S C BHATIA Vs. KARANDEEP

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The tenant has come in revision against judgement dated 17.11.2009 passed by learned Appellate Authority, Fast Track Court, Shimla in Rent Appeal No. 49-S/14 of 2009 affirming the order dated 22.7.2009 passed by learned Rent Controller in Rent Petition No. 30-2 of 2008 ordering eviction of petitioner from the premises.

(2.) The respondent had filed a petition under Section 14 of H.P. Urban Rent Control Act, 1987 (for short, the Act) against the petitioner on the grounds of premises has become unsafe and unfit for human habitation, bonafide requirement of premises for reconstruction which cannot be carried out unless the premises is vacated, arrears of rent, cease to occupy and tenant has acquired alternative accommodation which is reasonably sufficient for his requirement. Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment?

(3.) The petition was contested and the claim of the respondent was denied, pleas of estoppel, maintainability, want of better and material particulars were taken. The petition has been filed in order to enhance the rent. It has been denied that premises is 180 years old or outlived its life due to dilapidated condition. The reconstruction is not possible unless all tenants vacate the building. The submission of plans by respondent and availability of funds with respondent for reconstruction were also denied. The premises can be reconstructed without vacating the building. The petitioner resided in the premises till June 2008 when the premises was damaged by the respondent by carrying out excavation near the wall of the premises as a result of which the wall of the premises came down. It has been denied that petitioner has acquired alternative accommodation. The petitioner was willing to pay the arrears of rent. It has been denied that life of the premises has come to an end.