IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA Civil Revision No.186 of 2003. Date of decision:23.10.2008 Asha Sharma & Others ….Appellants Versus Onkar Singh & Another ….Respondents Coram The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Dev Darshan Sud,J. Whether approved for reporting ?1 For the Appellants: Mr.H.K. Bhardwaj, Advocate. For Respondent No.1: Mr.K.D. Sood, advocate. Dev Darshan Sud,J. This is the tenants’ petition against the order of eviction passed by the learned Rent Controller as affirmed by the appellate Authority, allowing the petition of the respondent-landlord herein. The respondent-landlord had filed this petition on a number of grounds, namely, that the petitioners-tenants were in arrears of rent, the premises were in a dilapidated condition and reqired for reconstruction and rebuilding which could not be carried out without the building being vacated, the petitioners had converted the premises from non- residential to residential, material loss has been 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgement? 2 caused to the landlord; additions and alterations have been carried out in the building to change its nature from non-residential to residential, the premises are required bonafide for occupation of the landlord and the premises have been sublet without the written consent of the respondent-landlord. All these issues except issue No.2, that is the premises are in dilapidated condition and required by the petitioner for reconstruction, were decided against the landlord and the eviction of the petitioner was ordered only on one ground that the building was required for reconstruction etc. In arriving at this conclusion, the learned trial Court considered the evidence on record to hold that the building in question is more than 70 years old and is in a very dilapidated condition. It was also urged that the walls had started bulging out with the result that the building was likely to collapse at any time. The petitioner proved these facts through PW-1 Gurcharan Singh, a resident of the locality, stating that the building was about 60 years old and in an extremely bad and dilapidated condition. The condition of the building was proved through PW-2 Rajesh Dogra who had taken photographs Ex.PW-2/I to Ex.PW-2/N showing the building to be in condition which could not but be described as one which requires immediate re-building etc, PW-5, Darshan Lal Gupta, Executive Officer of the Municipal Corporation, Dharamshala, who also 3 stated that the building in question was very old and bad. Most important of all, PW-6 Satish Kumar, Architect, has stated that he visited the premises on 17.8.1996 and found that the roof is thatched with slates and tin sheets and the wooden rafters supporting the roof were rotten and the walls in a bad condition. He prepared the rebuilding plan Ex.PW-4/A which was submitted to the office of the Town and Country Planning for approval. He states that the building has become unsafe for human habitation. The petitioner appeared as PW-7 and reiterated his stand that the building was infact dilapidated and required for reconstruction. He also submitted that the plan has been sent to the Town and Country Planning Department, Dharamshala and he was possessed of sufficient funds to reconstruct the building. The respondent has appeared as her witness and produced evidence in her defence that the petition was not bonafide nor the premises were required for reconstruction etc. as claimed. The Court, on appraisal of the evidence of PW-1, PW-2, PW-6 and PW-7, held that the building was more than 60 to 70 years old and the roof of the building was in a very bad condition where the slates and tin sheets have absolutely rotten, the wooden supports had also broken and cracks had developed in the walls of the building during the 1986 earthquake. Most 4 importantly the statement of PW-6, Satish Kumar, Architect, who inspected the building and prepared the plan Ex.PW-4/A was considered to be pivotal to the entire case. His evidence when considered as a whole, persuaded the Rent Controller to hold that the building was likely to collapse at any time as the roof has practically no support and cracks have developed in the walls. The Court also holds as a fact that RW-3 Trijinder Singh admitted that the building was in a very bad condition. On the evidence of PW-7, the Court held that he was possessed of sufficient funds to rebuild and re- construct and the petition was accordingly allowed. An appeal preferred before the learned appellate Authority by the petitioners-tenants herein was dismissed and Cross Objections by the respondent on the other issues has held against him was also dismissed. The petitioner is now in revision before this Court. It is urged by learned counsel appearing for the petitioners that the Courts below were not correct in ordering the eviction of the petitioners as the landlord in the petition as filed did not satisfy the mandatory and statutory requirement of Section 14 of the Himachal Pradesh Urban Rent Control Act, 1987. Learned counsel submits that the eviction petition was nothing, but a mere whim and desire of the landlord to evict the tenant. His bonafides were 5 lacking as he was not possessed of sufficient funds nor any sanctioned plan placed on the record of the case. He submits that in such an eventuality, the petition deserves dismissal. On the question of appreciation of evidence, I find from the evidence on record that both the Courts below on appraisal and reappraisal of the evidence have come to a correct finding on facts. It cannot be disputed that the condition of the building has been established to be dilapidated and one which requires immediate re-building which cannot be carried out without the eviction of the tenant. There is no evidence on the record to suggest that what has been stated by the PW-6 is incorrect or does not depict the correct factual situation with respect to the condition of the building. The petitioner herein has not produced any evidence of an expert to show that what PW-6 Satish Kumar, who is an Architect, states in his evidence and is corroborated by the other witnesses, is untrue. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner then submits that the petitioner was not possessed of sufficient funds. There is no merit in these submissions which require to be rejected as PW-7 in his statement has not only produced photocopies of the Indira Vikas Patra/ Kishan Vikas Patra showing the availability of funds but also access to other funds for the purpose of reconstruction. Learned counsel lastly contends that 6 there is no sanctioned plan and in this eventuality the landlord cannot succeed. Adverting to this argument, the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the respondent submits that the plan was in-fact submitted to the Town and Country Planning Department and was pending sanction on the day when the petition was filed, there were some minor objections which had to be removed and sanction would be given in due course. He also submits that the validity of the plan is for a specific period and the pending proceedings in Court since the year 1993, would itself cause problems as the sanction is valid only for a particular period and cannot enure for an indefinite period. I do not find any merit in this revision petition which is accordingly dismissed. However, the interest of the petitioner herein would be protected by a direction that the petitioner shall not be evicted from the tenanted premises unless a valid building plan sanctioned in accordance with law and all necessary permissions for building/ construction are placed on the record of the executing Court. In the absence of such a plan and permission(s), the petitioner shall not be evicted from the premises. This proposition of law has been settled by the Supreme Court in Harrington House 7 School vs. S.M. Ispahani and Another, (2002)5 SCC 229. There shall be no order as to costs. October 23, 2008. (Dev Darshan Sud) (aks) Judge