MADAN MOHAN Vs. ISHWAR CHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition is directed against the judgment dated 16.10.2012 passed by the Appellate Authority-1, Sirmaur District at Nahan in Rent Appeal No. 117-RA/14 of 2010. "Key facts" necessary for the adjudication of this petition are that the respondent-landlord (hereinafter referred to as the "landlord" for convenience sake) filed a 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? yes petition under section 14 of the Himachal Pradesh Urban Rent Control Act, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act" for brevity sake) seeking eviction of the petitioner-tenant (hereinafter referred to as the "tenant" for convenience sake). According to the landlord, the premises were occupied by tenants Rangeela Swami, Rakshu, Usha, Anita and Kanta. Usha and Anita were married and were not residing in the premises. The premises comprised of three rooms, kitchen, Dehleez, latrine, bathroom in the ground floor and four rooms on the first floor and amenities regarding water and electricity have been provided. The monthly rent of the premises in question was Rs. 500/-. The building is more than 100 years old and the premises were let out to the predecessor of the tenants Kanti Narain in the year 1988 at the rate of Rs. 125/- per month. However, from April, 1998, the rent was mutually increased to Rs. 500/- per month. The increased rent was paid by the tenant Kanti Narain during the months of April and May, 1998. The grounds of the eviction of the tenants are as under:

(2.) The tenants have resisted and contested the petition of the landlord by filing reply. According to the tenants, monthly rent of the premises was Rs. 125/-. The building was only 45 years old. The increase of rent from Rs. 125/- to Rs. 500/- per month was denied. The father of the tenants has never signed any agreement with the landlord for the alleged enhancement of rent. The landlord himself has signed the diary. They are not in arrears of rent. After the death of their father in December, 1999 rent upto August, 2001 has been paid. The landlord has received the rent upto August, 2001 and thereafter he refused to receive the rent without any reason. The tenants were in arrears of rent from September, 2001 at the rate of Rs. 125/- per month. The building was good and worth living. The walls of the building have not developed any cracks. The premises in questions were not required by the landlord for reconstruction. The landlord has sufficient vacant land and building in Muhal Haripur near Jhanda Ji on Nahan-Shimla Road. He is also having another property situated in Bazaar, Gunnu Ghat, Nahan.

(3.) The rejoinder was filed by the landlord. The Rent Controller framed the issues on 6.8.2005. The Rent Controller allowed the petition on the ground of nonpayment of arrears of rent and on the ground that the premises were required by the landlord for rebuilding, which could not be carried out without the building being vacated by the tenants. The premises were also required bona fidely by the landlord for his use and occupation. The tenants were in arrears of rent of the premises with effect from September, 2001 to 30.4.2010 with interest @ 9% per annum, which came to be Rs. 5,118/- total Rs. 18,118.75 paise. The tenants were directed to make the payment of the amount, i.e. Rs. 18,118.75 paise within 30 days from the date of order, failing which, they were liable to be evicted from the premises. The tenants were directed to handover the vacant possession of the premises to the landlord. One of the tenants Madan Mohan filed an appeal before the Appellate Authority. The Appellate Authority dismissed the appeal on 16.10.2012. Hence, the present petition against the judgment dated 16.10.2012.