AMARJEET SINGH Vs. ANJU RANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is tenant's revision against the order passed by Shri Janeshwar Goyal, Appellate Authority- I, Sirmour District at Nahan. By means of impugned judgment dated 2-7-1996 in Rent Appeal No. 13-N / 14 of 1994, the appellate authority below has upheld the order of ejectment passed by Rent Controller-II, Paonta Sahib. District Sirmour in Rent Petition No, 3/2 of 1993 dated 27- 10-1994.

(2.) Respondent (hereinafter referred to as 'the landlady') had filed an ejectment petition under S. 14(3)(c) of the Himachal Pradesh Urban Rent Control Act 1987, ( hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') for ejectment of the respondent on the ground that the premises (shop) in question is in a very old condition / construction, roof whereof is not 'pukka' one and it rests on the wooden rafters, the walls of the shop were also of 'Kachha' nature and the floor of the shop is on higher leve1 than the floor of the shops in the vicinity, as such the premises were bona fide recruited by her for reconstruction / construction which cannot be carried out without ejectment of the tenant. The respondent was stated to be in arrears of rent of the premises in question from the date of its purchase i. e. 24-12-1991 and rent at the rate of RS. 200 /- p.m. total arrears amounting to Rupees 3380 /- was claimed.

(3.) This petition was resisted and contested by the tenant who pleaded that the rent was initially Rs.100 /- but was increased up to Rs.190 /- and thus, it was pleaded that the rent is Rs. 190 /- and not as claimed by the landlady in respect of the premises in question. Plea of the petitioner regarding the requirement of the premises for bona fide construction / reconstruction was also repudiated and it was further pleaded that since the premises are non-residential, as such the plea of bona fide requirement is not open to the landlady under the Act. It was further pleaded that the petition is mala fide and the construction/ reconstruction can be carried out without the premises being vacated by the tenant. Regarding rent, it was pleaded that the landlady herself had refused to accept the rent, not only this, but she had also got the electricity supply disconnected to the premises in question with a view to pressurise the tenant to vacate the premises in question. Another ground pleaded was that the present petition is not maintainable, as the previous landlady-Krishna had it led petition for ejectment which was dismissed on 31-12-1989 and thus, the petition is hit by the principles of res judicata in view of the bar of S. 18 under the Act. In the rejoinder filed by the landlady, the case set up by the tenant was controverted and the pleas raised in the ejectment petition were reiterated. The premises in question are identified bearing shop No. 72(1), situate in Ward No. 6 at Paonta Sahib, District Sirmour.