SH GAURAV SOOD Vs. T L SHARMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this petition, order dated 24.6.2015 passed by learned Rent Controller, Court No. (7), Shimla in an application under Order 6 Rule 17 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure registered as CMA No. 5105 of 2015 filed in Rent Case No. 134/2 of 2015/11 is under challenge. The petitioner herein is the landlord. He has sought the eviction of the respondent-tenant by filing Rent Petition under Section 14 of the HP Urban Rent Control Act on the ground of the respondent-tenant being in arrears of rent and also that the demised premises being in dilapidated condition need reconstruction and rebuilding after demolition. The petitioner-landlord has purchased the demised premises on 17.1.2008 from his previous owner. In terms of the provisions contained under sub section (6) of Section 14 of the Act, in the event of the landlord has acquired any premises by transfer, no application for recovery of possession thereof on the grounds specified in sub clause (i) of clause (a) of sub Section (3) can be made unless and until a period of five years has elapsed from the date of such acquisition. The petition when initially instituted in the year 2011 the statutory period of five years was not complete. The said period was over in the month of January 2013, therefore, the application Annexure P-3 hereinabove under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC came to be filed before learned Controller below on the completion of the period of five years i.e. on 6.5.2014. By way of amendment in para 18(a) of the petition originally filed, the following para has been sought to be added by way of amendment:

(2.) In reply Annexure P-4 to the application the stand of the respondent-tenant was that the application as framed is not maintainable and filed with malafide intention to deprive him from his right to re-entry in the event of he is ordered to be evicted on the ground of the demised premises required for reconstruction and rebuilding. On merits, it was claimed that the petitioner-landlord has got ample accommodation for his own use and occupation and that on these grounds his eviction from the demised premises cannot be sought. Learned Rent Controller below on consideration of the claims and counter claims has dismissed the application with the observations that in view of the demised premises acquired by the petitioner on 17.1.2008 the application should have been filed immediately on completion of the period of five years and the filing thereof should have not been delayed. Also that no case is made out to arrive at a conclusion that despite exercise of better diligence the petitioner has applied for amendment at the earliest and also that the proposed amendment has been sought merely to deprive the respondent-tenant from his right to re-entry in the event of the petition is allowed on the ground of the building required for reconstruction and rebuilding.

(3.) The petitioner-landlord aggrieved by the impugned order has questioned the legality and validity thereof in this Court on the grounds inter alia that the dismissal of the application for amendment in the petition is likely to result in multiplicity of litigation and also that the grounds i.e. the building is required for reconstruction and bonafidely for own use and occupation by the landlord are two separate and independent grounds and can be taken simultaneously in one reference petition, of course, by filing separate petitions also.