GANDHI RAM Vs. SATPAL SHARMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition is directed against the judgment dated 4.3.2010 passed by the learned Appellate Authority, Shimla in civil Misc. Appeal No. 78-S/14 of 2009.

(2.) Material facts necessary for the adjudication of this petition are that respondent-landlord (hereinafter referred to as ‘the landlord’ for convenience sake) claimed eviction of the petitioner-tenant (hereinafter referred to as ‘the tenant’ for convenience sake) from two rooms in first floor and one room in ground floor of building No. 31, Alley No. 7, Middle Bazar, Shimla (hereinafter referred to as ‘tenanted premises’ for brevity sake) on the ground that the building in which the tenanted premises is located is about 100 years old, out lived its life, cracks have appeared and the same is in dilapidated condition and hence unfit and unsafe for human habitation. The tenanted premises have also posed danger to its residents as well as other residents of adjoining buildings. Consequently, the tenanted premises are bonafidely required for rebuilding and reconstruction, which cannot be carried out without its vacation, rather without vacation of the whole building. According to the landlord, the building is situated in commercial locality and after its reconstruction; it can be put to better use for augmenting income by making a new structure in place of old one. He is in possession of sufficient funds and he can also borrow funds from Banks and other financial institutions. He has submitted building plans for rebuilding and reconstruction of the building with the authorities, which are under consideration. The tenant resisted the petition. On merits, the averments made in the petition were termed as wrong and incorrect. It was further pleaded that tenanted premises consists of one room and kitchen in the second floor and one room in the lower floor and rent of the premises is Rs. 1800.00 per annum. It was further claimed that the building in which the tenanted premises is located is not in a dilapidated condition and the same is in sound condition and the structure is of recent years. No cracks are visible in the tenanted premises and the same is fit for habitation. It was disputed that the building is situated in a commercial locality or the landlord requires the same bonafidely for rebuilding. It was also disputed that the landlord has sufficient means for construction of the building. The Rent Controller framed the issues on 5.3.2008. He allowed the petition on 29.7.2009. He ordered the eviction of the tenant on the ground that the suit premises, i.e. two rooms in first floor, one room in ground floor of building No. 31, Middle Bazar, Shimla in possession of tenant has become unsafe and unfit for human habitation and the eviction was also ordered on the ground that the suit premises is bonafidely required by the landlord for reconstruction and rebuilding, which cannot be carried out without getting the suit premises vacated by the tenant. The tenant preferred an appeal before the Appellate Authority on 24.8.2009. The Appellate Authority dismissed the appeal on 4.3.2010. Hence, this petition against the judgment dated 4.3.2010.

(3.) Mr. Neeraj Gupta has strenuously argued that the judgment and order of both the authorities below are not based on proper appreciation of evidence and legal principles, which has led to failure of justice. He further contended that the landlord has failed to prove that the building was unfit for human habitation. He lastly contended that the landlord has also failed to prove that he required the building bonafidely for the purpose of rebuilding and reconstruction and according to him, the only endeavour of the landlord is to evict the tenant.