RAM BHAJAN SINGH Vs. SANJAY KUTHIALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is the tenant's revision against the concurrent findings and judgments of the learned Rent Controller and learned Appellate Authority, accepting the petition for eviction filed by the landlord Smt. Brij Bala Kuthiala wife of Shri Gian Chand under Section 14 of the Himachal Pradesh Urban Rent Control Act, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) on a number of grounds, namely; (a) arrears of rent (b) unauthorized conversion of the verandah in front of the tenanted premises into a structure for the purpose of use as a kitchen and bath room, causing damage to the building (c), the tenant being guilty of acts which are causing nuisance to the occupies of the building (d), the building is more than 100 years old and is required bonafide by the petitioner-land lady for the purpose of building and rebuilding and making addition and alternations thereto which cannot be carried out without the premises being vacated. The premises are residential and has been converted into a commercial premises where the tenant is running a shop of selling Paneer and Khoya ( cheese and casein). The building is required bonafide by the land lady for her own occupation and the resident o fher yohnger son Sanjay Kuthiala. It was submitted that she is residing with her elder son on the first floor of premises bearing MC No. 36 consisting of two grown up sons aged 22 and 18 years, and a minor daughter aged 11 years. Younger son of the petitioner has a family comprising of his wife, one daughter aged 11 years.

(2.) THE learned Rent Controller framed ten issues and held that tenant is in arrears of rent, the premises are required bonafide by the petitioner for the purpose of her residence and the residence of her sons considering that there is inadequate accommodation in their possession. The other issues were decided against the petitioner. The learned Rent Controller considered the entire evidence and documents on record holding that necessary ingredients had been pleaded and proved and that eviction petition was not actuated by malafidies nor did the evidence and pleadings show that it was the mere whim, caprice or pleasure of the petitioner which was the motivating factor for filing the petition. Reliance was placed on the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Prem Chand @ Prem Nath versus Shanta Prabhakar 1998 (1) SCC 274, Jagat Pal Dhawan vs. Kahan Singh (dead) (2003) 1 SCC 191, Vijay Singh vs. Vijayalakshmi Ammal 1996 (6) SCC 475, Naresh Kumar and another vs. Surinder Pal (2001) 2 SLC 337 and Om Prakash vs. Ganga Ram and Hari Prasad and another LHL 2001 HP 161, while passing the order of eviction against the tenant.

(3.) THE appeal preferred by the tenant before the Appellate Authority was dismissed. Learned Appellate Authority reconsidered the entire evidence, oral as well as documentary on record holding that the judgment of the learned Rent Controller cannot be faulted with on the grounds as pleaded. While considering the evidence, the learned Appellate Authority dealt with each of the points raised by the tenant and concluded that the findings of fact arrived at on record could not be characterized as being based on no evidence or whimsical or fanciful conclusions drawn from established facts.