IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA C.R.No.195/2008 Decided on: 12.5.2009. _______________________________________________ Jagdish Chand Sharma. ..Petitioner. Versus Parmeshwari Dass Sood and others. …Respondents. Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surinder Singh, J. Whether approved for reporting1?yes. For the petitioner :Mr. A.K.Sharma, Advocate.. For the respondents : Mr.K.D.Sood, Advocate. ____________________________________________ SURINDER SINGH,J (Oral): This revision petition is directed by the petitioner-tenant against the judgment dated 16.9.2008 of the Appellate Authority under the H.P. Urban Rent Control Act (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’) in Rent Appeal No. 3/2006 whereby the order dated 31.3.2006 for his eviction passed by the Rent Controller was affirmed on the ground of ‘‘bonafide requirement’‘ by the respondent-landlords. In brief the facts giving rise to the present petition are that the respondent-landlord sought the eviction under Section 14(3) of the ‘Act’, of the petitioner-tenant from the shop marked EFGD in the site plan Ext.PW2/B, Whether reporters of the Local papers are allowed to see the judgment? yes. 2 hereinafter called the ‘demised premises’. It was pleaded that the demised premises were rented out to the petitioner at the rate of Rs.20/- per month by the respondent- landlords as back as in the year 1969. The said premises were constructed some time in 1920 and has lived its life. Now it is in the dilapidated condition, the respondent- landlords bona fide required it for the purpose of re-building and re-construction which was not possible without eviction of the tenant. The respondent-landlords also filed an eviction petition against another tenant. They also pleaded that they possess sufficient means, their site plans for demolition and re-construction of the new structure is duly approved from the local body. The proposed construction would be more beneficial and profitable to them. Since the petitioner-tenant did not vacate the demised premises despite repeated requests, thus sought the eviction. The case of the petitioner-tenant before the learned Rent Controller was that he had been paying rent to Parmeshwari Dass but respondents-Narender Chand Sood and Dharam Chand Sood were not the landlords of the demised premises. Further according to him, the premises in question were constructed in the year 1960-62. Its walls are 2 in width and the demised premises are in a perfect good condition. The respondent-landlords did not bonafide require it for the purpose of re-construction/re-building. There is no need to dis-mental the first storey for the required purpose. 3 It is alleged that the landlords with a view to evict the petitioner had stacked about 20 quintals load of Kachha bricks approximately in the year 1998, on the first floor of the premises in question, which despite repeated requests was not removed. It damaged the projection of the building with the result the water started falling, from the walls of the demised premises. According to the tenant the petition is frivolous and deserved dismissal. On the pleadings of the parties, the learned Rent Controller framed the following issues: 1. Whether building/demised premises is in dilapidated condition? …OPP. 2. Whether petitioners’ bona fide require the demised premises to rebuild and to reconstruct whole after demolishing the same? …OPP 3 Whether the petition is not maintainable?. …OPR 4. Whether petitioners are estopped from filing the present petition by their act and conduct? …OPR. 5. Whether petition is bad for misjoinder of S/Shri Narinder Chand and Dharam Chand? …OPR. After appreciating the evidence on record, the learned Rent Controller held issue No.1,3 to 5 in negative and decided issue No.2 in favour of the respondents. Consequently allowed the petition and the petitioner-tenant was ordered to hand over the vacant possession of the premises within two months from the date of order. 4 The petitioner-tenant un-successfully assailed the order of eviction before the Appellate Authority, as such the instant petition has been filed. Shri A.K.Sharma, learned counsel for the tenant contended that the respondent-landlords have failed to prove and establish the essential ingredients of section 14(3) of the ‘Act’ for evicting the tenant on the grounds of re- building and re-construction. The intention of the respondent-landlords in filing the petition is mala fide as they wanted to get rid off of the petitioner-tenant on frivolous grounds. Contra, Sh.K.D.Sood, learned counsel for the respondents-landlords supported the orders of eviction passed by the Rent Controller and its affirmation by the learned Appellate Authority. I have considered the rival contentions of the parties and have carefully examined the record. In fact the landlords can seek the eviction of the tenant on any of the grounds mentioned in Section 14 of the ‘Act’. The respondents-landlords has sought the eviction under the provisions of Section 14(3)(c) which reads as under: “(c) In the case of any building or rented land, if he requires 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 5 become unsafe or unfit for human habitation or is required bona fide by him for carrying out repairs which cannot be carried out without the building or rented land being vacated or that the building or rented land are required bona fide by him for the purpose 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.” (Emphasis supplied) Before granting a decree for eviction on the ground of building or re-building, the Court requires to be satisfied that: (i) The suit premises are bona fide required for the purpose of building or re-building, which cannot be carried out without the building being vacated; (ii) The landlord has the capacity to re-construct the suit premises after demolition. (iii) The sanctioned plan has to be taken from the authority. PW1 Sh.Parmeshwari Dass stated on 24.1.2007 that the demised premises were constructed by his father Parma Nand, before he had attained the age of discretion. When examined before the learned Rent Controller, he was 80 years of age. According to him the demised premises were rented out to the tenant in the year 1969 at the rate of Rs.20/- per month i.e. about more than 40 years back. The tenant has failed to rebut the evidence that the said premises were not that old as claimed by the 6 respondents-landlords and were in fact was constructed in the year 1968 as alleged. Further, he has proved his capacity to demolish the old structure and re-construct the new building by adding there space, placing on record the copies of his savings and F.D.Rs issued by the bank(s) and the approved plans. He deposed that the project cannot be executed unless vacated by the petitioner-tenant. Admittedly the respondent-Parmeshwari Dass is a Chemist at Dehra having good income. Besides his savings, the soft loans are also available for the construction of the building from the banks and financial institutions. PW2 Sh.Vijay Kumar, clerk of the Notified Area Committee has proved the approved plan exhibit PW2/A with respect to the proposed building and PW3 Sh.Gopal Dass, Draftsman (Civil) had prepared map Ext.PW3/A at the instance of the landlords. He also admitted that the present building is having the walls of the width of 24`` of Kachha stones which can be dismantled without blasting. In nutshell the tenant had failed to rebut the case of the respondents. Further it has come on record that two walls of demised premises are common with the another tenant Subhash Chand who has also filed revision against his eviction. The upper storey is already in possession of respondents. The photograph depicts the pathetic condition of the upper storey which in the opinion of the appellate authority is quite economical to the landlords and this fact 7 has not been assailed in this revision. In the instant case at the cost of repetition it may be stated that it stands proved that rebuilding/reconstruction cannot be done unless the demised premises are vacated by the tenant. The respondent-landlords have proved their capacity to re-construct the demised premises and the sanctioned plan has also been obtained by them from the local body. The demolition and reconstruction would result in modernization, it will have additional space and would augment the earning of the landlords. {See: Harrington House School Vs. S.M.Ispahani and another (2002) 5 SCC 229}. The ingredients of Section 14(3)(c) stands fully satisfied and the case of the respondent-landlords is in perfect tune with the judgment of the apex Court rendered in Jagat Pal Dhawan Vs. Kahan Singh (dead) By L.Rs. and others: 2003 (1) Shim.L.C.394. The petitioner-tenant has failed to prove any malafide. As such the petition is dismissed. The petitioner-tenant is hereby ordered to hand over the vacant possession of the demised premises within two months from today. Failing which the respondent-landlords may file the execution petition for his eviction. . The petition is dismissed with costs. (Surinder Singh), Judge. May 12, 2009(R) 8