PREM LAL. Vs. SOMA DEVI.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Revision Petition has been preferred under Section 24 (5) of the H. P. Urban Rent Control Act, 1987 (herein after referred to as the Act in short) against the order dated 18. 1. 2014 passed by learned District Judge, Shimla, exercising the powers of Appellate Authority under the Act (herein after referred to as the Appellate Authority) in Rent Appeal No. RBT No. 52-S/14 of 2013, titled a Prem Lal Vs. Anant Ram, whereby order of eviction dated 26-3 of 2010, passed by Rent Controller, Shimla in Rent Petition No. 33/1 of 2008, titled Anant Ram Vs. Prem Lal, has been upheld with slight modification by removing the condition of production of construction plan for eviction and inserting option of re-entry to respondent/tenant, as per provisions of Section 14(3)(c) of the Act.

(2.) Petitioner herein is tenant and respondent is landlady and hereinafter they have been referred as tenant and landlord/landlady respectively.

(3.) Originally landlord Anant Ram had filed a petition for eviction of Prem Lal tenant and after his death, during pendency of petition, his wife Soma Devi is pursuing the eviction proceedings. Landlord/landlady is seeking eviction of tenant from the demised premises rented to him, being used for non-residential purposes, on the ground that the said premises is bonafide required by landlord for the purpose of building/rebuilding/making substantial addition and alterations, particularly in the ground floor for the purpose of parking of his own vehicle and such addition/alteration cannot be carried out in the premises without vacation of the said premises by the tenant, with further plea that landlord being a senior citizen is in dire need/necessity of the premises for parking of his vehicle, particularly on account of recent policy of Government necessitating for parking in each house and also for incidents of car theft parked outside the house.