DES RAJ RANA Vs. SUMER NATH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant civil revision petition, stands directed against the concurrent verdicts, recorded by the learned Courts below, whereunder, on the proven ground of the apposite building, in building whereof,the demised premises exist, hence necessitating its rebuilding, and, reconstruction, (i) they proceeded to order the eviction of the tenant/petitioner herein, from, the demised premises. The tenant/petitioner herein is aggrieved therefrom, hence, has instituted, the, instant civil revision petition before this Court.

(2.) Briefly stated the facts of the case, are ,that the landlord on the strength of an application cast under the provisions of Sec. 14 of the Himachal Pradesh Rent Control Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act), had claimed the eviction of the tenant from the shop on the top floor (at Lower Bazar level) of building No. 124/1, Lower Bazar, Shimla, H.P., on the grounds that the building including the demised premises is bonafide required by the landlord for the purpose of rebuilding and reconstruction which cannot be carried out without its being vacated. It was further pleaded that the building is more than 90 years of age, and, is in dilapidated condition and has outlived its normal span of life, the landlord has sufficient funds to carry out necessary construction and reconstruction. The eviction was also claimed on the ground that the tenant without the written consent of the landlord, carried out unauthorised additions and alterations in the tenanted premises which have diminished the value and utility of the tenanted premises, as a result of which the landlord had been compelled to file civil suit No.31/1 of 2003 in the court of learned Sub Judge, Court No.5, Shimla for injunction, wherein the tenant has been directed to maintain status quo qua nature of construction till the pendency of the civil suit.

(3.) The respondent/tenant, in his reply, filed to the eviction petition, has taken preliminary objections qua maintainability, and, the petition being not properly verified. On merits, the averments made in the application were termed as wrong and incorrect. It was disputed that the first floor of the building No.124/1, Lower Bazar, Shimla, is in his occupation but has set up a case that he is in occupation of shop in building No.125/2, Lowner Bazar, Shimla. It was disputed that the building including the tenanted premises is bona fide required by the landlord for the purpose of rebuilding and reconstruction or the tenant is making unauthorized repairs, additions or alterations and on the basis of said averments, the respondent had claimed dismissal of the eviction petition.