NAND LAL SHARMA Vs. BIMLA SHARMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is the tenant's revision under Section 24 (5) of the H.P. Urban Rent Control Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act) against the judgment of eviction passed by the Rent Controller and affirmed in appeal by the Appellate Authority. The respondent who is the land lady, preferred an eviction petition under Section 14 of the Act against the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner who was the tenant in one room in the building owned by the respondent-land lady at a monthly rent of Rs. 800/- per month since August, 1994 is in arrears of rent and the premises occupied by the petitioner are required bonafide by the respondent for her own occupation. The land lord pleaded that she being the widow was being harassed by the petitioner who had withheld the payment of rent and further that she required the same for her personal bonafide requirement. The petition was resisted by the petitioner- respondent on a number of grounds. Four issues were framed by the Rent Controller for determination excluding the issue of relief. First issue was whether the petitioner is in arrears of rent @ 800/- per month w.e.f. August, 1994; second whether the premises were required bonafide by the land lady-respondent for her personal use and occupation; third whether the petition was not maintainable as alleged by the petitioner; fourth whether the respondent was estopped from filing the petition by her own acts conducts etc. The first issue was held partly in favour of the land lady and the other issues decided against the petitioner-tenant. While considering the question of arrears of rent, the Rent Controller held that he is in arrears of rent w.e.f. Ist September, 1999 @ 500/- per month. On the issue regarding the bonafide requirement, the Rent Controller held that the respondent- land lady had limited accommodation and considering the requirement of the land lady and her socio-economic status, the premises was required by her bonafide for her use as pleaded by her. The Rent Controller noted that according to the admission of the petitioner himself, the premises in possession of the land lady were two rooms, kitchen, bath room and a toilet which was not sufficient for her needs. She was working as Superintendent in the department of education, her brother was also living with her, her relations were visiting her over now and then and her daughter, who was married during the pendency of the petition, was visiting her. It was also accepted that her son-in-law was in Solan and her grand children were also studying there. They were also visiting the respondent and often staying with her. On the third issue regarding the maintainability, the Trial court held that there was not even an iota of evidence on record suggesting the non-maintainability of the petition. The court further observed that no argument was advanced on this point. On the fourth issue also Rent Controller noticed that there was nothing on the record to suggest that the petition was barred by principles of estoppel or acts on the part of the land lady.

(2.) APPEAL against the judgment was carried by the petitioner-tenant to the court of appellate authority which noticed in detail not only grounds of appeal raised by the petitioner which were reproduced in detail in the judgment and held that on the question of non-payment of rent, the admission of the petitioner before the Rent Controller was that he had paid the rent up to April, 1998 and without any other evidence the only conclusion was that he was in arrears of rent from 1.6.1998 and to this extent the finding of the Rent Controller were wrong. On the second ground regarding the bonafide requirement, after appraisal of the evidence on the record, the Appellate Authority held that the land lady had established her requirement on the record of the case and there was no material or evidence to suggest that the requirement was not bonafide or that the petition was motivated by malafidies. The appeal was accordingly dismissed.

(3.) TO substantiate his case he has placed reliance on a judgment reported in Onkar Nath vs. Ved Vyas, ILR 1978 HP 58 dealing with the provisions of Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Control which are in pari materia with the provisions of the Himachal Pradesh Urban Rent Control Act. Learned counsel submits that para 10 and 11 of the judgment lay down that the provisions have to be read conjointly. The relevant portion of the judgment is:-