ORDER
V.P. Gupta, J.
1. Feeling aggrieved from the order dated 7th Nov. 1981 of the District Judge, Mandi (Appellate Authority under the H.P. Rent Control Act, 1971), the petitioners (hereinafter 'tenants') have filed the present revision petition.
2. Briefly, the facts are that the respondents (hereinafter 'landlords') are the owners of a shop (non-residential premises) No. 193/7, Ward No. 7, Bhoot-Nath Bazaar, Mandi Town, comprised in Khata Khalauni No. 44 min/81, Khasra No. 1614, measuring 40-38 square meters, muhal samkhaitar, Mandi Town. The tenants are in occupation of the premises at a monthly rent of Rs. 40/-.
3. The landlords filed an eviction petition under Section 14 of the H.P. Urban Rent Control Act, 1971 (hereinafter the 'Act') before Rent Controller, Mandi, on 10th of Sept. 1974, seeking eviction of the tenants on the grounds that the premises in dispute were very old, having outlived its life and had become unsafe for human habitation due to its age. The second ground was that 'the premises were required by the landlords bonafidely for purposes of rebuilding for which a plan had since been approved by the Municipal Committee, Mandi, vide resolution No. 1193/13, dated 16-3-1974. The rebuilding could not be carried out without getting the premises vacated. The tenants were served with a notice on 10-6-1974, but they failed to vacate the premises.
4. The tenants contested the eviction petition and alleged that the premises were taken on rent about 35 years back at Rs. 4/-per month. Subsequently the rent was enhanced to Rs. 40/- per month. They alleged that the building had not become unsafe or unfit for human habitation and the landlords did not require the building bonafidely for rebuilding. The approval of the plan by the Municipal Committee was only a pretext and the landlords only wanted enhancement of rent. The rebuilding was possible without getting the premises vacated. It was alleged that both the floors were with the tenants and the construction of the proposed building would in no manner be of any use or benefit to the landlords who would not be able to use the ground floor or first floor. The second floor under the proposed plan could only be used by tenants who occupy the ground and the first floors. The claim of the landlords was denied and it was alleged that the eviction petition had been filed with mala fide intentions.
5. Upon the pleadings of the parties, the Rent Controller framed the following issues on 21-5-1975 -
1. Whether the premises in question had outlived its life and have become unsafe for human habitation? OPP.
2. Whether the petitioners bonafidely require the premises for rebuilding the same? OPP.
3. If issue No. 2 is decided in favour of the petitioner, whether such rebuilding cannot be carried without getting the premises vacated? OPP.
4. Relief.
6. The parties led their evidence and after: appreciating the evidence, the Rent Controllerdecided issue No. 1 against the landlords butissues Nos. 2 and 3 were decided in favour ofthe landlords. As a result of the findings onthe various issues, the Rent Controller, by hisorder dated 15th of May, 1981 allowed theeviction petition of the landlords and gavetime till 15th of June; 1981 to the tenants tovacate the premises.
7. Feeling aggrieved from the order of the Rent Controller, the tenants filed an appeal No. 24 of 1981 before the District Judge, Mandi (Appellate Authority under the Act), but the learned District Judge by his order dated 7-11-1981 dismissed the appeal and affirmed the findings of the Rent Controller. The tenants were, however, given one month's time to vacate the disputed premises.
8. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. The learned counsel for the tenants contended that the claim of the landlords was not bona fide and the condition of the disputed premises was quite good. He contended that the disputed premises was not unfit or unsafe for human habitation and, as such, the claim of the landlords for rebuilding could not be considered to be a bona fide claim. Judgments (1979) 2 Rent LR 161 : (AIR 1979 SC 1559) (Metalware & Co. v. Bansi Lal Sharma) AIR 1971 SC 942 (Panchmal Narayana Shenoy v. Basthi Venkatesha Shenoy) and AIR 1963 SC 499 (NetaRamv.Jiwan Lal) were relied upon and it was contended that the intent and purpose of the Act was to safeguard the interests of the tenants. It was contended that in the present case the building had not been proved to be unsafe for human habitation and, therefore, it could not be said that the I landlords required the building bona fide for rebuilding.
