DEEPAK BOOT HOUSE Vs. PIYARE LAL SOOD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition is directed against the judgment dated 12.4.2013 rendered by the Appellate Authority in Rent Appeal No. 34-S/14 of 2010. "Key facts" necessary for the adjudication of this petition are that respondent-landlord (hereinafter referred to as the "landlord" for convenience sake) filed a petition for eviction of petitioners-tenants (hereinafter referred to as the "tenants" for convenience sake) under Section 14 of the Himachal Pradesh Urban Rent Control Act 1987. According to the landlord, premises are situated in Ward No. 13, Municipal Corporation and the same are known as building No. 98, Lower Bazaar, Shimla. Nature of the premises is non-residential. These were let out to tenants in the year 1960-61. Electricity fittings etc. were provided by the landlord. It is further averred that rent of the premises was Rs. 2234/- per annum. Rent of similar accommodation in the same locality is more than Rs. 15,000/- per month. Eviction of the tenant has been sought on the ground that the building is about 100 years old and has become unfit and unsafe for human habitation. Eviction of the tenant has also been sought on the ground that the premises are bona fide required by the landlord for rebuilding and reconstruction, which cannot be carried out without the premises being vacated. Landlord has sufficient funds for reconstruction and after reconstruction the building can be put to better use.

(2.) Petition was resisted by the tenants. According to the tenants, building in question has common walls with adjoining building and unless the adjoining building is demolished, reconstruction of the building of landlord was not possible and as such requirement of the landlord was mala fide. The building is situated in the core area of Shimla and no construction can take place in the core area and the building is not more than 100 years old, as alleged. Building is made of Dhajji walls and wooden frames and is in good condition. Landlord is in use and occupation of third floor of the building and in one floor, wife of the landlord is running a clinic.

(3.) Rent Controller framed issues on 26.6.2009. He allowed the petition on the ground that the suit premises have become unfit and unsafe for human habitation and the same are bona fide required by the landlord for reconstruction, which could not be carried out without the suit premises being vacated by the tenants. The tenants feeling aggrieved with the order dated 6.4.2010 filed an appeal before the Appellate Authority. The Appellate Authority dismissed the same on 12.4.2013. Hence, the present petition.