RANVEER MALHOTRA Vs. DAYAWANT SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant petition, stands, directed by the petitioner/tenant against the concurrent verdicts pronounced by the learned Rent Controller, Court No.6, Shimla, and, by the learned Appellate Authority, Shimla, respectively, upon Rent Petition No. 47/2 of 2007, and, upon Civil Misc. Appeal No. 64-S/14 of 2009, whereunder, the eviction of the tenants, from the demised premises, was hence ordered.

(2.) Briefly stated the facts of the case, are ,that the respondent herein/landlord, had claimed eviction of the petitioners/tenants from one big room, one small room, one glazed verandaha, Kitchen along with unauthorized construction in ground floor, Set No.2, Kethi, Chor View, Sanjauli, Shimla-6, on the grounds that the tenanted premises is bona fide required by the landlord for the purpose of rebuilding on old lines which cannot be done without its being vacated by the tenants, the building in question was constructed almost 100 years ago, and, it has no outlived its original span of life. The upper floor of the building is under the tenancy of Shayam Lal against whom the eviction application had already been filed. It is averred that the landlord intends to reconstruct and rebuild the entire building known as Chor View by puling down the existing old structure which is more than 100 years and is made of Dhajji and bricks walls, he has got the sufficient amounts to reconstruct the building and for such reconstruction, he is taking steps for approval of the plans on old lines and on the basis of said averments, the landlord has claimed eviction of the tenants.

(3.) The tenants/petitioners herein filed contested the petition by filing the reply, wherein, they have taken preliminary objections qua maintainability etc. On merits, the tenants refuted that the tenanted premises is used by the sub tenants and claimed that the tenanted premises were taken by one tenant Ranvir Malhotra along with sister Sarla, who has since expired and tenant Parmod Anand is widow of son of Smt. Sarla, who too has expired and that the tenanted premises are occupied by both the tenants in their capacity as tenants, and, none has left the same permanently. It was pleaded that the landlord has suppressed the fact that some of the portion of the building has been sold by him to the tenants, and, such tenants have become exclusive owners of their respective sets in question. It has been pleaded that the entire structure of the building "Chor View" is interconnected and depending upon the side wall of other sets, the rebuilding of entire structure is not possible unless the owners of adjoining sets having exclusive rights of their own sets vacate the same. The flooring of the building is also of wooden with the wooden planks interlinking each other to provide stability to entire structure and any attempt to remove the same will result in collapse of entire structure including the portion owned by other owners. It has been pleaded that the application has been filed with malafide intention and ulterior motive to harass the tenants.