquired the ownership of the property in dispute by way of adverse possession. Thus, it has been proved on record that respondent is owner of the premises. 8. PW-8 (wrongly mentioned PW-7) Bal Ram Sharma has stated that he is the Secretary of S.D.Sabha, disputed premises is owned by S.D.Sabha. Laturia Ram was the tenant on payment of Rs.1000/- per month. Laturia Ram has died. The rent has not been paid since 1.1.1975. The petitioners are sub-letting the quarters which are 100 years old and not worth living. In cross-examination, the witness has been given the suggestion which he has admitted that in addition to rooms land was also given to Laturia. He has also been given 8 suggestion that the quarters which were given to Laturia Ram were given with the right to further sublet. 9. RW-4 Brij Lal has stated that when his father occupied the premises in dispute at that time the rent of the land and house was Rs.1200/- per annum which his father had paid and after the death of his father, they had paid to Sabha. They had paid rent upto the year 1975-76. He has stated that he had kept 40 – 45 persons as tenants in the premises, Sabha has not given any written permission to this effect. He has stated that floor of the rooms is of mud. Ex.PW- 5/A is the report of PW-5 R.B. Saxena. He has stated that the condition of the rooms is bad and not worth living and has proved report Ex.PW-5/A. 10. RW-4 Brij Lal has proved the relationship of tenant and landlord between the petitioners and respondent in the premises. He has stated that the rent of the land and premises is Rs.1200/- per annum whereas according to respondent, the rent of the premises is Rs.1000/- per month. PW-8 Bal Ram Sharma, has specifically stated that the rent of the premises is Rs.1000/- per month and the rent of the premises is due from the petitioners w.e.f. 1.1.1975. The petitioners have not produced any document in order to show that the rent upto the year 1975-76 has been paid nor any worth believing material has been placed on record to prove that rent is Rs.1200/- per annum. In para 11 of the petition, the respondent has pleaded rent Rs.1000/- per month. In 9 reply to para 11 of the petition, the petitioners have denied the rate of rent Rs.1000/- per month. It is not the case of the petitioners in the pleadings that the rent of the premises is per annum and not per month and that too Rs.1200/- per annum. 11. The learned counsel for the petitioners has generally stated that jamabandis have not been properly appreciated but he has not pointed out any specific jamabandi in order to buttress his arguments. The learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the arrears of rent and interest have not been quantified by the learned Rent Controller in accordance with law. He has relied Wazir Chand Vs. Ambaka Rani and another 2005 (2) SLC 498 in support of his submission. According to learned counsel for the petitioners, since the arrears of rent and interest have not been quantified in accordance with law by the learned Rent Controller, therefore, eviction order on the ground of arrears of rent is wrong. The learned Appellate Authority has committed the same mistake. The learned Rent Controller has held that the petitioners are in arrears of rent at the rate of Rs.1000/- per month from 1.1.1975 till the date of order 28.2.2007 with statutory interest at the rate of 9% per annum. In substance all details of the arrears of rent and interest have been specified by the learned Rent Controller. This has been upheld by the learned Appellate Authority. It cannot be said that in these circumstances the ejectment order on the ground of arrears of rent is illegal. 10 12. The two authorities below on the basis of material on record have recorded a finding of fact that rent of the premises is Rs.1000/- per month and same has not been paid w.e.f. 1.1.1975. It is the case of the respondent that in fact premises consists of 84 quarters. Therefore, it is not believable that rent of 84 quarters is Rs.1200/- per annum. PW-8 Bal Ram Sharma has not been cross-examined by the petitioners on the point that rent of the premises is Rs.1200/- per annum and that rent upto the year 1975-76 has been paid. In fact, PW-8 Bal Ram Sharma has not been cross-examined regarding the rate of rent and the arrears of rent. In these circumstances, it will be deemed that the petitioners have admitted that the rate of rent is Rs.1000/- per month and arrears of rent payable by them are due from 1.1.1975. 13. The petitioners in para 5 of the reply to the ejectment petition have pleaded that they are the landlords of the premises in question and have been letting out various rooms to different persons. Ex. PW-6/A is the copy of petition filed by petitioners against Sant Ram for ejectment under the Act on the grounds of arrears of rent including rent from 1.5.1977 to 30.4.1987. Ex. RX is the copy of statement of Brij Lal in case No. 66/1 of 1980 wherein he has stated that they have given some houses on rent and the tenants pay rent to him. Sanatan Dharam Sabha had not interfered in their possession since 1966. Thus, letting out of various rooms by petitioners to sub-tenants has been proved on record. It has 11 not been proved by petitioners that such letting out of various rooms is with the written consent of the respondent and that such letting out is prior to commencement of the Act. Thus, sub-letting of various rooms of the tenanted premises by the petitioners after the commencement of the Act without the written consent of the respondent has been proved. 14. The respondent has examined PW-5 R.B.Saxena, who has proved report Ex.PW-5/A regarding condition of the premises. PW-5 has stated that on the spot rooms are in bad condition and are not worth living. In report Ex.PW-5/A while describing the present condition of the houses and out houses it has been stated that the houses are constructed of cheap specifications and those with better specification have also outlived their life. In the final opinion, it has been stated that condition of the houses and out houses is highly deplorable and dilapidated due to lack of repairs and maintenance and poor specifications. Thus, it has been proved on record that premises has become unsafe and unfit for human habitation. 15. In the revision petition grievance has been raised against the order dated 13.7.2004 passed by the learned Rent Controller on the amendment application of the petitioners. But at the time of hearing of the revision, no grievance was raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners against the order dated 13.7.2004. Similarly is the position with respect to the order dated 8.5.2006, order dated 12 14.7.2009 and order dated 26.8.2009 of the learned Appellate Authority. 16. The two authorities below after due appreciation of evidence on record have returned findings on issues No.1, 2 and 4 in favour of the respondent and against petitioners. It cannot be said that the findings recorded by the learned Rent Controller on these issues and affirmed by the learned Appellate Authority are perverse or do not emerge from the evidence on record. In revision evidence cannot be re- appreciated unless it is established that there is perversity in the impugned judgment or inadmissible evidence has been relied and material evidence which goes to the root of the case has been ignored. This is not the situation in the present case. The petitioners have miserably failed to make out any case. 17. No other point was urged. 18. The result of the above discussion, there is no merit in the revision, which is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs. March 2, 2010. ( Kuldip Singh ) (GR) Judge.