RIKHI RAM Vs. LAJWANTI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is the tenant's petition filed under Section 24 (5) of the H.P. Urban Rent Control Act, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), assailing the order dated 23.12.2003 passed by the Appellate Authority, Shimla, H.P., in CMA No.73-S/14 of 2003/2001, whereby the order dated 31.5.2001 passed by the Rent Controller, Shimla, H.P., in Rent Case No. 39/2 of 1998, titled as Smt. Lajwanti vs. Shri Rikhi Ram stands affirmed. The Authorities below, while allowing the landlady's petition for eviction filed under Section 14 of the Act, have concurrently held that the tenanted premises are bonafidely required by her (i) for her use and occupation alongwith her other family members and (ii) for reconstruction which cannot be carried out without the premises being vacated. Whether the reporters of Local Papers are allowed to see the Judgment.

(2.) The petitioner herein is referred to as the tenant and the respondent is referred to as the landlady. The landlady filed a petition for eviction of the tenant from the tenanted premises comprising two rooms, described as Shop No.18, Kaithu, Shimla-3, on the ground that the old "stone walls" are required to be replaced as per the plans sanctioned by the municipal authorities vide sanction order dated 4.2.1998" and the re-construction cannot be carried out without the premises being vacated. Her husband having been retired as a Peon was possessed with sufficient funds to carry out the reconstruction. Further the landlady bonafidely required the building for her own use and occupation as also use and occupation of her family members, comprising herself, her husband, two married sons and school going grand-children. The total accommodation available with her comprising of two rooms, an improvised kitchen cum bath room is insufficient. She neither possesses nor owns any other residential accommodation within the municipal area of Shimla. She has also not vacated any such accommodation within 5 years prior to the filing of the petition. The landlady requires one bed room for herself, one bed room for her son, who is residing with her and one guest room cum study room for her grand-children. Her other son, who lives at Mehalli occasionally visits her and, therefore, space for accommodating him is also required. In reply, the tenant admitted the premises to be residential in nature, but denied personal bonafide requirement of the landlady and that construction could not be carried out without the premises being vacated by him.

(3.) On the pleadings of the parties, the Rent Controller framed the following issues:-