MADAN LAL Vs. ANJNA SOOD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition is directed against the judgment dated 31.12.2009 passed by the Appellate Authority, Fast Track Court, Shimla in Rent Appeal No. 38-S/14 of 2008.

(2.) "Key facts" necessary for the adjudication of this petition are that the respondents-landlords (hereinafter referred to as the "landlords" for convenience sake) have filed application under section 14 of the H.P. Urban Rent Control Act, 1987 against the petitionertenant (hereinafter referred to as the "tenant" for convenience sake). According to the averments contained in the application, landlords are owners of the premises situated opposite Government Senior Secondary School, Lalpani, Shimla. Tenant was inducted as tenant in the premises, i.e. Ground Floor, Balram Bhawan (East) opposite Government Senior Secondary School, Lalpani, Shimla on monthly rent of Rs. 100/- inclusive of all taxes. Landlords sought eviction of the tenant on the ground that tenant has failed to make the payment of arrears of rent with effect from 1.4.2004 till the filing of the application @ Rs. 100/- per month despite their repeated requests. The tenant was also liable to pay statutory interest @ 9% per annum. The premises under occupation of the tenant were bona fide required by the landlords for carrying out reconstruction work on old lines, which could not be carried out without vacation of premises in question by the tenant. The building in question is very old. It has outlived its life and has become unsafe and unfit for human habitation. The landlords have taken steps for getting the plan sanctioned for the construction of building on old lines from the competent authority. They are in possession of sufficient resources.

(3.) The application was contested by the tenant. According to the tenant, he has already paid rent upto December, 2004. The rent for the year 2004 was sent by the tenant to one of the landlords by way of demand draft on 16.11.2004. The rent was also tendered to the landlords but the landlords with mala fide intention failed to receive the same. According to the tenant, the premises under his occupation were not required bona fide by the landlords for carrying out reconstruction work of the building on old lines. According to the tenant, the reconstruction could be done without vacation of the premises by the tenant. The condition of the building was good. It was denied that the landlords have sufficient funds.