RAJINDER PARSHAD DOGRA Vs. RAJ KUMAR KATARIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition is directed against the order dated 30.6.2001 passed by the Appellate Authority-I1, Kangra at Dharamshala in Rent Civil Misc. Appeal No.26-P/2000.

(2.) "Key facts" necessary for the adjudication of this petition are that the petitioner-landlord (hereinafter referred to as the "landlord" for convenience sake) filed eviction petition under section 14 of the Himachal Pradesh Urban Rent Control Act, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act" for brevity sake) before the Rent Controller (II), Palampur against the respondent-tenant (hereinafter referred to as the "tenant" for convenience sake). According to the landlord, premises situated in M-585, Arya Samaj Mohalla, Ward No.3, Municipal Council, Palampur were rented out to tenant for residential accommodation comprising of one set. The monthly rent was Rs. 450/-. The eviction was sought on the ground that the premises were bona fidely required for personal use. The tenant has committed such acts, which were likely to impair the value and utility of the building. The tenant has damaged the doors, windows etc. of the rented premises. The premises were required for general repairs, which could not be otherwise carried out without getting the premises vacated. His son was an Architect and, as such, the landlord required the premises for the use as an office/consulting room, who intended to start practice as an Architect at Palampur.

(3.) The petition was contested by the tenant. The relationship of landlord and tenant was admitted. The rate of rent was also admitted. It was denied that the premises were required for his personal use. According to him, the landlord has rented out other portion of the building to other tenants. He has sufficient accommodation to his family. He has not committed any acts which impaired the value and utility of the building. The building was not required for general repair. It was denied that the son of landlord was an Architect.