9. The learned counsel for the respondents contended that the Rent Controller and the Appellate Authprity had given concurrent findings on facts and these concurrent findings required no interference at the revisional stage. It was contended that under the provisions of the Act the landlords could get the building vacated for the purposes of rebuilding, provided, the requirement of the landlords was bona fide, and in the present case the landlords had proved that their requirement for rebuilding was bona fide because the building was quite old and required demolition.
10. I have considered the contentions of the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the records of the case,
11. The learned Rent Controller and theDistrict Judge after appreciating the evidencehave found that the premises in question isabout sixty years old and the same is not upto the marks oratleast as good as the modernconstruction. It was held that by the proposedplan the landlords wanted to make a multi-storeyed building, which would be moreprofitable to them, and the new constructionwas not possible without getting the tenantsevicted. These findings were given on theevidence of S/Shri Nand Lal (PW-1), Hem'Chand (PW-2), Bhoop Singh (PW-3) andNarinder Kumar (PW-4) and Netra Nand,respondent (RW-1). The respondents'witnesses S/Shri Y.B. Kumar (RW-3) andBhagat Ram (RW-4) also supported theversion that the building was more than thirtyyears old, and Shri S.L. Julka (RW-5) alsostated that the premises in dispute was oldthat but less than 100 years, and for theproposed new construction, the old walls hadto be demolished.
12. From the evidence which has been discussed in detail by the Rent Controller and the District Judge, it is proved that the disputed premises is an old single-storeyed construction built more than sixty years back. No repairs were effected in these premises and the premises are of mud-masonary, the flooring being of Chakas and the roofing of slates. Some portions of the walls are in mud-plaster and at some places there is cement plaster. It is also proved that the landlords have finances for re-constructing the disputed premises and they can afford to rebuild the premises by demolishing the old structure. Such rebuilding cannot be carried out without getting the premises vacated.
13. The present premises is also not a modern construction. These factual findings are based upon proper appreciation of the evidence, and there are no grounds to differ with these findings. The sole question for decision in this revision is as to whether the claim of the landlords for rebuilding is bona fide or not. The relevant portions of Section 14 of the Act read as follows : --
'14. Eviction of tenants.-- (1) A tenant in possession of a building or rented land shall not be evicted therefrom in execution of a decree passed before or after the commencement of this Act or otherwise and whether before or after the termination of the tenancy, except in accordance with the provisions of this section.
(2)........................
(3) (a) A landlord may apply to the Controller for an order directing the tenant to put the landlord in possession-
(i) and(ii)......................
(iii) In the case of any building or rented land, if he requires it to carry out any building work at the instance of the Government or local authority or any Improvement Trust under some improvement or development scheme or if it has become unsafe or unfit for human habitation or is required bona fide by him for carrying out repairs which cannot be carried out without the building or rented land being vacated or that the building or rented land are required bona fide by him for the purpose of building or re-building or making thereto any substantial additions or alterations and that such building or rebuilding or addition or alteration cannot be carried out without the building or rented land being vacated.
(iv)..........................
(b) The Controller shall, if he is satisfied that the claim of the landlord is bona fide, make an order directing the tenant to put the landlord in possession of the building or rented land on such date as may be specified by the Controller and if the Controller is not so satisfied, he shall make, an order rejecting the application;
Provided that the Controller may give the tenant a reasonable time for putting the landlord in possession of the building or rented land and may extend such time so as not to exceed three months in aggregate.
(c)...,..............,.....
(4) Where a landlord who has obtained possession of building or rented land in pursuance of an order under Sub-section (3) does not himself occupy it or, if possession was obtained by him for his family in pursuance of an order............. or where a landlord who has obtained possession of a building under Sub-clause (iii) of the aforesaid clause (a) puts that building to any use or lets it out to any tenant other than the tenant evicted from it, the tenant who has been evicted may apply to the Controller for an order directing that he shall be restored to possession of such building or rented land and the Controller shall make an order accordingly.
(5)........,,...................'
14. A reading of the various clauses shows that the eviction of a tenant can only be ordered if the claim of the landlord is bona fide. Further, if the landlord obtains the possession on the ground of rebuilding the premises under Section 14(3)(a)(iii) of the Act, and instead of carrying the rebuilding work he puts the building to any use or lets it out to any tenant other than the tenant evicted from it then the evicted tenant has a right to apply to the Controller, and the Controller is required to pass an order directing the landlord to restore the possession of the building to the evicted tenant.
