AMRIT LAL Vs. VISHWA MITTAR GUPTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition has been filed by the tenant/petitioner challenging the order dated 4.5.2002 passed in Rent Appeal No. 30- S/14 of 1997 whereby the learned Appellate Authority has allowed the appeal of the landlord and ordered the eviction of the tenant by holding that the premises in dispute are required by the landlord for his bonafide personal use and occupation and for repair which could not be effected without evicting the tenant from the premises.

(2.) SHRI Vishwamittar Gupta, predecessor-in-interest of the present respondent filed a petition under Section 14 of the H.P. Urban Rent Control Act for eviction of the petitioner-tenant. The eviction petition was filed on various grounds i.e. arrears of rent; personal bonafide requirement; repair of the building which could not be carried out without eviction of the tenantand construction of own house by the tenant in the urban area which was sufficient for his own use and occupation. The learned Rent Controller held that the tenant was in arrears of rent and ordered his eviction on this ground only and rejected all other pleas raised by the landlord.

(3.) THE appellate authority while holding that the premises in dispute are required for personal bona fide requirement for effecting repairs, placed heavy reliance on the report of the Local Commissioner. In my opinion, no reliance could be placed on such a report. It would be pertinent to mention that in the building owned by the landlord wherein the demised premises are situate, a number of tenants occupied different portions of the building. The landlord had filed petitions against other tenants also and from the evidence led on record, I find that the landlord had filed appeal being CMA No.21- S/14 of 1992, decided on 13.10.1992 titled Vishwamittaar Gupta v. Smt. Bhagwati Khanna, challenging the order of the Rent Controller , Solan. In that case also the landlord sought the eviction of the premises on the grounds of personal bonafide requirement and arrears of rent. The learned landlord in that case was represented by Shri R.K.Garg, Advocate. The certified copy of the judgment of this case is Ex.RX-1. Shri R.K.Garg, was the Advocate of the landlord in these proceedings. It was his bounden duty to have pointed out to the learned appellate authority that there may be conflict of interest and he should not have consented to be the local commissioner. Despite clearly knowing that the landlord is his client, Shri R.K.Garg acted as a Local Commissioner. This in itself casts doubt on the veracity of the report of the Local Commissioner. In my opinion, no reliance could have been placed on this report.