SATYA PAL Vs. TIKA RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HAVING lost in both the Courts below, landlord has filed this revision petition.

(2.) THE ejectment of the respondent-tenant was sought by the petitioner under Section 14(3)(c) of the Himachal Pradesh Urban Rent Control Act, 1987 and it is pleaded in para 18(a) of the ejectment petition that the premises in dispute are in very dilapidated condition and have outlived its life and utility. It is also said that the building as a whole including the premises in dispute have become unfit and unsafe for human habitation and the petitioner bona fide requires it for carrying out necessary repairs, additions, alterations and re-construction work which cannot be carried out without getting the premises vacated.

(3.) UNDER the provisions referred to above, the premises can be got vacated if the same has became unsafe or unfit for human habitation. It can be further got vacated if it is established that the landlord bona fide requires it for carrying out repairs which cannot be carried out without the building or rented land vacated. There is another ground on which the landlord can get the premises vacated and that is when these are required bona fide by him for the purpose of building or re-building or making thereto any substantial additions or alterations and that such building or re-building or additions or alterations cannot be carried out without getting the building or rented land vacated.