SITA RAM Vs. K.P. SOOD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner Sita Ram, hereinafter referred to as respondent No. 1-tenant is aggrieved by the judgment dated 17.5.2012 passed by learned District Judge (Appellate authority), Shimla under the Urban Rent Control Act, Shimla, whereby on reversal of the order dated 30.5.2011, passed by learned Rent Controller in Rent Petition No. 31/2 of 2006, the eviction petition has been allowed and the eviction of respondent No. 1-tenant ordered from the demised premises on the ground of the same required bonafidely by respondent No. 1, hereinafter referred to as the petitioner-landlord, for reconstruction and rebuilding.

(2.) The petitioner-landlord is owner of the building "Shree Niwas East", New Block, Lal Pani, Shimla. Respondent No.1-tenant is residing in the two rooms accommodation having kitchen, bathroom etc. The rent is Rs.250.00 per month inclusive of all taxes. According to the petitioner-landlord, the building is 3540 years old. He had to occupy the same along with his other members of his family after reconstruction of the same in a manner to make provision of modern amenities therein. It is not possible to do so without getting the demised premises vacated. He has already taken steps to get the plan sanctioned from the competent authority. Besides, he has sufficient resources at his own required for reconstruction of the building. The respondent No. 1-tenant is also stated to be in arrears of rent w.e.f. 1.5.2006 @ Rs.250.00 per month. On due and admissible amount towards arrears of rent, he has also claimed the interest @ 9% per annum. Since respondents No. 2 to 4 have also been shown to be owners of the building in the revenue record, hence impleaded so in the petition. The eviction of the respondent No. 1-tenant, as such, has been sought on the ground of he being in the arrears of rent and the demised premises is required for reconstruction and rebuilding.

(3.) In reply, the response of respondent No. 1-tenant is that the petition has been filed with malafide intention to harass him. The respondent No. 1-tenant is 61 years of age and suffering from various diseases. The demised premises occupied by him being ideally situated, facilitate him in his day to day life. On the other hand, the petitioner-landlord is not the only owner of the demised premises but proforma respondents No. 2 to 4 are also owners thereof. He is having huge property not only at Shimla but Delhi also where he settled for the last more than 40 years. He visits Shimla casually after the gap of 2-3 years. The demised premises is comprising of two rooms kitchen, bathroom, latrine, store and verandah. The store, however, is stated to be not in his possession and rather in the possession of respondents No. 2 and