PAMILA KAPUR Vs. KHEM SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition is directed against the order dated 11 -1 -1994 passed by Rent Controller (2), Shimla, in execution No. 62 -10 of 1988 By the impugned order, learned Court below held that the order of eviction is not executable and accordingly execution petition was dismissed.

(2.) The predecessor of the present petitioners filed a petition under Himachal Pradesh Urban Rent Control Act, 1971, before the Rent Controller (2), Shimla, for eviction of respondent No 1 from Quarter No. 12 on the ground of arrears of rent and also bona fide personal requirement for reconstruction of the premises in question. The petition was dismissed by the learned Rent Controller, An appeal was laid before the learned Appellate Authority, both the landlord and the tenant made statements on oath and accordingly, the learned Appellate Authority passed the following order: "31 -8 -1985 Present : Sh. Kuldip Singh Counsel for the appellant, the appellant and respondent with counsel Sh. G. C. Gupta. Spot inspected. On the spot the parties have compromised. According to the compromise the respondent/tenant has agreed to vacate the premises in question and in place thereof the appellant/landlord has agreed to give on the same rent another quarter, bearing No 17, which on the first floor and is to the extreme South after repairing its roof by replacing the damaged corrugated iron sheets with good sheets, by plastering the walls with mud, by providing stairs (wooden) from -Southern side, by fixing ceiling and by repairing the railing and the floor of the covered portion outside the said quarter. Respondent has conceded that the premises occupied by him are bona fide required by the appellant for construction of a new house for his own use I have gone through the record and I feel satisfied that the premises are bona fide required by the appellant/landlord for construction of a new house for self use and occupation. Accordingly, the order of the Rent Controller whereby the petition of the appellant for the eviction of the respondent has been dismissed and which is assailed through the present appeal is set aside and instead thereof the order of eviction is passed against the respondent. The order shall however be executable only after the appellant repairs the quarter No. 17 in accordance with the terms of the compromise and makes the same available and ready for occupation by the respondent. In case the respondent refuses to take the delivery of quarter No, 17, after its repairs in accordance with the compromise, he shall in that event be liable to be evicted through the process of the Court from the premises in dispute and would also forfeit his right to have the quarter No. 17 in lieu of the premises in dispute, The rent in respect of the premises comprised in quarter No. 17 shall be the same as is for the premises in question. Statements of the parties shall form part of this order. Record of this appeal be consigned. Record of lower Court be returned together with a copy of this order and the copies of the statement of the parties which have been made part of this order."

(3.) Learned executing Court, inter alia, held that the landlord was to carry out the following repairs to enable the tenant to shift to quarter No. 17. The said repairs are as follows : (i) Rusted and decayed tin sheets of the roof were to be replaced ; (ii) Mud plastering on walls was to be done ; (iii) Broken planks if any, were to be replaced ; (iv) Ply -wood ceiling was to be provided ; (v) Defects in windows and doors, if any, were to be removed ; (vi) Cracks if any, on the wall were to be repaired ; (vii) Railing was to be provided ; and (viii) Wooden stairs were to be provided. -