IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. Civil Revision No.:105/2010 Reserved on: 12.7.2011 Decided on:19.7.2011 _____________________________________________ M/s Amin Chand Iswar Dass. …Petitioner. Versus M/s Tulsi Ram Ratni Devi Charitable Trust. …Respondent. ________________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner : Mr. Manohar Lal Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondent: Mr. Vijay Pandit and M.A. Khan, Advocates. _____________________________________________________ Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. Tenant has assailed the judgment dated 29.5.2010 passed by the learned Appellate Authority in Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 80-S/14 of 2009 whereby he has affirmed order dated 30.9.2009 of learned Rent Controller, Court No. (V), Shimla rendered in Rent Application No. 28-2 of 2006. 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2. Material facts necessary for the adjudication of this petition are that respondent-landlord (hereinafter referred to as ‘landlord’ for convenience sake) instituted petition under section 14 of the Himachal Pradesh Urban Rent Control Act against the petitioner-tenant (hereinafter referred to as ‘tenant’ for convenience sake) seeking eviction of the tenant on the ground that the demised premises were bona fide required by the trust for the purpose of reconstruction to fetch better financial return for the trust and also on account of arrears of rent to the tune of ` 64,665/- with effect from April, 1993. 3. The petition was contested by the tenant by filing reply. Issues were framed by the Rent Controller on 13.7.2007. He allowed the petition on 30.9.2009 on the ground that the demised premises were required by the landlord for rebuilding and reconstruction, which could not be carried out without the same being vacated and the tenant was also found in arrears of rent, as mentioned in issue No.2, alongwith interest @ 9% per annum. Tenant preferred an appeal before the Appellate Authority. The Appellate Authority affirmed the order of the Rent Controller on 29.5.2010. Hence, the present revision petition. 3 4. Mr. Manohar Lal Sharma has strenuously argued that the landlord has failed to prove that the demised premises were required bona fide for rebuilding and reconstruction. He then contended that his client was not in arrears of rent. 5. Mr. Vijay Pandit has supported the order and judgment passed by the Rent Controller and Appellate Authority, respectively. 6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the pleadings carefully. 7. The petition was filed primarily on the following two grounds: (i) Premises were required bona fide for the purpose of rebuilding and reconstruction, which could not be carried out without the same being vacated, and (ii) Tenant was in arrears of rent with effect from April, 1993. 8. The landlord is a duly registered trust, which is being run under the name and style of “Tulsi Ram Ratni Devi Charitable Trust”. The relationship of landlord and tenant has not been disputed by the tenant. The premises were let out to the tenant 30 years back as per statement of AW-1 Vishwa Bhushan. 4 9. AW-1 Vishwa Bhushan has testified that he has been authorized by the trust to make statement and to institute a case vide resolution Ex.AW-1/A. According to him, the premises were let out to M/s Amin Chand Ishwar Dass through its proprietor, Vijay Sood 30 years back. It is in the form of godown. According to him, the tenanted premises were 80-85 years old and were in dilapidated condition. The Trust had moved application for approval of building maps. The Municipal Council, Shimla has recommended the case vide letter Ex.PW-1/C on 23.3.2007. The trust was possessing sufficient funds for rebuilding the premises. He has also proved ledger Ex.AW-1/B. According to him, the premises were let out on rent of ` 4,065/- per annum. He has also deposed that the tenanted premises were required bona fide and the same could be put to better use after its rebuilding and reconstruction. 10. The proprietor of tenant-firm, Mr. Vijay Sood has appeared as RW-1 and tendered his affidavit Ex.RW-1/A. According to him, the rent upto 1990 was ` 1,820/- and thereafter it was ` 2,120/-. He has denied the submission that the rent was not paid with effect from 1993. According to him, the premises were let out to his father late Sh. Ishwar Dass. He has 5 admitted that he has been using the godown since 1990. According to him, he was not liable to pay ` 64,665/- from April, 1993. 11. What emerges from the evidence led by the parties is that demised premises are 80-85 years old and the same are in dilapidated condition. The landlord has sought permission for rebuilding and the case was recommended by the Municipal Council vide Ex.AW- 1/C on 21.3.2007. The trust is in possession of sufficient funds. Rather, surprisingly, the evidence of the landlord on the ground that the tenanted premises are bona fide required for rebuilding and reconstruction has not been controverted by the tenant by leading cogent evidence. 12. Now, as far as the rent is concerned, it is duly proved from Ex.AW-1/B, copy of ledger, that tenant was in arrears of rent @ 4065/- per annum. Though RW-1 has deposed that he has been paying the rent regularly, but he has not produced any receipt to substantiate his plea. The tenant has rightly been held in arrears of rent with effect from April, 1993 till March, 1998 @ ` 4,065/, from April, 1998 to March, 2003, @ ` 4,471.50, from April, 2003 to March, 2008, @ ` 4,918.50 and from April, 2008 till date @ ` 5,409.50 per 6 annum, till passing of the order by the Rent Controller on 30.9.2009. 13. Accordingly, in view of the observations and discussions made hereinabove, there is no merit in the petition and the same is dismissed. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. No costs. (Justice Rajiv Sharma), Judge. 19.7. 2011. *awasthi*