Shri Arun Bhanwara Vs. Shri S.L. Srivastava - Court Judgment

Notice (8): Undefined variable: kword [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 120]
Code Context
                                echo "<div class='table-bordered'><b>Excerpt:</b><br/>";

                                    if (trim($desc['Judgement']['casenote'])) {

                                        echo $this->Wand->highlight($this->Excerpt->extractRelevant($kword,strtolower(strip_tags($desc['Judgement']['casenote']))), $query);
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Shri Arun Bhanwara Vs Shri S L Srivastava - Citation 891084 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '891084',
			'acts' => '',
			'appealno' => '',
			'appellant' => 'Shri Arun Bhanwara',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Shri Arun Bhanwara Vs. Shri S.L. Srivastava',
			'casenote' => ' - CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908.[C.A. No. 5/1908]. Order 14, Rule 2 [As amended by Amending Act of 1976]: [V.K. Gupta, CJ, Deepak Gupta & Surjit Singh, JJ] Preliminary issue of law and fact  Court framing all issues both of law and facts together and also  tried all the issues together, including the issue relating to jurisdiction of Court  Held, Except in situations perceived or warranted under sub-rule (2) of Rule 2 of Order 14 where a  Court in fact frames only issues of law in the first instance and postpones settlement of other issues, clearly and explicitly in situations where the Court has framed all issues together, both of law as well as facts and has also tried all these issues together, it is not open to the Court to adopt the principle of severability and proceed to decide issues of law first, without taking up simultaneously other issues for decision. This course of action is not available to a Court because sub-rule (1) does not permit the  Court to adopt any such principle of severability and to dispose of a suit only on preliminary issues, or what can be termed as issues of law. Sub-rule (1)  clearly mandates that in a situation contemplated under it, where all the issues have been together and have also been taken up for adjudication during the course of the trial, these must be decided together and the judgment in the suit as a whole must be pronounced by the Court covering all the issues framed in the suit.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => 'Ram Narain Arora v. Asha Rani;',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => '',
			'counseldef' => '',
			'court' => 'Himachal Pradesh',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2008-07-31',
			'deposition' => 'Petition allowed',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => ' Deepak Gupta, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">Deepak Gupta, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. This Revision Petition under Section 25(5) of the H.P. Urban Rent Control Act, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) is directed against the order of the learned Appellate Authority, Shimla in CMA No. 60-S/14 of 2001 whereby the appeal filed by the respondent (hereinafter referred to as the tenant) has been allowed, the order of the Rent Controller has been set-aside and the petition for eviction filed by the present petitioner (hereinafter referred to as the Landlord) on the ground of personal bona fide requirement has been set-aside.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The undisputed facts are that the landlord is owner of the demised premises situated in building known as Tunnel View, Sanjauli, Shimla-6 consisting of two bed rooms with attached bath room and latrine, drawing-cum-dining room, kitchen and balcony. These premises were purchased by the landlord in the year 1986. Thereafter, the landlord had rented out the premises to one Sh. B.K. Chauhan. According to the landlord, when he got married he requested Sh. B.K. Chauhan to vacate the said premises. Sh. Chauhan vacated the said premises but admittedly the landlord did not occupy the same but rented out the same to the tenant in the year 1990.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. In the year 1997 the landlord filed a petition for eviction of the tenant on two grounds; firstly that the tenant is in arrears of rent from 1.11.1990 to 31.7.1997 and secondly that the premises are bona fide required by the landlord for the use and occupation of himself and his family.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. This petition was contested by the tenant. After trial, the Rent Controller ordered the eviction of the tenant on two grounds; (i) that the tenant was in arrears of rent from November, 1999 till date of order i.e. 22nd August, 2001 and (ii) that the landlord required the premises for his own use and occupation.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. The tenant deposited the rent within the time prescribed. He also filed an appeal challenging the finding on the issue of bona fide requirement. The learned Appellate Authority came to the conclusion that the landlord had not made a proper and full disclosure of facts as required under the provisions of the Act and had withheld material facts from the Court viz. that the landlord was in occupation of residential premises on 31, Mall Road in the urban area of Shimla and as such rejected this petition on this short ground.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. Aggrieved by the said order, the landlord has filed the present Revision Petition.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. I have heard Sh. Ramakant Sharma, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sh. Bhupinder Gupta, learned senior Counsel for the tenant.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. It has been urged on behalf of the landlord that the building which is alleged to be in possession of the landlord i.e. 31, the Mall Shimla is not a residential building and secondly that the building is not owned by him.