RAMESH KUMAR Vs. KUSUM GOEL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of this revision petition filed under Section 24(5) of the Himachal Pradesh Urban Rent Control Act, 1987, the petitioner herein has challenged the judgment passed by the learned District Judge (Appellate Authority) Shimla in Rent Appeal No. 11-S/14 of 2011, dated 17.10.2011, vide which, learned Appellate Authority has dismissed an appeal filed by the present petitioner against the judgment passed by learned Rent Controller, Court No. (7), Shimla in Case No. 22/2 of 2009/06, dated 07.01.2011, whereby learned Rent Controller while allowing an application for eviction filed under Section 14 of the Himachal Pradesh Urban Rent Control Act, 1987 by the present respondents, ordered the eviction of the present petitioner from the premises in dispute on the ground of arrears of rent, re-building and re-construction.

(2.) Brief facts necessary for the adjudication of the present case are that an application was filed before the learned Rent Controller under Section 14 of the Himachal Pradesh Urban Rent Control Act, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as "the 1987 Act) by the respondents/landlords (hereinafter referred to as "the landlords") seeking eviction of the present petitioner on the ground that tenanted premises were old and had outlived its life and value and the same were required for the purpose of re-construction and re-building. It was further the case of the landlords that tenant, i.e., the present petitioner (hereinafter referred to as "the tenant") was in occupation of one shop and the ground floor of the building in issue, i.e. 49/2, Lower Bazaar, Shimla (hereinafter referred to as "tenanted premises"), which premises were within the limits of Municipal Corporation, Shimla and were non-residential in nature. Tenant was paying rent @ Rs. 1000/- per annum excluding 8% taxes and was occupying the premises prior to the purchase of the same by the present landlords from their predecessor-in-interest. It was the case of the landlords that from 19.04.1994, the tenant had failed to pay rent despite requests and in addition that the premises were required for the purpose of re-building and re-construction and they had also instituted a similar case against the other tenant of the building, namely, M/s. Ram Dass Salig Ram. As per the landlords, the tenanted premises were old and were required for the purpose of re-building and re-construction. It was not possible to re-build and re-construct the tenanted premises without getting the same vacated from its tenants. It was further the case of the landlords that the tenanted premises besides being 90 years old in the Main Bazaar were having immense commercial value and reconstruction would increase the value and utility of the building and thereafter the same could be put to better use keeping in view its location.

(3.) The petition so filed by the landlords was resisted by the tenant inter alia on the ground that neither the building was old nor the same was required for the purpose of re-construction. It was further the case of the tenant that he had paid the rent to its previous owner Sh. S. Kuthiala up to August 1994 and thereafter the present landlords were refusing to accept the same despite the rent having been tendered by him. It was further the case of the tenant that the tenanted premises were situated in the core area of Shimla where no construction was permitted and it was incorrect that the tenanted premises were 90 years old or had outlived their life. As per the tenant, the petition had been filed with a malafide intention and the same therefore deserved dismissal.