SANJAY THAKUR Vs. ASHA DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition under Section 24(5) of the Himachal Pradesh Urban Rent Control Act, "Rent Act" for short, is laid by Sanjay Thakur, landlord, against the dismissal of his eviction petition, by the Appellate Authority, Shimla in Civil Misc. Appeal No. 22 -S/14 of 2003 decided on June 18,2005 reversing the judgment of the learned Rent Controller, Shimla.

(2.) In order to appreciate the controversy, relevant facts may be noticed: Thakur, petitioner herein is owner/landlord of Shop No.5, Marina Hotel Building, The Mall, Shimla. This shop is part of Marina Hotel Complex. Respondent Balak Ram (since deceased) through his legal representatives in this petition, is the tenant of Shop No.5, Marina Hotel Building. Landlord filed a petition before the Rent Controller, Shimla under Section 14 (3) (c ) of the "Rent Act" pleading that the premises under the tenancy of respondent Balak Ram (Shop No.5, Marina Hotel Building) are bonafide required by him for the purpose of re -building and reconstruction which cannot be carried out without the shop in question being vacated by the respondent His case in the petition is that the building is more than hundred years old made of old wood and Dhajji wall. The building had outlived its span of life. The condition of the building is bad and dilapidated. The entire building, it is alleged, requires reconstruction/re -building afresh by pooling down the existing structure. The entire building, it is alleged, is in possession and occupation of the petitioner except the two shops. A separate petition for the other shop has been filed against the tenant who is in occupation of the shop. The shop in question along with other shop is required by the petitioner for the purpose of re -building and reconstruction which cannot be carried out without the rental premises being vacated by the tenant. It is further pleaded, the landlord had obtained sanction form the competent Authority for reconstruction. He has means to build the building and the funds are available for the reconstruction of the building. The petition was contested by the tenant on several grounds including that the building was in good condition and that the hotel Marina Building can be demolished and re -build without touching the shop in question. 4 learned Rent Controller by his order dated April 28, 2003, after appraising the evidence and other material on record, found that the landlord required the demised shop bonafide for the purpose of re -building the Marina Hotel for which the plan had been sanctioned by the competent Authority, i.e. Municipal Corporation, Shimla. He also concluded that the hotel could not be constructed without it being vacated and the landlord has the means to re -build the hotel and that under section 14 (3) (c), the landlord is not required to prove that the building is really in dilapidated condition provided the need of the landlord is bonafide and he intends to put the premises in question to more profitable use. The objection of the tenant that the petition was bad for non -joinder of necessary parties and the petitioner had no cause of action was over ruled. 5.Dis -satisfied, the tenant carried an appeal under Section 24 of the Act before the Appellate Authority, The Appellate authority, by impugned judgment, set -aside the judgment of the Rent controller holding that though the landlord had the means to re -build the building as per sanctioned plan on record (Exhibit PW -2/A), he also observed (in para 20 of the judgment) that the Mariana Hotel Building was a commercial building and the landlord intends to raise new construction to put the Hotel to more profitable use but took a view that as no construction is to be made under the sanctioned plan after the demolition of the shop in question as the demised premises has been shown as front of the reconstructed hotel building, therefore, the requirement of the landlord can not be said to be bonafide. He held that the demised premise is at distance of thirty feet form the main hotel building and separated by water tanks located in between both the buildings. He also took a view that had the landlord made a plan to rebuilt or the demised shop in the occupation of the tenants then alone he was entitled to get the shop in question vacated and for this reason, the provisions of Section 14 (3).(c ), are not attracted and the need of the petitioner cannot be said to be bonafide.

(3.) Aggrieved, the landlord is in this revision petition.