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. On the other hand Sh. Bhupinder Gupta, learned Counsel of the tenant has strenuously urged that the landlord in para 18 has not stated anything about any building being owned by him and has only made an averment that he does not own or possess any other such building within the urban area Shimla. It is contended by Sh. Bhupinder Gupta that the landlord of his own volition did not state anything about the ownership of the building and since he has kept silent about the building which he is in occupation he has made a false averment and therefore his petition for eviction has rightly been rejected.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. I am not at all in agreement with the contention of the landlord that the premises known as 31, the Mall Shimla which are admittedly in the occupation of the landlord are commercial premises only and not being used by him for his residence. As pointed out above, the landlord purchased the demised premises in 1986. They fell vacant when he got married despite that he did not occupy the same and rented out the same to the tenant in the year 1990. The question that arises is where was the landlord living for this entire period. According to the landlord after the year 1994 he has been living with his brother-in-law Rajan (wife's brother) PW-2, since the year 1994. Prior to 1994 the landlord will have this Court to believe that he was living off and on with one friend or the other. This story is impossible to believe. The landlord was married in the year 1999. He is an Architect by profession. His wife is a law graduate. It is not believable that such a person would have no permanent abode and would continue to live as a guest with his friends for almost 5 years after his marriage. Even the story that he has been living with his brother-in-law after the year 1994 does not inspire confidence. It stands proved on record that the brother-in-law PW-2 Rajan lives with his own family i.e. wife and children. From the evidence it is also clear that the parents of the brother-in-law also reside with him, His flat consists of only two rooms. The flat in possession of the landlord at 31, the Mall Shimla, also consists of two rooms, kitchen and bath room. Even assuming that he was running an office in the part of the flat it cannot be believed that he would not live on his own flat on the Mall Road and reside with his brother-in-law in cramped premises. Even in the electoral list the landlord is shown to be a resident of 31, The Mall, Shimla. Therefore, I am of the considered view that the building 31, the Mall, Shimla was also being used as a residence by the landlord.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. Having held so, the question that arises is whether the landlord can be non-suited only on the ground that he has not made any disclosure about the residential accommodation available with him which premises were admittedly not owned by him.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. The short question which arises for decision in this petition is whether the landlord was guilty of suppressing and withholding such relevant facts which would disentitle him from seeking eviction of the tenant. To appreciate these contentions it would be necessary to refer to relevant portion of Section 14(3) of the Act:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Section 14:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1 and 2 xxxxxxxxxxx</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(3) A landlord may apply to the Controller for an order directing the tenant to put the landlord in possession-</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(a) in case of residential building, if</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(i) he required it for his own occupation:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Provided that he is not occupying another residential building owned by him, in the urban area concerned:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Provided further that he has not vacated such a building without sufficient cause within five years of the filing of the application, in the said urban area....</p><p style="text-align: justify;">13. A perusal of the bare provisions of the Act makes it clear that there are certain essential ingredients which the landlord must satisfy before seeking eviction of the tenant under the Act. Not only must he prove that the residential building is bona fide required by him for his own use and occupation but he must also plead and prove that he is not occupying any other residential building owned by him in the urban area concerned and further that he has not vacated such a building without sufficient cause within 5 years of the filing of the application.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">14. Reference may now be made to the relevant allegations made in para 18 of the eviction petition:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(ii) That the petitioner bona fide requires the premises for his own use and occupation and also for the use and occupation of his family.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The petitioner does not own or possess any other such building within the urban area of Simla nor the petitioner has vacated any such premises within five years of the filing of this petition.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The family of the petitioner presently consists of himself and his wife. Due to paucity of accommodation the petitioner has not been able to keep his wife with himself at Simla, where he is working as an Engineer and she has been residing at Chandigarh since 1991 but on account of her ill health she has been brought to Simla by the petitioner. The petitioner at present is seeking temporary shelter, from time to time, with his relations.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">15. The learned Appellate Authority came to the conclusion that the landlord had falsely pleaded that he does not own or possess any other such building within the urban area of Shimla and hence rejected the eviction petition on this ground.