RAM RATTAN Vs. SUNIL SOOD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner (hereinafter referred to as the ˜appellant) has filed the present revision petition under Section 24(5) of the Himachal Pradesh Urban Rent Control Act, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as the ˜Act) against the judgment dated 15.5.2009 passed by the learned Appellate Authority, Fast Track Court, Shimla in Rent Appeal No.21 -S/14 of 2008 whereby the appeal filed by the tenant has been dismissed and the order of the Rent Controller (III) Shimla dated 1.4.2008 has been upheld.

(2.) THE brief facts of the case are that respondents No.1 and 2 are the landlords. Admittedly, they are the owners of the building known as 10 Sabzi Mandi, Shimla. They filed a petition under Section 14 of the H.P Urban Rent Control Act, 1987 seeking eviction of the tenants who are running a shop and have their residence in the building in question. The main grounds for seeking eviction are that the building known as 10, Sabzi Mandi, Shimla has become unsafe and unfit for human habitation. The building is more than 80 years old and the landlords bona fide require the same for the purpose of rebuilding/reconstruction work which cannot be carried out without the premises being vacated. The tenants resisted the said petition on various grounds including the ground that earlier also a petition filed on similar grounds had been rejected and that the building was not in a dilapidated condition and was not required for reconstruction. It was however, not denied that the building is about 80 years old. The parties led evidence and thereafter, the learned Rent Controller came to the conclusion that the landlords were within their right to put the premises in question to profitable use after re -construction. He also held that the building was in a dilapidated condition and the reconstruction work was not possible without it being vacated. The petition was accordingly allowed. The tenants filed an appeal which has been rejected. Hence the present revision petition.

(3.) SH .Bimal Gupta, learned counsel for the respondents on the other hand urges that the eviction order has been passed against the other tenants of the building and now only the present petitioner is left in the building.