15. The intention of the Act is to safeguard interest of the tenants and only allow such eviction applications of the landlords which are filed on bona fide requirements. A further safeguard is also provided to the tenants in cases of landlords where they obtain possession on the grounds that they require the building bond fide for the purpose of rebuilding but do not utilise the building after eviction of the tenant for that purpose then in that case the landlords are to restore the possession of the building to the evicted tenants.
16. In AIR 1963 SC 499 (Neta Ram v. Jiwan Lal) Jiwan Lal (landlord) filed an application for eviction of Neta Ram and others (five tenants) under Section 13 of Patiafa and East Punjab States Union Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance (8 of 2006 BK). The grounds for eviction were (a) non-payment of rent, (b) non-payment of house tax, and (c) that the shops were in a stale of great disrepair and were dilapidated, and the landlord wished to re-build them after dismantling the structure. The Rent Controller dismissed the application of the landlord on the ground that the claim of the landlord was not bona fide and he had no means to rebuild the premises. The Appellate Authority also affirmed these findings of the Rent Controller. The landlord filed a revision petition in the High Court and a learned single Judge of the High Court held that the actual conditionof the premises was a wholly irrelevant factor and that the landlord required the building genuinely and bona fide. The High Court ordered the eviction of the tenant. The tenants feeling dissatisfied, filed an appeal in the Supreme Court and the Supreme Court observed as follows in para 8 of the judgment : --
'The Controller has to be satisfied about the genuineness of the claim. To reach this conclusion, obviously the Controller must be satisfied about the reality of the claim made by the landlord, and this can only be established by looking at all the surrounding circumstances, such as the condition of the building its situation, the possibility of its being put to a more profitable use after construction, the means of the landlord and as on. It is not enough that the landlord comes forward and says that he entertains a particular intention, however strongly, said to be entertained by him. The clause speaks not of the bona fides of the landlord, but says on the other hand, that the claim of the landlord that he requires the building for reconstruction and re-erection must be bona fide, that is to say, honest in the circumstances. It is impossible, therefore, to hold that the investigation by the Controller should be confined only to the existence of an intention in the mind of the landlord to reconstruct. This intention must be honestly held in relation to the surrounding circumstances.'
17. The learned Judges of the Supreme Court have held that the intention of the landlord for re-building should be an honest intention in relation to the surrounding circumstances.
18. In AIR 1971 SC 942 (Panchamal Narayana Shenoy v. Basthi Venkatesha Shenoy), Basthi Venkatesha Shenoy, (landlord) filed an application for eviction under the Mysore Rent Control Act, 1961, on the ground that the premises were reasonably and bona fide required by him for the immediate purpose of demolishing and re-erecting of a new building. It was alleged that the premises were old and were not suitable for continued occupation. This eviction application was contested by M/s. Panchamal Narayana Shenoy (tenant). The Rent Controller ordered the eviction of the tenant after holding that the building was more than fifty years old and was old fashioned. The claim of the landlord was bona fide and reasonable and he had sufficient means to construct the new building. On appeal, the District Judge also confirmed the findings of the Rent Controller and a revision petition filed in the High Court was also rejected. On appeal by the tenant in the Supreme Court, the learned Judges of the Supreme Court observed as follows in paras 11 to 13 of the judgment: --
'11. The proviso to Section 21(1) enumerates the various circumstances under which a landlord may seek to recover possession of the property from his tenant. The requirement contemplated under Clause(j) of the proviso to Sub-section (1) is that of the landlord and it does not have any reference to the condition of the building as such. What is necessary under that clause is that the landlord must satisfy the Court that he reasonably and bona fide requires the premises for the immediate purpose of demolishing it and the demolition is for the purpose of erecting a new building in the place of the old one. No doubt, as to whether the landlord's requirement is reasonable and bona fide has to be judged by the surrounding circumstances which will include his means for reconstruction of the_ building, and other steps taken by him in that regard
12. In considering the reasonable and bona fide requirement of the landlord under this clause, the desire of the landlord to put the property to a rnore profitable use after demolition and reconstruction is also a factor that may be taken into account in favour of the landlord. In our opinion, it is not necessary that the landlord should go further and establish under this_clause that_the condition of the building is that it requires immediate demolition. That the condition of the property may be such which requires immediate demolition is emphasised in Clause (k) of the proviso. When such a specific provision has been made in Clause (k), the condition of the building cannot come into the picture nor could it have been dealt with again in Clause (j). So the requirement under Clause (j) is that of the landlord and cannot have any reference to the building.
