VINAY SHARMA Vs. RAM PARKASH CHAUHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition is directed against the judgment dated 16.7.2012 rendered in Rent Appeal 81 - S/14 of 2009 by the learned Appellate Authority, Fast Track Court, Shimla. "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 petition under section 14 of the Himachal Pradesh Rent Control Act, 1987 against the petitioner - tenant (hereinafter referred to as the "tenant" for convenience sake). According to the landlord, he alongwith his brothers is owner of three -storey building known as "Chauhan Building", Sector -4, New Shimla and Vinay Sharma is tenant of one set comprising of three bed -rooms, one drawing -cum -dining room, two bathrooms -WCs, one kitchen, one lobby and balcony on a monthly rent of Rs. 4000/ -. According to the oral family settlement, the tenanted premises fell in the share of landlord. The eviction of the tenant was sought on the ground that he was in arrears of rent at the rate of Rs. 4000/ - per month with effect from 1.11.2007 till the date of filing of the petition and the tenanted premises were also required bona fide by the landlord for his personal use due to his transfer from Solan to Shimla. He wanted to shift his family to Shimla for which accommodation was required. According to the landlord, he was not occupying any residential accommodation as owner or otherwise in the urban area at Shimla town and that the landlord has not vacated any such building within five years of the filing of the petition. The eviction of the tenant was also sought on the ground that he has constructed a residential building at Kamla Nagar, Shimla after taking the present premises on rent from the landlord.

(2.) THE tenant filed a detailed reply to the petition. According to the reply, the rent of the premises was Rs. 2000/ - per month. It was denied that he was in arrears of rent at the rate of Rs. 4000/ - per month with effect from 1.11.2007. It is stated that the tenant has paid the entire rent with effect from 30.4.2008 at the rate of Rs. 2000/ - per month. The tenant has denied that he has built and acquired vacant possession of residential premises within the urban area of Shimla and has constructed more than one residential premises at Kamla Nagar, Shimla. He has also denied that the residential accommodation so built and acquired by the tenant is sufficient for his requirement. He has denied that the mutual settlement between the landlord and his brothers.

(3.) MR . Y.P. Sood has vehemently argued that his client was not in arrears of rent. He has also argued that the premises were not required by the landlord bona fide. He has also argued that the landlord has failed to prove the partition.