AJAY KUMAR Vs. SAT PAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition arises out of the judgment of the Appellate Authority dismissing the eviction petition instituted by the petitioners -landlords herein claiming eviction of the respondents -tenants on the ground of non -payment of rent and the building bonafide required for reconstruction by the landlord.

(2.) THE petitioners preferred eviction petition under Section 14(2)(1), 14(3) ( c) and 14(4) of the Himachal Pradesh Urban Rent Control Act, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as ˜the Act) on the allegations that the respondents -tenants were in arrears of rent and premises were required by the petitioners for reconstruction. The learned Rent Controller, on the settled issues held that the tenants were in arrears of rent and on the question of reconstruction, on the evidence of PW1 Ajay Kumar landlord and site plan Ext.PW1/A, it was held that the premises were required bonafide by the landlord for reconstruction purposes.

(3.) LEARNED counsel appearing for the petitioners -landlord submits that the learned Appellate Authority was in error in ignoring the evidence of lanrdlods. The bonafides of the petitioners -landlords for reconstruction were established more especially when the respondents have not stated anything to the contrary as to what had been brought on record by the evidence of PW1 Ajay Kumar, landlord, that premises were required bonafide for reconstruction. He submits that evidence of PW1 having remained unrebutted, the decree for eviction was the only logical consequence.