KAILASH CHAND Vs. DHARAM DAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) -An application seeking an order of eviction under Section 14(3)(a)(i) of the Himachal Pradesh Urban Rent Control Act, 1987, hereinafter, the Act for short, was allowed by the Rent Controller and the tenant was ordered to be evicted. The order was maintained in appeal by the Appellate Authority. The High Court has in exercise of revision jurisdiction set aside the order of eviction. The aggrieved landlords have come up in appeal by special leave.

(2.) It will be necessary to set out the relevant material facts in order to appreciate the controversy arising for decision. The suit premises are part of a double-storeyed building, bearing house number 108, situated in the city of Shimla, where the Act is applicable. The ground floor consists of one shop, one godown, one store-room and one kitchen. The first floor consists of two rooms, a kitchen, latrine and one verandah. The property belonged to one Ramji Dass. The two appellants before us, namely, Kailash Chand and Nokha Ram are real brothers. They purchased the property from Ramji Dass. The exact date of purchase is not known but it was sometime in the year 1980. Ramji Dass was carrying on his own business on the ground floor while the first floor was in occupation of the tenant, Dharam Dass, the respondent herein. The appellants got vacant possession of the ground floor from their vendors while the tenant continued to be in occupation of the first floor which he was holding on tenancy at a monthly rent of Rs. 15/-.

(3.) Having purchased the premises, the landlords initiated proceedings for the eviction of the tenant from the first floor premises by an application filed on 1-8-1980 before the Rent Controller under the Himachal Pradesh Urban Rent Control Act, 1971 - the law as it was applicable then. The ground for eviction was that the family of the appellants was living in miserable conditions. On purchasing the building No. 108, appellant No. 2 commenced his commercial activity by opening a shop on the ground floor of the building. He started using the godown for the residence of himself along with his wife and two school going children. One room was used as a store room and one room as a kitchen. Before purchasing house No. 108, appellant No.1 was living in a rented accommodation which he had to vacate perforce as it was in a dilapidated condition and unsafe for human habitation. Appellant No.1 joined appellant No. 2 for residence. At night, he had to sleep in the shop. Appellant No.1 was of marriageable age but his marriage was not being performed for want of living accommodation. The landlords urged that the residential accommodation on the first floor in occupation of the tenant was required by them to accommodate their large family. The Rent Controller vide order dated 31-10-1984 allowed the landlords application and directed the respondent-tenant to be evicted.