RAM PIARI Vs. MELO DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is the tenants' revision against the judgment of the learned Appellate Authority affirming the judgment and findings of the learned Rent Controller ordering the eviction of the petitioners-tenants under Section 14 of the H.P. Urban Rent Control Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').

(2.) THE respondents are the land lords who instituted a petition under the Act claiming an order for eviction of the land with a small wooden khokha (temporary structure) put on the land by the petitioners- tenants on the ground of non- payment of rent and requirement of the rented land for construction of non residential building. The land lords have averred that the petitioners-tenants had not paid or tendered the rent of the demised premises from 1.7.1987 to 31.3.1992 amounting to Rs. 31,350 @ 550/- per month. Interest on the amount was also claimed. The second ground prayed for ejectment under the Act is that the land is required by the respondents- landlords for the purpose of construction on the land, which construction could not be carried out without the premises being vacated.

(3.) AN appeal carried to the learned Appellate Authority proved unsuccessful. A number of points were urged before the learned Appellate Authority for consideration. Affirming the findings of the learned Rent Controller, learned Appellate Authority held that the findings of the learned Rent Controller on the question of rate of rent payable were not correct and that rent is only 135/- per month. The findings to this effect was modified. On the other issue regarding the requirement of the land lords, the learned Appellate Authority held that from the evidence adduced by the parties, the ground of bonafide requirement for reconstruction of a nonresidential building on the rented land, had been successfully established by the land lords. The Appellate Authority noticed that the land was situated in the heart of the commercial hub in Una Hamirpur Road, immediately opposite the Bus Stand at Una and that this area is occupied by the traders and is busy commercial area. The learned Appellate Authority also considered the plan Ext.PW-6/A, availability of funds, and the fact that from the evidence on record, no malafidies had been established by the respondents. The appeal was accordingly dismissed with the modification in the rate of rent chargeable.