Smt. Vidya Devi and ors. Vs. Gulzari Lal - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
tenancy - eviction - section 14 (3) of himachal pradesh urban rent control act, 1971 - respondent tenant of appellant - appellant sought eviction under section 14 (3) (a) (iii) on ground of bona fide requirement for purpose of reconstruction - claim of appellant rejected by rent controller - facts revealed that appellant wanted to reconstruct building for purpose of earning profit - appellant can reconstruct building without disturbing or getting vacated tenant - appeal dismissed. - orderbhawani singh, j.1. this revision petition arises out of the judgment of the appellate authority, solan, under the himachal pradesh urban rent control act, 1971, in rent appeal no. 78-s/14 of 1978, decided on july 9, 1982. by this judgment, the appellate authority has dismissed the appeal of the petitioners-landlords and affirmed the order of the rent controller in case no. 14/2 of 1977/69/1 of 1978, decided on november 28; 1978. the landlords have a grievance against these judgments, hence this revision in this court.2. briefly stated, the facts are that the tenant, gulzari lal was inducted as such by the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioner-landlords, namely, smt. vidya devi wife of shri vidya dhar, prior to the purchase of the premises in dispute consisting of a shop located.....

Judgment:
ORDER

Bhawani Singh, J.

1. This revision petition arises out of the judgment of the Appellate Authority, Solan, under the Himachal Pradesh Urban Rent Control Act, 1971, in Rent Appeal No. 78-S/14 of 1978, decided on July 9, 1982. By this judgment, the appellate authority has dismissed the appeal of the petitioners-landlords and affirmed the order of the Rent Controller in case No. 14/2 of 1977/69/1 of 1978, decided on November 28; 1978. The landlords have a grievance against these judgments, hence this revision in this Court.

2. Briefly stated, the facts are that the tenant, Gulzari Lal was inducted as such by the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioner-landlords, namely, Smt. Vidya Devi wife of Shri Vidya Dhar, prior to the purchase of the premises in dispute consisting of a shop located opposite to the United Commercial Bank -- Rajendra Corporation, The Mall, Solan, by the present petitioner-landlords.

3. The petition has been filed under Section 14(3)(a)(iii) of the Himachal Pradesh Urban Rent Control Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), on the ground that the building is bona fide required for purposes of reconstruction, that is, to say, rebuilding. After the contest between the parties, the claim of the petitioner-landlords was rejected by the Rent Controller and in appeal before the Appellate Authority, the same point was canvassed but the petitioner-landlords failed to convince the Court and the result was that the appeal was dismissed.

4. Shri Kedar Ishwar, who appears for the petitioner-landlords, has again argued on the same lines and it is contended that the decisions of the authorities below are not in tune with the evidence on record and, therefore, the same deserve to be set aside. Shri Kapil Dev Sood appearing for the tenant, has vehemently submitted that the bona fide claim of the petitioner-landlords has been very seriously argued before the Rent Controller as well as the Appellate Authority. Both these authorities having come to the concurrent findings on this aspect of the matter, this Court may not, while exercising revisional jurisdiction, interfere with these findings since the jurisdiction at this stage is limited to gross and palpable error of law and miscarriage of justice as a result of patently wrong findings on the basis of evidence on record, even if it is assumed that the jurisdiction of this Court under the Act is wider than the one under Sec. 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Shri K. D. Sood places reliance on (1977) 1 Rent LR 168 (Him Pra) (J.P. Chetrath v. Shamboo Dayal); (1988) 2 SCC 172 : (AIR 1988 SC 852) (Hira Lal Kapur v. Prabhu Choudhury); (1987) 3 SCC 538 ; (AIR 1987 SC 1782) (Helper Girdharbhai v. Saiyed Mohmad Mirasaheb Kadri); (1987) 2 SCC 219 : (AIR 1987 SC 1150) (Sushila Devi v. Avinash Chandra Jain); AIR 1968 Delhi 299 (FB) (Sant Ram v. Mekhu Lal and Co.); (1987) 3 Rent LR 665 (Him Pra) (Gurditta Mall v. Gita Devi); (1988) 2 Rent LR 785 (2) (SC) (M. Gopala Karup v. S. A. Abdul Rahim); AIR 1974 SC 1059 (Phiroze Bamanji Desai v. Chandrakant M. Patel); AIR 1963 SC 698 (Hari Shankar v. Rao Girdhari Lal Chowdhury); AIR 1964 SC 461 (Pooran Chand v. Motilal); AIR 1980 SC 1253 (Sri Raja Lakshmi Dyeing Works v. Rangaswamy Chettiar); Civil Revn. No. 36 of 1983 (Smt. Dakhnu v. Hem Raj) decided on 11-7-1989* and Civil Revn. No. 79 of 1989 (Som Nath Sharma v. Prem Lata) decided on August 16, 1989**. Consequently, Shri K. D. Sood urges, tinkering with the concurrent findings of the authorities would amount to reappre-ciation of evidence to the disadvantage of the tenant in the presence of existence of the limited scope to set aside the same.

5. Keeping in view the parameters of the jurisdiction of this Court in the light of the principles, by now settled by number of decisions, and in the interest of justice I examine the matter to see whether the claim of the petitioner-landlords is genuine and bona fide thus coming within the ambit of principles laid down in cases like AIR 1971 SC 942 (Panchmal Narayana Shenoy v. Basthi Venkatesha Shenoy); (1979) 2 Rent LR 161 : (AIR 1979 SC 1559) (Metalware & Co. v. Bansilal Sharma); and Civil Revn. No. 36 of 1983 (Smt. Dakhnu v. Hem Raj), decided on July 11, 1989 (reported in (1989) 2 Ren CJ 705) (Him Pra).

6. Perusal of the record indicates that the petitioner-landlords have made an effort to show that the condition of the building is not good and the same is dilapidated. Besides, an effort has been made to show that there are financial resources available to reconstruct the building. Building map sanctioned by the Municipal Committee, Solan, has also been placed on the record of this case.

7. I am not satisfied with any of the submissions of Shri Kedar Ishwar. As a matter of fact, the petitioner-landlords want to reconstruct the building simply for the purpose of earning more profit. The allegation of the building being in a dilapidated condition, has been set up just an excuse to seek an order of eviction but this has been negatived by the report (Ex. P.A) of the Municipal Committee, Solan, dated Jan. 28, 1977. The building requires certain repairs due to its age and non-maintenance obviously by the petitioner-landlords, who want to establish that the building is in bad shape and requires demolition for reconstruction. On the point of funds, only one of the petitioner-landlords has appeared to prove it. How the funds are to be shared and to what extent and what the sources of the other petitioner-landlords are, has neither been mentioned nor proved. Even otherwise, the petitioner-landlords can reconstruct the building without disturbing or getting vacated the premises from the occupation of the tenant. It is a case where the principles laid down by this Court in Surinder Nath v. P. N. Dhawan, ILR (1981) Him Pra 100 : (AIR 1981 Him Pra 68), are clearly applicable. Perusal of the record further indicates that the authorities below have examined the matter quite exhaustively and the conclusions arrived at are strictly within the parameters of the legal principles applicable in such cases and in tune with the evidence on record. There is neither any justification nor any ground to take a view different than the one concurrently taken by them.

8. The result, therefore, is that there is no merit in this revision petition and the same is accordingly dismissed with costs. Counsel fee Rs. 1,000/-.