Judgment:
Surinder Singh, J.
1. This revision petition has been directed by the petitioner-tenant against the judgment dated 16.9.2008 passed by the Appellate Authority under the H.P. Urban Rent Control Act (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') in Rent Appeal No. 2/2006 whereby the order dated 31.3.2006 for his eviction passed by the Rent Controller was affirmed on the ground of bonafide requirement by the respondents landlords.
2. In brief the facts giving rise to the present petition are that the respondent-landlord sought the eviction of the petitioner-tenant from the shop marked ABCDEFG in the site plan Ext.PW3/A, hereinafter called the 'demised premises'. The demised premises were rented out at the rate of Rs. 25/- per month by the respondent-landlords some time in the year 1952. As per the case of the respondent landlords the said premises were constructed some time in 1920 and it has completed its life. Now it had been in a dilapidated condition. Thus, the respondents-landlords bonafide required it for the purpose of re-building and reconstruction which was not possible without eviction of the tenant.
3. The respondent-landlords also filed eviction petition against another tenant named Sh. Jagdish Chand Sharma. According to the landlords, they possessed sufficient means. Their plans for re-construction stood approved from the local body. The proposed construction was more beneficial and profitable to them. Despite the repeated request the petitioner-tenant did not vacate the demised premises. Therefore, sought his eviction under Section 14(3) of the 'Act'.
4. The case of the petitioner-tenant before the learned Rent Controller was that the respondents-Narender Chand Sood and Dharam Chand Sood were not the landlords of the demised premises. He had been paying the rent to respondent-Parmeshwari Dass. Further according to him, the premises in question were constructed 40 years back not 80 years as alleged. Its walls are two feet in width and the demised premises are in a perfect good condition. The respondents-landlords did not bonafide require it for the purpose of re-construction and re-building. There was no need to dis-mental the demised premises for the construction of first storey. It was alleged that the landlords with a view to evict the petitioner had stacked garbage and bricks in the upper story which is locked. Parmeshwari Dass had not repaired the projection, thus allowed the rain water to fall down on the demised premises. The notice was also served upon him but of no avail. It is also pleaded that by putting up a new structure the respondents want to make more money. The site plan was not approved. The landlords did not bona fide require it for the purpose as alleged and repairs can be done even without vacating the premises. On the pleadings of the parties, the learned Rent Controller framed the following issues:
1. Whether the petitioners/landlords require bonafidely tenanted premises to rebuild and reconstruct the same after demolishing, as alleged ...OPP.
2. If issue No. 1 is decided in affirmative, whether petitioners are entitled for eviction of tenant/respondent? ...OPP
3 Whether the petition is not maintainable in the present form?. ...OPR
4. Whether petitioner No. 1 is the only land lord of rented premises, as alleged? ...OPR.
5. Whether the petitioners are estopped by their act, conduct and acquiescence from filing the petition? ...OPR.
5. After appreciating the evidence on record, the learned Rent Controller decided issue No. 1 and 2 in affirmative and others in negative as such passed the order of eviction of the petitioner and ordered to handover the vacant possession of the demised premises. within two months.
6. The petitioner-tenant un-successfully assailed the order of his eviction before the Appellate Authority as such this revision petition has been filed. Shri A.K. Sharma, learned Counsel for the tenant has led me through Section 14(3) (c) of the 'Act' and argued that the respondent-landlords have failed to prove and establish the essential ingredients for eviction of the tenant on the grounds of re-building and re-construction. The intentions of the respondents-landlords in filing the petition are alleged to be not bonafide and in fact the respondent landlords wanted to get rid off of the petitioner-tenant on frivolous grounds.
7. Contra, Sh. R.L. Sood, learned Counsel for the respondents-landlords has supported the orders of eviction passed by the Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority. I have considered the rival contentions of the parties and have carefully examined the record. In fact the landlords can seek the eviction of the tenant on any of the grounds mentioned in Section 14 of the 'Act'. In this case the respondent-landlords has specifically sought the eviction under the provisions of Section 14(3)(c) which reads as under:
(c) 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 re-building or addition or alteration cannot be carried out without the building or rented land being vacated.
8. PW1 Sh. Parmeshwari Dass stated on 24.1.2007 that the demised premises were constructed by his father Parma Nand, before he had attained the age of discretion.
9. When examined he was 80 years of age. According to him the demised premises were rented out to the tenant in the year 1969 at the rate of Rs. 25/- per month i.e. about more than 40 years back.
10. The tenant has failed to rebut the evidence that the said premises were not that old as claimed by the respondents-landlords and were in fact constructed in the year 1968 as alleged. PW1 has proved his capacity to demolish and re-construct the building by placing on record the copies of his savings and F.D.Rs issued by the bank(s). In his cross-examination he stated that the first storey of the demised premises is vacant and nothing has been stored thereon. Admittedly the respondent-Parmeshwari Dass is a Chemist at Dehra having good income. Besides his savings, the soft loans are also available for the construction of the building from the different banks.
11. PW2 Sh. Rattan Singh, clerk of the Notified Area Committee has proved the approved plan copy of which is exhibit PW2/A with respect to the proposed building and PW3 Sh. Gopal Dass, Draftsman (Civil) proved the map Ext.PW3/A of the proposed site which was prepared by him at the instance of the landlords. He also admitted that the present building is having the walls of the width of 24 inch which can be dismantled without blasting it and he further stated that the said walls are Kachha walls of stones. The statement of the tenant that the said premises were built in the year 1969 is not substantiated by any reliable evidence. The two walls of demised premises are common with the another tenant Jagdish Chand who has also filed revision against his eviction. He admitted that the banks also grant loan for house construction. The photograph depicts the pathetic condition of the upper storey which has been noticed by the learned appellate authority has not been assailed in this revision. The rebuilding/reconstruction cannot be done unless the demised premises are vacated by the tenant. The respondent landlords have proved their capacity to re-construct the demised premises and the sanctioned plan has also obtained by the respondent-landlords from the local body. The demolition and reconstruction would result in modernization, it will have additional space and would augment the earning of the landlords. (See: Harrington House School v. S.M. Ispahani and Anr. : [2002]3SCR929 ). Therefore the ingredients of Section 14(3)(c) stands fully satisfied and are in perfect tune with the judgment of the apex Court rendered in Jagat Pal Dhawan v. Kahan Singh (dead) By L.Rs. and Ors. 2003 (1) Shim.L.C.394. As such the petition is dismissed with costs.
12. The petitioner-tenant is hereby ordered to hand over the vacant possession of the demised premises within two months from today. Failing which the respondent landlords are at liberty to file the execution petition against the petitioner-tenant. The matter stands disposed of.