13. This Court, in Neta Ram v. Jiwan Lal, (1962) Supp 2 SCR 623 : AIR 1963 SC 499 in interpreting no doubt a slight differently worded provision in Section 13(3)(a)(iii) of the Patiala and East Punjab States Union Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 2006 B.K. (8 of 2006BK) held that one of the circumstances which could be taken into account in considering the requirements of the landlord with reference to the existing building is the possibility of its being put to a more profitable use after construction, In the case before us all the Courts have concurrently held that the requirement of the landlord is reasonable and bona fide and that he had obtained the necessary sanction from the municipality concerned and that the landlord had also the means for reconstruction of the building. If the landlord does not commence demolition of the premises within the period specified in the order of the Court, the tenant is given a right under Section 26(1) to issue a notice to the landlord of his intention to occupy the premises from which he had been evicted and also to apply to the Court for relief if the landlord does not comply with his request. Again under Section 27, the tenant has got a right to occupy the new building on its completion provided he satisfies the requirements contained in that section. Under Section 28(1), the landlord is bound to intimate the tenant from whom he had received a notice under Section 27 the date on which the erection of the new building will be completed from which date the tenant will be entitled to occupy the same.
This judgment lays down that the Court has only to find out if the requirement of the landlord is bona fide in view of the surrounding circumstances.
19. In (1979) 2 Rent LR 161 : (AIR 1979 SC 1559), (Metal ware & Co. v. Bansilal Sharma) the Metalware & Co. were tenants of the premises which were purchased by Bansilal Sharma (landlord) in the year 1975. Applications for eviction of the tenants were filed by the landlord on the ground that the building was old and dilapidated which required immediate demolition and reconstruction, and they bona fide required it for the said purpose for their occupation. It was alleged that the landlords were possessed of sufficient means to undertake the demolition and reconstruction and had applied for the sanctioning of the plan. The Rent Controller allowed the application after holding that the landlord had sufficient means to undertake the demolition and reconstruction, and had got their plans approved by the Municipal Corporation. It was held that the landlords had an honest intention to demolish the existing structure and to reconstruct another on that site. No definite finding was given on the question as to whether the building was in dilapidated condition and required immediate demolition and reconstruction, and the Rent Controller took the view that it was not always essential to prove that the building was decrepit before an application for possession could be made under Section 14( l)(b) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 18 of 1960 as amended by Act 23 of 1973), and that the landlord had a right to demolish his property in order to build a new structure on the site with a view to improve his business or get better returns out of investments and that the landlords had purchased the building for reconstruction after the demolition. The appellate authority dismissed the appeal and affirmed the findings of the Rent Controller. A revision was filed in the High Court which was also dismissed. The tenant filed an appeal in the Supreme Court and the Supreme Court observed in para 6 of the judgment as follows :--
'It cannot be disputed that the phrase used in Section 14(l)(b) of the Act is 'the building is bona fide required by the landlord' for the immediate purpose of demolition and reconstruction and the same clearly refers to the bona fide requirement of the landlord; it is also true that the requirement in terms is not that the building should need immediate demolition and reconstruction. But we fail to appreciate how the state or condition of the building and the extent to which it could stand without immediate demolition and reconstruction in future would be a totally irrelevant factor while determining 'the bona fide requirement of the landlord'.
If the Rent Controller has to be satisfied about the bona fide requirement of the landlord which must mearn genuineness of his claim in that behalf the Rent Controller will have to take into account all the surrounding circumstances including not merely_ the of the landlord being possessed of sufficient means or funds to undertake the project and steps taken by him in that regard but also the existing condition of the building, its age and situation and possibility or otherwise of its being put to a more profitable use after reconstruction. All these factors being relevant must enter the verdict of the Rent Controller on the question of the bona fide requirement of the landlord under Section 14(l)(b). In a sense if the'building happens to be decrepit or dilapidated it will readily make for the bona fide requirement of the landlord, though that by itself in the absence of any means being possessed by the landlord would not be sufficient. Conversely a landlord being possessed of sufficient means to undertake the project of demolition and reconstruction by itself may not be sufficient to establish his bona fide requirement if the building happens to be a very recent construction in a perfectly sound condition and its situation may prevent its being put to a more profitable use after reconstruction. In any case these latter factors may cast a serious, doubt on the landlord's bona fide requirement. It is, therefore, clear to us that the age and condition of the building would certainly be a relevant factor which will have to be taken into account while pronauncing upon the bona fide requirement of the landlord under Section 14(1 )(b) of the Act and the same cannot be ignored.'
