ANIL KUMAR Vs. VIJAY KUMAR AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant Civil Revision Petition stands directed against the impugned order recorded by the learned Appellate Authority-IV, Shimla in Rent Appeal No. 37-S/14 of 2013/2011 on 11.11.2014, whereby, it reversed the verdict recorded by the learned Rent Controller, Shimla in Rent Petition No. 76-2 of 2008, whereby, the latter had partly allowed the apposite petition constituted there before by the landlords/respondents herein, wherein they sought the eviction of the petitioner herein/tenant, from the demised premises.

(2.) Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the respondents herein claimed themselves to be the owners of a four storeyed building also housing a shop having dimension of 7x8 feet situated in ground floor of the building as specifically depicted in the enclosed site plan, hereinafter referred to as demised premises, situated in Lakkar Bazar, had sought the eviction of the tenant from the demised premises on the ground that the petitioner herein/tenant has been in possession of demised premises as tenant on monthly rent of Rs.300/-, since 1.7.1998, has not paid rent thereof to them w.e.f. 01.07.1999 and that as such he is now also liable to pay statutory interest at the rate of 9% per annum thereon. Moreover, the building housing the demised premises is more than 100 years old and has outlived its life. Its wall constructed in stone and brick masonry with wooden rafters (dhajji) have plumbed. CGI sheets laid down on the roof have rusted and as a consequence, thereof, during the rainy and winter season, the water percolates therefrom into the walls and as a result thereof cracks have occurred in the walls. In fact the structure as a whole has been rendered unsafe and unfit for human habitation. Respondent is running a shop I the demised premises. In the first floor thereof, they are residing. The second floor thereof is in possession of one Sh. O.P. Sharma as tenant. The top floor which earlier was in the tenancy of Sh. O.P. Sharma, is in possession of same third person who has been unauthorisedly inducted therein as a tenant by above referred Sh. O.P. Sharma without their permission and consent. The building is situated in heart of the town and as such has vast commercial potential. They, intend to demolish the present structure and construct in place thereof a modern RCC structure with a view to exploit its commercial potentiality so as to enhance their income. To accomplish their plan, they are also going to file a separate eviction petition against above named Sh. O.P. Sharma and would also vacate their part of premises as proposed reconstruction is not feasible without vacation of the entire structure by all the occupants. They are having sufficient resources at their command to put their plan into action and in this behalf, they have also moved Municipal Corporation, Shimla for obtaining requisite permission for reconstructing a new structure on old lines. Hence, the present petition.

(3.) The petitioner herein/tenant contested the petition and filed reply thereto, wherein, he had taken preliminary objection qua malafide, maintainability, non joinder of necessary party and cause of action. On merits, he did not dispute his status as tenant in respect to the demised premises but questioned the status of the petitioners as landlord by taking the plea that they in fact are representatives of the landlord and he has been paying rent to him in that capacity. He however, did not deny the factum of arrears of rent but refuted the reasons there for. He submitted that he has been always willing to pay the arrears of rent and thus denied his liability to pay any interest there over. As regard averments with respect to reconstruction, he denied that the building has outlived its life or that it has become unsafe and unfit for human habitation. Renovation work of the ground floor as well as that of the first floor had been done in the year 1997-98 by the predecessors-in-interest of the petitioners and after the execution of the aforesaid work, the building is now in good condition. He pleaded that the petitioners are only owners to the extent of 33% and the remaining shares are owned by different owners. AS such, in the absence of the consent of the remaining owners, the petition preferred is not maintainable. Hence, he prayed for the dismissal of the petition.