RAMESH SHARMA Vs. SAT PAL SHARMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a revision under Section 24 (5) of the Himachal Pradesh Urban Rent Control Act, 1987. The respondent is the landlord. He had filed eviction petition against the tenant on the grounds that the building has become unfit and unsafe for human habitation and it also requires reconstruction. The petition was contested by the tenant. The learned Rent Controller vide order dated 27.4.2009 allowed the petition on both the grounds. The tenant carried out the matter in appeal against the order dated 27.4.2009 and learned Appellate Authority dismissed the appeal on 25.8.2009. Thereafter, tenant has filed the revision in this Court.

(2.) I have gone through the record and heard the learned counsel for the parties. The learned Rent Controller has held that building is more than 100 years old and requires reconstruction. The plan has been approved by Municipal Corporation, but not by Town Planning Authority. The sanctioning of plan is not absolutely necessary in view of Om Parkash vs. Ganga Ram, Latest HLJ 2001 (HP) 161. The learned Rent Controller has also held that over all condition of the building has become dilapidated, the walls are out of plumb, cracks have appeared, floors have sagged, the wood has decayed. The roof sheets have become rotten. The water is seeping into the walls. The plaster has come out. It is dangerous to live in the building.

(3.) In Prem Chand alias Prem Nath Vs. Shanta Prabhakar (Smt.) (1998) 1 SCC 274, while considering Section 14(3) (c ) of the Act, the Supreme Court has held that when the tenanted premises are required bonafide by the landlord for purposes of building or rebuilding or making thereto any substantial additions or alterations and that such building or rebuilding or addition or alteration cannot be carried out without the building or rented land being vacated, then there is no requirement in such cases to go into the condition of the building.