SUNIL MEHTA Vs. A. D. KASHYAP

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Instant revision petition filed under Sec. 24(4) of the H.P. Urban Rent Control Act 1987, lays challenge to judgment dtd. 4/9/2015 passed by learned Appellate Authority(III) Shimla, District Shimla, H.P.,(prescribed under the H.P. Urban Rent Control Act), in Rent Appeal RBT No.14-S/13(b) of 2013, reversing the order dtd. 26/11/2012 passed by learned Rent Controller, Court No.5, Shimla, Himachal Pradesh, in case No.1-2 of 2007, whereby petition for eviction of the respondent-tenant, preferred by the petitioner-landlord from the demise premises was allowed.

(2.) Precisely, the facts of the case, as emerge from the record are that the petitioner-landlord ( for short landlord) filed a petition under Sec. 14 of the Rent Control Act,1984 ( for short Act) for eviction of respondent No.1 (for short 'tenant') on the grounds of non-payment of rent and bonafide requirement. Landlord sought eviction of the tenant from the demise premises consisting of two rooms, kitchen with common bath, latrine, balcony and common entrance in the ground floor of Mehta Niwas, Fingask Estate, Shimla3. Landlord claimed that initially monthly rent of the premises was Rs.700.00 in the year 1986, but same was enhanced after every five years. Landlord claimed that since tenant has failed to pay the rent due in respect of the premises w.e.f. January, 2003 till 31/12/2006, he is liable to be evicted. Besides above, landlord also claimed that tenant is also liable for increase of the agreed rent at the rate of 10 % which comes to Rs.1024.87 w.e.f.19/2/2006 to 31/12/2006. Apart from aforesaid ground, landlord also set up a ground in eviction petition that he bondafidely requires the accommodation for his family members, as he has no other accommodation in Shimla.

(3.) Aforesaid petition filed by the landlord came to be resisted and contested by the respondents on the ground that petition is not maintainable because no family settlement or partition ever took place interse co-owners and the family settlement or partition claimed to have been arrived is not in existence and same is false transaction just to evict the respondent. On merits, respondent-tenant denied that landlord is residing in ground floor of Mehta Niwas Fingask Estate. Respondent-tenant claimed that landlord has opened a school at Nankhari and living there with his family. Respondent-tenant further claimed that son of the landlord is living and studying at Chandigarh and in fact premises were let out by the previous owner of the building in favour of replying respondent in the month of February, 1986. Respondent-tenant categorically denied allegation with regard to his being in the arrears of rent. He also denied that petitioner-landlord does not have any sufficient accommodation with him for his residence at Shimla. He further submitted that three rooms set has been recently let out to one Liberarian from Kotgarh working at Shimla in the third floor of the same building. He also stated in the reply that petitioner-landlord has constructed four rooms set in the fifth floor of the building and prior to filing the petition, father of the petitionerlandlord had filed the petition on the same ground, but same was dismissed by learned Rent Controller (2), Shimla.