VISHWA NATH Vs. RAJNISH KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The controversy between the Petitioner-tenant and the Respondents-landlords is in respect of vacation of a vacant piece of land comprised in Khasra No. 585/2/5 measuring 30' X 72' situated at Cart Road, Shimla, which was admittedly leased out by the father of the landlords, namely, Sh. Harkrlshan Lal Kuthiala in the year 1974. The allegations made in the eviction petition were that the piece of land in dispute was leased out for non-residential purpose of stacking coal only but the tenants had wrongly, illegally and unauthorisedly constructed structures over it without the consent and knowledge of the landlords and they are using the same for the residence of their labourers. Another allegation was that by the unauthorised construction, the value and the utility of the piece of land has been materially impaired. The third ground of eviction taken by the landlords was that the piece of land was bona fide required by them for their own use of establishment of an industry. According to the landlords, they were not occupying, in the urban area of Shimla, any other rented land suitable for their business purposes and they have not vacated any such rented land without sufficient cause within five years of the filing of their petition. The ground of non-payment of rent was also preferred by the landlords but on the tenants tendering the arrears of rent, it was given up.

(2.) In their reply, the tenants denied the allegations and raised the preliminary objection that:

(3.) The tenants further asserted that the premises in question are not a vacant piece of land but are non-residential building built on an area of 240 Sq. yards at a heavy cost of Rs. 25,000. According to them, the structure was constructed with the permission of the father of the landlords, Sh. Harkrishan Lal Kuthiala, who had also agreed in writing to execute a proper lease deed in due course of time but later on the landlords avoided to do it on frivolous and flimsy pretexts and also with ulterior motive. It was also alleged that since the construction was made with the consent of the landlords, the question of impairing its value and utility does not arise at all. According to the tenants, the landlords were in occupation of sufficient vacant land in the urban area of Shimla and they had also vacated and let out such vacant land within five years from the date of the filing of the eviction petition. They have further averred that the eviction petition was filed by the landlords to coerce them to fulfil their demands of loaning them substantial amount of money or purchase of land in question on their terms.