VED PRAKASH Vs. MUNI LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition is filed by the petitioner-landlord against the judgment rendered on 28.5.2009 by the learned Appellate Authority, Solan, H.P., whereby the appeal filed by the tenant/respondent was allowed.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that the landlord filed a petition under Section 14 of the H.P.Urban Rent Control Act, 1987 for the eviction of the respondent on the ground that the respondent is a tenant in the non residential shop in the premises known as Om Niwas at the monthly rent of Rs.560/- besides the electricity charges which has been let out in October, 1984. It has been pleaded that the premises is required bonafidely by the petitioner for widening/construction of stair case for the upper floors of the building. It is averred that the petitioner is owner of four storeyed building and in the ground floor he has a Karyana shop. It has been pleaded that the demised premises/small Khokha shop is in the ground floor of the building beneath the said stair case it is in the occupation of the respondent. It is pleaded that the demised premises/shop being occupied by the respondent is required to him for the purpose of widening of stair case for the upper floors. It is pleaded that due to the existence of pillar/columns the stair case is not possible to be constructed elsewhere, except the place where the shop occupied by the respondent.

(3.) The respondent-tenant has contested the petition and raised preliminary objections about maintainability, cause of action and estoppel. On merits, the respondent-tenant averred that the rental value of the premises has increased manifold and the petitioner had been pressurizing the respondent to increase the rent. It has been denied that the petitioner required the demised premises for bonafide use for widening the stair case for the upper storey of the building. It has been pleaded that adjoining to the stair towards Shimla side, there is another vacant room in possession of the petitioner. It is alleged that the petition has been filed with malafide intention. Hence, the respondent has prayed for dismissal of the petition.