GIAN CHAND AND SONS Vs. JOGINDER KAUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioners, who are tenants, after having suffered an order of eviction at the hands of learned Rent Controller as affirmed by learned appellate Authority, has approached this Court in the instant proceedings filed under Section 24 of the H.P. Urban Rent Control Act, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'). For clarity of facts, parties shall be referred to as the "landlady" and the "tenants".

(2.) For having bird's eye view, necessary facts as emerge from the record are that the landlady filed an eviction petition under Section 14 of the Act, seeking eviction of tenants from the tenanted premises known as Building No.88/2, The Mall, Shimla, comprising of one room, having been let out on annual rent of Rs.85/-, as per Municipal record. Landlady averred in the petition that building being 100 years old and in dilapidated condition, requires immediate reconstruction. Landlady also averred that tenants have not paid the rent of the premises in his occupation since the date the building as a whole was purchased by her and as such they are in arrears of rent. Landlady also averred that building in dispute is of an old style and she bonafidely requires the same for reconstruction after its demolition, but, such reconstruction cannot be carried out without the premises being vacated. Landlady also averred that the building is three storeyed, out of which the top floor is in her occupation and the floor below the same is in the occupation of another tenant, against whom she is also filing a separate petition for ejectment. Landlady claimed before the Court below that she wants to reconstruct the building as per modern construction and with modern facilities for which she has got sufficient funds. Landlady averred before the Court below that after reconstruction she requires the premises for her own use and occupation and the occupation of her family. She claimed before the Rent Controller that she is residing in rented accommodation as she does not own any other building in Shimla nor has she got vacated any such premises owned by her without sufficient cause within five years before filing of the present petition. Landlady also averred that tenants have removed a common wall between the properties No.87/2 owned by them and 88/2, which has materially impaired the value and utility of the premises, which is more than 100 years old.

(3.) The aforesaid petition came to be resisted and contested by the tenants on various grounds inter alia maintainability and cause of action. On merits, tenants submitted that M/s Gian Chand and Sons, a partnership firm consisting of respondents No.2 and 3, is in possession of premises in question on annual rent of Rs.94/-. Tenants further submitted that property was originally owned by Musmmat Deva Trust and was managed by one Shri Rajeshwar Prasad, as a Trustee, who vide his letter dated 12.12.1995 informed tenant-respondent No.l that rent of the building is now to be paid to one Shri Om Prakash Kochhar, Resident of 125, Staff Road, Ambala Cantt, Haryana. Whereafter, in the year 1997, one person, namely; Shri Vivek Sharma informed tenant-respondent No.l that he had purchased the property in question from Musmmat Deva Trust and he has further sold it to the respondent-landlady. Tenants claimed that they used to deposit the rent in the bank account No.4843 in the Bank of India. Tenants denied that the building was residential in nature and that they have removed any common wall in between properties No.87/2 and 88/2, The Mall, Shimla, Tenants also denied that building in question has outlived its life or it is more than 100 years old and its reconstruction cannot be done without its being vacated. Tenants also denied that they are in arrears of rent and the premises in question is bonafidely required by the landlady for her use and occupation. Tenants claimed that there is no provision for toilet or kitchen etc. in the tenanted premises and it cannot be said that the premises in question is bonafidely required by the landlady for her use and occupation. Tenants specifically submitted before the Court below that there is no common wall between buildings No.88/2 and 87/2, The Mall, Shimla.