PYARE LAL SOOD Vs. VIVEK SHARMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is tenants revision preferred under Section 24(5) of the Himachal Pradesh Urban Rent Control Act, 1987 against the judgment dated 5.11.2007 passed by the learned Appellate Authority, Shimla in the Civil Misc. Appeal No. 34 -S/14 of 2007.

(2.) BRIEF facts necessary for the adjudication of this petition are that the respondent -landlord (hereinafter referred to as ˜the landlord for convenience sake) filed eviction petition against the petitioner -tenant (hereinafter referred to as ˜the tenant for convenience sake) on the ground that the premises in question are bonafidely required by him for his personal use and occupation. It is also averred that the landlord was not occupying any other residential building/accommodation and has not vacated such building within five years of the filing of the application for eviction. The landlord is a lawyer by profession and he required at least two living rooms for his and for occupation of his family members and one room for guests and office. It is further averred that the tenant after the commencement of the Himachal Pradesh Urban Rent Control Act, 1987 has ceased to occupy the premises in question continuously for a period of 12 months without any reasonable cause It is also averred that the tenant has left the premises long back and had shifted to his building at 98, lower Bazar Shimla and had been residing there. It is averred that the tenant without the consent of the landlord has carried out material addition and alterations in the premises in question, which acts of the tenant materially impaired the value and utility of the premises in question. The landlord had purchased the property in question with his two brothers from its previous owner vide sale deed No. 281 dated 14.8.1997. The tenant had inherited the tenancy rights from Sh. Kirpa Ram Sood after his death. The application was contested by the tenant by filing a written reply. The preliminary objection was raised that the application was not maintainable and the same was filed with mala fide intention and the same was also not verified in accordance with law. The Rent Controller had framed the following issues :

(3.) THE landlord and tenant filed separate appeals before the Appellate Authority, Shimla. The tenant had assailed issue No. 3 before the Appellate Authority which was decided against him. The appeal preferred by the tenant was assigned Civil Misc. Appeal No. 26 -S/14 of 2007. The landlord has assailed the finding on issue No. 1 primarily and his appeal was assigned Civil Misc. Appeal No. 34 -S/14 of 2007. The learned Appellate Authority has framed the following points for determination :