In para 7 it is again observed : --
'We are clearly of the view that the age and existing condition of the building whether it is a recent construction or very old and whether it is a good and sound condition or has become decrepit or dilapidated are relevant factors forming part of 'all the circumstances' that have to be considered while determining the bona fide requirement of the landlord under Section I4(l)(b) of the Act and in the totality of the circumstances these factors may assume lesser or greater significance depending upon whether in the scheme of the concerned enactment there is or there is not a provision for reinduclion of the evicted tenant into the new construction. Such, a view would be in accord with the main objective of the benign legislation enacted with the avowed intention of giving protection to the tenant.'
The learned Judges also referred to some cases including Neta Ram's case, AIR 1963 SC 499 and Panchmal Narayana Shenoy's : case, AIR 1971 SC 942 in this judgment.
20. The judgments referred above lay down that while considering the bona fide requirement of the landlord, all the surrounding circumstances, such as, the age and the existing condition of the building, its situation and the possibility of its being put to more profitable use after construction, the means of the landlord and so on have to be considered.
21. In Himachal Pradesh under Section 14(3)(a)(iii) of the Act a landlord can apply for eviction of a tenant from the premises on the following grounds : --
(a) If he requires it to carry out any building work at the instance of the Government or local authority or any Improvement Trust under some improvement or development scheme;
(b) If the building has become unsafe or unfit for human habitation;
(c) If the building is required bona fide by the landlord for carrying out repairs which cannot be carried out without the building being vacated.
(d) If the building is required bona fide by the landlord for the purpose of building or rebuilding or making thereto any Sub-stantial additions or alterations and that such building or rebuilding or addition or alteration cannot be carried out without the building being vacated.
22. Thus a landlord can get the building vacated for the purposes of building or rebuilding or for making any Sub-stantial additions or alterations in the building and that such building or rebuilding or additions or alterations cannot be carried out without the building or rented land being vacated. This requirement of the landlord should be bona fide.
23. From Sections 14(3)(a)(iii) with 14(3)(b) it is also evident that the claim of the landlord for the purposes of building or rebuilding should be a bona fide or genuine claim. For deciding the bona fide requirement of the landlord the various surrounding circumstances are to be considered. In the present case, I find that the premises in dispute i is an old single-storeyed construction built, more than 60 years back. It is situate in Bhpot Nath Bazar, Mandi which is the main bazar and commercial centre in Mandi Town. The landlords have sufficient money for rebuilding the proposed new multi-stroreyed premises in accordance with the plan duly sanctioned by the Municipal Committee, Mandi. The building after reconstruction would be a modern building keeping into consideration the locality, situation and the rebuilt construction can be put to a more profitable use of the landlord. The condition of the present premises, which has admittedly not been repaired for the last several years, cannot be good taking into consideration the locality and its situation, and it is desirable that a modern construction should come up in place of the old single-storeyed construction. It is proved that for making the proposed new construction, the walls of the old construction have to be demolished and the new construction cannot be made except by securing the eviction of the tenants. The present disputed premises may not as yet have become unfit or unsafe for human habitation and that particular ground may not be available to the landlords for seeking the eviction of the tenants, but this ground, is quite distinct and separate from the other ground, i.e. the bona fide requirement of the landlord for the purpose of building or rebuilding of the premises.
24. The tenants' rights are-also fully safeguarded under Section 14(4) of the Act, and they would be entitled to restoration of possession in case the landlords put the building to any use or let it out to any tenant other than the present tenants. Thus taking into consideration the various surrounding circumstances, such as, condition of the building, its situation, the possibility of its being, put to a more profitable use after construction, the means of the landlord etc., 1 am of the opinion that the claim of the landlords is genuine and bona fide.
25. In view of the aforesaid discussion, it is held that both the authorities below have rightly allowed the claim of the landlord for eviction of the tenants. There is no merit in this revision petition which is hereby dismissed with costs assessed at Rs. 300/-. The tenants are, however, allowed one month's time from today for handing over the vacant possession of the building to the landlords.