GIAN CHAND Vs. DAVESH SHARMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is the tenant's revision against the judgment and order of the learned Rent Controller affirmed by the learned Appellate Authority in a petition under Section 14 (3) (a) (i) of the Himachal Pradesh Urban Rent Control Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act). Respondent-landlord instituted proceedings under the Act on the ground that the premises are required bonafide for the purpose of reconstruction and rebuilding which cannot be carried out without vacation of the premises. It was alleged that the premises are old and constructed about 60 years back. The petition was resisted by the tenant on a number of grounds including the ground of non-joinder of necessary parties. Learned Rent Controller, after a detailed consideration of the evidence, proved on record that the building is around 70 to 75 years old and is in a dilapidated condition and needs rebuilding, which cannot be carried out without its vacation. It was stated that plans had been submitted to the Municipal Corporation, Shimla for approval. Landlord submitted that the other tenants had undertaken to vacate the building once the plans were approved and it is only the petitioner who was resisting the vacation. The learned Rent Controller as a fact found that the petition had been actuated by malafidies and that petitioner was possessed of sufficient funds for rebuilding. Learned Rent Controller has relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Jagat Pal Dhawan vs. Kahan Sisngh Latest 2003 (1) SCC 191 in which it has been held that for the purpose of building or rebuilding or ranted land being vacated, the age and condition of the building is not an essential ingredient. It is also not necessary that the availability of requisite funds and duly sanctioned plans by the Local authority could be established on the record as a condition precedent for obtaining an eviction order. The court may look into these as relevant facts though not specifically mentioned as necessary ingredients for eviction.

(2.) IN appeal a number of grounds were urged by the tenant which were considered by the learned Appellate Authority who noticed that the building plans had been returned to the appellant with some objections. During the course of arguments, it has been submitted by the learned counsel for the landlord that the plans had already been sanctioned by the Municipal Corporation. In order to protect the interest of the tenant, the learned Appellate Authority, following the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Harrington House School vs. S.M. Ishahani and another AIR 2002 SC 2268 ordered that eviction order would be executed only if the plans were sanctioned by the Municipal Corporation.

(3.) I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the judgments of both the courts below. Learned counsel for the petitioner-tenant has placed reliance on Amro Devi vs. Ajay Kumar Sood 1994 (2) RCR 178 in order to support his contention that without the pleading and proof, premises could not be rebuilt without vacation, requires to be dismissed. He also relied upon on M/s K.A.M.A.K. Nataraja Nadar and sons and others vs. R. Kannan 2005 (2) RCR 605 and Iqbal Abdul Kareem vs. Chandrasekaran (2005) 2 RCR 653 holding that for demolition and reconstruction, landlord cannot be granted order of eviction unless it is proved that the entire building is to be demolished and that it is incumbent upon the landlord to prove the age of the building, his financial status for rebuilding. He fortifies his submission from the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Vijay Singh and others vs. Vijayalakshmi Ammal (1996) 6 SCC 475 holding that an order for eviction cannot be granted on the mere asking of the landlord and he must prove his bonafide intention and the petition should not be filed with the purpose of getting rid of tenants. Age of building, condition of the building and financial position of the landlord have to be proved.