Kuldip Kumar Sharma vs Nirmal Chandel

A.L. Vaidya, J.—The demised premises consisted of one residential set in the ground floor of Brighten Villa, Cart Road, Shiml a, having two rooms and a kitchen-cum-bath. Respondent happens to be land-lady and the present Petitioner as a tenant under her of the demised premises. A petition u/s 14 of the H.P. Urban Rent Control Act, 1987 (hereinafter to be called as '' the Act) for eviction of the tenant was preferred basically on two grounds, namely, that the Petitioner requires the premises in question bonafide for the purpose of re-building and re-construction and that the said rebuilding and reconstruction cannot be carried out without the premises in question being vacated and that the tenant-Respondent was in arrears of rent.

This petition was contested by the tenant-Respondent and various legal objections were raised. However, on merit case of the land-lady/Petitioner was not admitted.

The learned Rent Controller, framed the following issues, which arose out of the pleadings of the parties:

Whether the premises in question are bonafide required by the Petitioner for re-building and re-construction which cannot be carried out without the premises being vacated ? O.P.P.

Whether the Respondent is in arrears of rent? If so, to what extent? O.P.P.

Whether the petition is malafida as alleged? O.P.R.

Whether the petition is barred by principle of res-judicata ? O.P.R.

Whether the Petitioner has withheld water supply to the premises? If so, to what effect? O.P.R.

Relief.

The learned Rent Controller decided issues No. 1 and 2 in favour of the land-lady/Petitioner while remaining issue in the negative and the petition was allowed.

The aforesaid eviction order was assailed before the Appellate Authority which after hearing the parties, dismissed the appeal and maintained the order of eviction, passed by the learned Rent Controller.

The aforesaid order has been assailed in the present revision petition on various pleas.

I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and have also scrutinised the entire record.

At the very out set, an objection has been raised on behalf of the land-lady that the revisional powers of the High Court under the provisions of the Act do not allow the interference of the orders passed by two forums below where the findings are of concurrent nature. it may not be disputed that the revisional powers, under the Act, are wider one than provided u/s 115 CPC However, this aspect of the mater has been dealt with by the Apex Court and by this Court also, in Civil Revision No. 272 of 1994, Mohinder Kumar Joshi v. Kali Ram, decided on 20th October 1995 (ILR 1995 11 HP 3006). After appreciating the law laid down by various courts in this behalf , this Court made the following observations:

In Section 24(5) of the Himachal Pradesh Urban Rent Control Act, 1987, the same expression " legality or propriety of such orders of proceedings" has been used and, therefore, I may now sum up the powers of this Court in exercising revisional jurisdiction in view of the above ratio laid down by the apex court. The revisional powers of this Court under the H.P. Urban Rent Control Act, 1987 , is wider than the powers u/s 115 CPC , which is confined to jurisdiction. High Court can interfere with the concurrent findings of fact while exercising the revisional powers, but before doing so the court shall have to record its satisfaction that the concurrent findings recorded by two courts below are perverse and erroneous which manifestly appear to be unjust.

In 1994(2) Sim.L.C. 184 , State of H.P. v. Satwant Singh Kochhar, this Court again held that where the concurrent findings are recorded by the two authorities below and which are based upon relevant material on record, those findings cannot be reversed by this Court while hearing a revision under the provisions of the Act. In Rajbir Kaur and Another Vs. S. Chokesiri and Co., and in Lachhman Dass v. Santokh Singh 1995 (4) SCC 201 also supports the aforesaid ratio laid down in the case, referred earlier, decided by this Court.

This Court has been taken through the evidence recorded by the learned Rent Controller. The evidence so examined and appreciated by two forums cannot be said to be perverse and erroneous on any ground whatsoever and this Court shall have no occasion to interfere with those findings.

The sole point stressed before this Court has been pertaining to the subject matter of Issue No. 1.

There is no dispute to the proposition that the land-lady in order to secure the eviction of the tenant has at the first instance to plead her ground for eviction in the petition, which in the present case, the Petitioner/ land-lady pleaded as under:

That the Petitioner requires the premises in question bonafide for the purposes of re-building and re-construction. The said re-building and re-construction cannot be carried out without the premises in question being vacated.

The Petitioner has got a plan sanctioned from the Municipal Corporation for the purposes of re-building and re-construction. The Petitioner has sufficient funds to carry out the re-building and re-construction work. The entire building in which the premises in question is situated has to be re-constructed and re-built by the Petitioner.

Both the forums below have appreciated the evidence in order to come to the conclusion that the land-lady requires the premises bonafide for re-construction and that re-construction could not be done without vacating the premises.

It has been very forcefully contended on behalf of the Petitioner that the expert evidence examined before the Rent Controller, no where specifically opined that without the vacation of the demised premises, re-construction could not be effected. The report submitted by the expert is an opinion which has to be appreciated in the background of the material brought on record.

It has come in the evidence that the land-lady has got a plan sanctioned from the urban authorities. There is also evidence on record reflecting financial condition of the land-lady and her husband. Evidence on record also established that 75* of the re-construction has been completed and only the demised premises required to be re-constructed, as per plan. The expert examined on behalf of the tenant Sh. R.B. Saxena (RW-2) no doubt stated that the demised premises without being dismantled and without being vacated by the tenant could be re-constructed.

As referred earlier and not disputed by the tenant that 75% re-construction has been completed and only the demised premises is required to be re-constructed, as per plan. The demised premises consisted of a set, already detailed earlier. There is nothing in the statement of the expert and in the evidence examined by the tenant, as to how this re-construction could be there without the tenant having vacating the demised premises. Admittedly, bonafide requirement for re-construction is clearly established by the land-lady and in compliance thereto 75% of the construction has already been completed.

The tenant-Respondent no doubt stated in that the land-lady also raised this re-construction while remaining in the building itself. Apart from the statement of the tenant-Respondent, there is no evidence to that effect. Even if for arguments sake it is believed that the land-lady was having more area in her occupation than the demised premises and re-construction could be so arranged in a phased manner, but her proposed re-construction could not at all be taken in hand without the demised premises having been vacated inasmuch as re-construction if taken in hand will definitely cause damage to the tenant and his articles. His entire luggage has to be shifted especially when, re-construction as per plan sanctioned has to be; carried out. This Court does not find any occasion whatsoever to interfere with the concurrent findings of the two forums below.

Some case law has been cited on behalf of the Petitioner. Those cases are 1994 (1) Sim.L.C. 171, Sham Singh Mehra v. Mastan Singh and Ors.; 1993 (1) RCR 189 Mohan Lal v. Sada Nand ; 1994 (Suppl) Sim.L.C. 87 Amro Devi Vs. Ajay Kumar Sood, Amro Devi v. Ajay Kumar Sood. All the aforesaid cited cases will not be of any help to the case of the Petitioner inasmuch on factual side all these differ and ratio decided therein is not disputed at all. The case law in the background of the facts and circumstances in a particular case have to be made applicable.

No other point has been stressed.

In view of the foregoing reasons, the present revision petition fails and being devoid of any merit, is accordingly dismissed with costs.