IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. C. Revision No.29/2009 Reserved on : 29.11.2010 Decided on:3.1. 2011. Ashok Kumar. ...Petitioner. Versus Vipin Kumar and others. ... Respondent/ Proforma respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1. yes For the Petitioner : Mr. Y.P. Sood, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. M.L. Chauhan, Advocate. None for proforma respondents No.2 and 3. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. This civil revision petition is directed against the judgment dated 26.11.2008 passed by the learned Appellate Authority, Kinnaur at Rampur Bushahr in Rent Appeal No. 6/2008. 2. Material facts necessary for the adjudication of this petition are that respondent (hereinafter referred to as ‘landlord’ for convenience sake) sought eviction of appellant-tenant Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes . 2 (hereinafter referred to as ‘tenant’ for convenience sake) on the ground of non-payment of rent with effect from 1.9.2001 to 30.6.2002. The eviction was also sought on the ground that the demised premises were required for bona fide use and he wanted to demolish the building and structure as the building was in a dilapidated condition. It was also alleged that the tenant has ceased to occupy the premises for the last more than one year and he has further sublet the demised premises to proforma respondents No. 2 and 3. 3. Petition was contested by the tenant by filing a reply. Proforma respondent also filed separate replies. The issues were framed by the Rent Controller on 11.10.2002 and 20.1.2007. The learned Rent Controller ordered the eviction of the tenant on all the grounds taken by the landlord. Tenant preferred an appeal before the learned Appellate Authority. The learned Appellate Authority framed the following points for determination: 1. Whether the respondent No.1 is in arrears of rent? 2. Whether the premises are bona fide required by the petitioner for his occupation? 3. Whether the premises are required by the petitioner for reconstruction? 4. Whether the respondent No.1 has sublet the premises to the respondents No.2 and 3 without consent of the landlord? 5. Whether the respondent No.1 has ceased to occupy the premises? 6. Final order 3 4. The learned Appellate Authority determined the points as under: Point No.1 Yes. Point No.2 No. Point No.3 Yes Point No.4 Yes Point No.5 Yes. Final order The appeal is dismissed per operative part of the judgment. 5. Mr. Y.P. Sood has assailed the findings of the both the courts below on the ground of reconstruction, subletting and the tenant has ceased to occupy the premises. 6. Mr. M.L. Chauhan appearing on behalf of landlord has supported the findings recorded by both the courts below. 7. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record carefully. 8. Landlord has appeared as PW-1. He has testified that the building was old and it was made of mud-plaster and wood. According to him, the wood had rotten. The building was in a dilapidated condition and required reconstruction. Brother of tenant, namely, Ravi Kant (RW-2) has also deposed that the building was made of kucha mud plaster. RW-3 Diwan Chand has also deposed that the age and condition of the building was such, which required reconstruction. According to him, the building gave look of Khokha (kiosk). PW-1 has deposed that the 4 adjoining buildings have also been reconstructed and they were of RCC structure. 9. Mr. Y.P. Sood has strenuously argued that the landlord did not require the premises bona fide for the purpose of reconstruction. According to him, the building plans have not been sanctioned. It is settled law by now that the building plans are not required to be sanctioned before allowing the rebuilding of the old building. 10. What emerges from the evidence led by the parties is that the building is old and it cannot be rebuilt without getting the premises vacated from the tenant. The landlord has also proved that he has sufficient funds for the construction of the building and after rebuilding, the building will be put to better use. The findings recorded by both the courts below that the landlord requires the building bona fide for reconstruction does not warrant any interference. 11. Mr. Y.P. Sood then argued that the findings recorded by both the authorities below on the ground of sub-letting are not supported by the evidence led by the parties. The landlord has deposed while appearing, as PW-1, that the tenant has sublet the premises for running Anganwadi Centre during the year 2004. RW-2 Ravi Kant has admitted that photographs Ex.PA to Ex.PC are of the premises and on the top floor, which was in tenancy of his brother; board of Anganwadi Kendra under the Child Development Project was fixed. He also admitted that his sister- 5 in-law (Bhabhi) was working as Mistress (Anganwadi Worker) in the Centre. The rent of the office was also being paid by the office of the Child Development Project Officer. Mool Raj Soni has admitted that the brothers of the landlord were not living in the house. The tenant has not substantiated that he and his brothers were living in the premises. Both the authorities below have correctly appreciated the statements of RW-2, RW-3 and Smt. Neena wife of the tenant to come to a conclusion that the tenant has sublet the rented premises for running Anganwadi Centre. The tenant had parted with the possession of the premises and has lost physical control over the same for valuable consideration. 12. Mr. Y.P. Sood has also strenuously argued that his client has not ceased to occupy the premises and the findings record by both the authorities below are contrary to the evidence on record. The landlord, while appearing as PW-1, has deposed that the tenant has ceased to occupy the premises for the last more than one year at the time of filing the petition and in fact the premises were lying locked. The testimony of the landlord has not been challenged. Statement of RW-2 proves that in the demised premises, Anganwadi Centre was being run. Tenant has not produced on record any electricity bill to substantiate that the premises were in his occupation. The landlord has also proved that the tenant was not living in the premises prior to March, 2003. 6 13. Accordingly, what emerges from the observations and discussions made hereinabove is that the landlord has amply proved that he requires the premises for reconstruction bona fidely, which cannot be carried out without evicting the tenant. The tenant has sublet the premises. He has ceased to occupy the premises for 12 months, without reasonable cause, at the time of filing the petition. The authorities below have correctly appreciated the oral as well as documentary evidence led by the parties. 14. Accordingly, in view of the observations and discussion made hereinabove, there is no merit in the petition and the same is dismissed. There shall, however, be no order as to costs. (Rajiv Sharma), Judge. 3.1.2011. *awasthi*