NAND KISHORE BANSAL Vs. IDRISH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a civil revision under Section 24(5) of the H.P. Urban Rent Control Act, 1987 filed by the petitioner/landlord against the judgment, dated 13.7.2000, passed by the learned Appellate Authority (II), Sirmaur at Nahan, affirming the judgment, dated 3.7.1999, passed by the learned Rent Controller (II), Nahan, on the grounds of arrears of rent and dismissing the petition on other grounds.

(2.) BRIEFLY stated the facts of the case are that the petitioner as Landlord filed a petition for eviction of the respondents/tenants under Section 14 of the H.P. Urban Rent Control Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The premises in question were shop No. 12, ward No. 1, Mohalla Katcha Tank, Nahan. It was alleged that the premises were let out for running a shop to the respondent as single and joint tenancy but presently only respondent No. 1 is in occupation of the shop since respondent No. 2 has shifted to Chandigarh and the monthly rent was Rs. 350/ - per month w.e.f. 1.11.1987, which was increased to Rs. 400/ - after one year. The eviction of the respondents was sought on the ground that they have carried out additions and alternations in the premises without the consent of the petitioner which has resulted in closing the door of the rear wall of the shop and which was being used as access to backyard part of the shop, which is vacant land of the petitioner. It was alleged that there is no other passage through which the petitioner can have an access to the vacant part of the land comprised in Khasra No. 367. It was also pleaded that the building is required bona fide by the petitioner for the purpose of making substantial additions and alterations. It was alleged that the petitioner wants to build accommodation in the rear portion of the shop and also add one storey on the shop which cannot be undertaken without reopening the doors in the rear portion, which have been closed by the respondents and the proposed accommodation cannot be built without the premises being vacated. The petitioner alleged that he has got the building plan approved form the Municipal Committee as well as from the town and Country Planning Department. He alleged that the petitioner is presently living alongwith his family and his mother and he has been compelled to make other arrangements by his mother.

(3.) ON the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were settled by the learned trial Court :