PYARE LAL TIKOO Vs. USHA KIRAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant Civil Revision Petition stands directed against the concurrently recorded rendition(s) of both the learned Courts below whereby they recorded an order of eviction of the tenant/petitioner herein from the demised premises.

(2.) Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the landowner rented out to the tenant/petitioner herein the tenanted premises known as House No.90/1, Anand Cottage, Sanjauli, Shimla-6 on a monthly rent of Rs.30/-. It consists of two rooms, glazed veranda with kitchen, bathroom and open area in front. The building is alleged to be more than 100 years old. The respondent is tenant in it since 1982. The eviction of the tenant stands sought by the landlord on the ground that the premises under the occupation of the petitioner/tenant is bonafidely required by the petitioner for the purpose of building/rebuilding and making substantial addition or alterations and such building/rebuilding and addition/alterations cannot be carried out without building in question being vacated by the occupant/tenant. It is also stated that only the portion in the occupation of tenant remained to be rebuild as the petitioner is having the necessary permission from the M.C. Shimla. Rest of the portion is already constructed as per the sanctioned plan.

(3.) The tenant contested the petition and filed reply thereto, wherein, he has taken preliminary objections qua the landlord not filing the copy of the sanctioned map, maintainability and petition not filed on true facts and proper verification. On merits, the tenant admitted the relationship of landlord and tenant inter se the parties but denied the other allegations pleaded in the petition. It is submitted that the petitioner purchased the premises from Harbhagwan Anand, who inducted the respondent/petitioner herein as tenant. The landlord/respondent herein started harassing the respondent/tenant/petitioner herein by depriving him to use essential amenities just to get the premises vacated. The tenant/respondent is ready to enhance the rent permissible under the Act or otherwise enhance the rent ten times but the petitioner is adamant to evict the respondent/tenant by one pretext or the other. It is denied that the premises is required for renovation and rebuilding. The petitioner has carried out the repair or rebuilding in the year 1996 as per the sanctioned map. It is, therefore, prayed that the petition may be dismissed with costs.