AMAR NATH Vs. BALBIR KOCHHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two Revision Petitions which are connected are being disposed of by a common judgment as these arise out of a common judgment between the parties One revision petition has been filed by the landlords and the other by the tenant, Parties hereinafter in the judgment shall be referred to as landlords and tenant.

(2.) The landlords seek eviction of the tenant from a quarter which is said to be a servant quarter and is a part of the building known as Craige Villa situated on the Mall Shimla. The premises i e. the servant quarter under tenancy consists of one room and is said to be residential Ejectment has been sought on the ground that the tenant has acquired a residential building in Shimla which consists of seven bed -rooms Ground of arrears of rent was also taken but the same does Dot survive Eject -merit is also sought on the ground that the building known as Craige Villa of which the tenanted premises are a part is required by the landlords for the purposes of rebuilding and reconstruction and the same cannot be earned out without the tenanted premises being vacated. It is said that the Municipal Corporation has also served notices to the landlords that the building has become dangerous, dilapidated and unfit, unsafe for human habitation and that the same be demolished and rebuild. The landlords have pleaded that the building being 150 years old has out -lived its value and utility and substantial additions and alterations have to be carried out after getting it vacated. It is also pleaded that petitions stand filed against each of tenants occupying different portions in the main building and many of them have vacated it and therefore the tenant be ejected therefrom.

(3.) The petition has been hotly contested by the tenant who has denied the building to be residential and has taken up the plea that the same was taken for the purpose of storing the material and was non -residential. As per tenant he is carrying on sweets shop near the tenanted premises and is storing wood, fuel and other material and the quarter is being used purely for non -residential purposes and was never let out for the purpose of residence. It was denied that the building has become unfit and unsafe for human habitation. It was pleaded that the building though old is fit for human habitation. It has also been denied that the premises are bonafide required by the landlords for the purpose of reconstruction and rebuilding and that the landlords are required by the Municipal authorities to demolish the building as it had outlived it utility.