Meera Devi vs Sushma Rani Aggarwal

Rajiv Sharma, J.—This revision petition is directed against the judgment dated 7.7.2014 passed by the learned Appellate Authority (III), Shimla in Rent Appeal RBT No. 28-S/13 (b) of 2013/12.

"Key facts" necessary for the adjudication of this petition are that respondent-landlady (hereinafter referred to as the "landlady" for convenience sake) filed eviction petition against the petitioners-tenants (hereinafter referred to as the "tenants" for convenience sake) seeking eviction of the tenants from double storeyed "Kucha" structure known as Narain Bhawan bearing Municipal House No. 3 comprising of two rooms in each floor with kitchen and bath room (hereinafter referred to as the "demised premises") on the ground that demised premises was initially let out by her husband to Kamal Kumar, predecessor-in-interest of the tenants and thereafter tenants succeeded his tenancy rights. Rent of demised premises was Rs. 350/- per month exclusive of taxes. Landlady has also sought eviction of the tenants on the ground that they were in arrears of rent with effect from 1.10.1998. Demised premises were 125 years old and have become unfit and unsafe for human habitation. Demised premises were required bona fide for building and rebuilding which could not be carried out without the demised premises being vacated by the tenants. Tenants have committed such acts which have impaired material value and utility of the premises. Tenants have sublet the demised premises without the consent of the landlady.

Petition was contested by the tenants. Issues were framed by the Rent Controller on 5.5.2009. Rent Controller partly allowed the petition. Landlady was held entitled to relief clause. Eviction of the tenant was also ordered from the demised premises on the ground of bona fide requirement of the premises for the purpose of building and rebuilding on 14.5.2012. Tenants feeling aggrieved by the order dated 14.5.2012 filed an appeal before the Appellate Authority. The Appellate Authority has upheld the eviction of the tenants on the ground of bona fide requirement of the landlady for the purpose of building and rebuilding. However, impugned order was modified as per final order and tenants were directed to handover the vacant possession of the demised premises within three months from the date of passing of judgment. Landlady was directed to commence the construction within the period of six months and complete the same within further period of one year after obtaining statutory permissions. Tenants were ordered to be inducted in the demised premises in terms of provisions contained under First and Second proviso to section 14(3)(c) of the H.P. Urban Rent Control Act, 1987 after one month of the construction of the building. Tenants were ordered to be re-inducted in the same place, location and area equivalent to the area which was in occupation of the tenant before passing orders by the Rent Controller. Hence, the present petition.

Mr. Sunil Mohal Goel has vehemently argued that landlady has failed to prove that demised premises were bona fide required by her for building and rebuilding of the premises. He has also contended that tenants were not in arrears of rent.

I have heard Mr. Sunil Mohal Goel at length and have perused the order and judgment passed by the authorities below.

Demised premises are located in residential area. These are located near old bus stand, Shimla. Demised premises are more than 78 years old. This fact has been admitted by Sunny Sharma, one of the tenants. Demised premises are situated in the locality which has tremendous commercial value. PW-4 B.C. Sharma, Civil Engineer has prepared the building plan Ex. PW-4/A. He has submitted the same to the Municipal Corporation, Shimla for approval. PW-5 has deposed that landlady was running a cloth business in the lower bazaar having total assets of Rs. 50-60 lakhs. He has also tendered Ex. PW-5/B copy of statement of account of the petitioner. Landlady could always raise loan from financial institutions. Demised premises cannot be rebuilt and reconstructed without demolishing the same and evicting the tenants. PW-3 L.P. Gupta has deposed that proposed reconstruction cannot be carried out without eviction of the demised premises. Landlady is in possession of sufficient means and has taken all necessary steps, like preparation of building plans etc. These have been submitted to the Municipal Corporation, Shimla. Landlady has conclusively proved that demised premises were required by her bona fide for the purpose of building and rebuilding.

As far as the plea of building and rebuilding is concerned, the landlady is not supposed to prove that building is in dilapidated condition. Landlady can always demolish the existing structure to make the building economically more viable.

Mr. Sunil Mohan Goel has vehemently argued that the building plans have not been approved and the tenants cannot be evicted.

Their Lordships of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in Hari Dass Sharma Vs. Vikas Sood and Others, , have held that under section 14(3)(c) of the H.P. Urban Rent Control Act, 1987 duly sanctioned building plan is not a condition precedent for entitlement of landlord for eviction of tenant. Their Lordships have held as under:

In fact, the only question that we have to decide in this appeal filed by the appellant is whether the High Court could have directed that only on the valid revised/renewed building plant being sanctioned by the competent authority, the order of eviction shall be available for execution. The High Court has relied on the decision of this Court in Harrington House School v. S.M. Ispahani & Anr. (supra) and we find in that case that the landlords were builders by profession and they needed the suit premises for the immediate purpose of demolition so as to construct a multi-storey complex and the tenants were running a school in the tenanted building in which about 200 students were studying and 15 members of the teaching staff and 8 members of the non-teaching staff were employed and the school was catering to the needs of children of non-resident Indians. This Court found that although the plans of the proposed construction were ready and had been tendered in evidence, the plans had not been submitted to the local authorities for approval and on these facts, R.C. Lahoti, J, writing the judgment for the Court, while refusing to interfere with the judgment of the High Court and affirming the eviction order passed by the Controller, directed that the landlords shall submit the plans of reconstruction for approval of the local authorities and only on the plans being sanctioned by the local authorities, a decree for eviction shall be available for execution and further that such sanctioned plan or approved building plan shall be produced before the executing court whereupon the executing court shall allow a reasonable time to the tenant for vacating the property and delivering the possession to the landlord and till then the tenants shall remain liable to pay charges for use and occupation of the said premises at the same rate at which they are being paid.

In the present case, on the other hand, as we have noted, the Rent Controller while determining the bona fides of the appellant-landlord has recorded the finding that the landlord had admittedly obtained the sanction from the Municipal Corporation, Shimla, and has accordingly passed the order of eviction and this order of eviction has not been disturbed either by the Appellate Authority or by the High Court as the Revision Authority. In our considered opinion, once the High Court maintained the order of eviction passed by the Controller under Section 14(4) of the Act, the tenants were obliged to give vacant possession of the building to the landlord and could only ask for reasonable time to deliver vacant possession of the building to the landlord and hence the direction of the High Court that the order of eviction could only be executed on the revised plan of the building being approved was clearly contrary to the provisions of Section 14(4) of the Act and the proviso thereto."

Learned Appellate Authority below has taken into consideration while modifying the order, First and Second proviso to section 14(3)(c) of the H.P. Urban Rent Control Act by ordering the tenants to vacate the possession of demised premises within a period of three months from the date of passing of the judgment. The landlord has been ordered to commence construction within the period of six months and complete the same within further period of one year after obtaining the statutory permissions and to re-induct the tenants after one month of the construction of the building on the same place, location and area. The Appellate Authority has modified the order strictly as per law.

Accordingly, in view of the analysis and discussion made hereinabove, there is no merit in the appeal and the same is dismissed. Tenant is now directed to handover the vacant possession to the landlady within a period of eight weeks from today. Thereafter, the landlady shall commence construction within a period of 6 months and complete the same within a period of one year after obtaining the statutory permissions. Tenant shall be re-inducted in the demised premises after one month of the construction of the building in the same place, location and area equivalent to the area which was in occupation of the tenants before the orders were passed by the Rent Controller. The rate of rent after the induction of the tenant by the landlady would be determined as per the law laid down by their Lordships of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in Syed Jameel Abbas and Others Vs. Mohd. Yamin @ Kallu Khan etc., . Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. No costs.