SOM NATH Vs. GIAN CHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The learned Rent Controller, District Kinnaur Camp at Rampur Bushahr on 16.12.2003 has passed ejectment order against petitioner in Rent Petition No. 1-2 of 1996 on the grounds of bonafide need of the accommodation and that tenant has impaired the value and utility of the premises. The ejectment order dated 16.12.2003 has been affirmed by the learned Appellate Authority, Kinnaur Division at Rampur Bushahr on 29.7.2004 in Rent Appeal No. 01 of 2004. In these circumstances, the petitioner who is tenant has filed the revision under Section 24 (5) of the H.P. Urban Rent Control Act, 1987 (for short `Act').

(2.) The facts, in brief, are that respondent had filed the ejectment petition under Section 14 of the Act against the petitioner on various grounds including the grounds of bonafide need of the accommodation and that the petitioner has impaired the value and utility of the premises. The petitioner contested the petition and denied the claim of the respondent. The learned Rent Controller had returned the issues of bonafide need of accommodation and impairment of the premises in affirmative in the order dated 16.12.2003 which has been affirmed by the learned Appellate Authority on 29.7.2004.

(3.) I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the authorities below have misconstrued and misinterpreted Section 14 of the Act as well as definition of `residential building' and `non- residential building' provided in the Act. The respondent has himself pleaded in the ejectment petition that the premises in question is non-residential building, therefore, no amount of evidence can be considered on behalf of the respondent for returning the finding that the premises is residential building. Once the premises is non-residential building the ground of ejectment of bonafide need of the accommodation is not available to the respondent. It has been submitted that the evidence of impairment led by the respondent is also in deviation to his pleadings on the issue and, therefore, such evidence also cannot be taken into consideration for returning the findings on impairment of the premises.