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">16. On a close analysis of the proviso to Section 14(3)(a)(i) of the Act it is clear that a landlord is not entitled to seek eviction of a tenant from residential building even in case of bona fide requirement if the landlord is occupying another residential building owned by him in the urban area concerned. One can read three essential ingredients in this proviso i.e. (i) that the landlord is in occupation of another residential building; (ii) that the said residential building is owned by him and (iii) that the said residential building is situated in the concerned urban area.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">17. The question that arises is what is the impact of the landlord not making a disclosure in respect of premises which he is occupying but are not owned by him.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">18. The Apex Court in Onkar Nath v. Ved Vyas ILR 1979 HP 1, held as follows:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">It is common ground that there are three requirements to make out a cause of action for eviction under that provision, and indeed this is apparent from a bare reading of the sub-section. In the present case the finding is to the effect that the landlord requires the residential building for his own occupation. But, the legislation has taken care to insist upon two more conditions, namely; (a) that the landlord is not occupying any other residential building in the area concerned; and (b) that he has not vacated such a building without sufficient cause. There is not a scintilla of evidence nor indeed there is any averment in compliance with these latter conditions. The necessary consequence follows that not merely is there inadequacy of pleadings sufficient to make out a cause of action but total absence of proof of two vital requirements....</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The Supreme Court also said that:.The statute benignly designed to protect tenants from unreasonable evictions has taken case to put restrictions which must be rigorously construed to fulfil the purpose of the statute.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">19. Following the aforesaid judgment and other pronouncements of the Apex Court, a learned Single Judge of this Court in Tara Chand Sharma v. Baij Nath and Ors. 1992 (2) R.C.J. 323, held as follows:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">16. What appears as the legislative intent, in bold relief, is that the landlord, while seeking eviction of a tenant on the ground that he needs a residential building for his own occupation, must come out clearly and honestly with facts relating to the requirement that he is not occupying another residential building owned by him, in the urban area concerned and that he had not vacated such a building without sufficient cause within five years of the filing of the application, in the said urban area. The primal burden of making a clear disclosure would lie upon the landlord, for, the true facts would be in his special knowledge. An order in his favour by the Rent Controller would depend upon the satisfaction of the Rent Controller in regard not only to the claim that the landlord requires the accommodation, from which he wishes to evict a tenant, for his own occupation but also that he was not occupying another residential building owned by him nor had he vacated such building without sufficient cause within five years of the filing of the application in the application in the urban area concerned....</p><p style="text-align: justify;">It was further held as under:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">18. That the landlord should make a full disclosure of the relevant facts, pertaining to the requirements of Sub-section (3)(a)(i) and the two provisos, becomes all the more necessary because the satisfaction of the Rent Controller in regard thereto is the condition precedent for the making of an order in favour of the landlord....</p><p style="text-align: justify;">20. The aforesaid judgment has been followed in a number of other cases including Vijay Kapoor v. Maya Ram 1997 (2) RCR 437, wherein another learned single Judge of this Court following the aforesaid judgment held that the landlord must make complete and proper disclosure of all the material facts.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">21. On the other hand Sh. Ramakant Sharma has relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in Ram Narain Arora v. Asha Rani 1998(2) RCR 268. In that case the Rent Controller came to the conclusion that the landlord had suppressed material information and had not disclosed the fact that he was already in occupation of a house in Subji Mandi. Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act reads as follows:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Section 14(1)(e). That the premises let for residential purposes are required bona fide by the landlord for occupation as a residence for himself or for any member of his family dependent on him, if he is the owner thereof, or for any person for whose benefit the premises are held and that the landlord or such person has no other reasonably suitable residential accommodation.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">22. The difference between Delhi Act and the present Act is that under the Delhi Act the only requirement is that the landlord has no other reasonably suitable accommodation whereas under the Himachal Act the residential premises are required to be owned by the landlord. The Apex Court in Rama Narain Arora's case (supra) held that the nondisclosure of the fact that the landlord was in occupation of certain premises in Subji Mandi was.not a ground to non-suit the landlord in view of the facts and circumstances of the case. The Apex Court held as follows:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. In making a claim that the suit premises is required bona fide for his own occupation as a residence for himself and other members of his family dependent on him and that he has no other reasonably suitable accommodation is a requirement of law before the Court can state whether the landlord requires the premises bona fide for his use and occupation. In doing so, the Court must also find out whether the landlord or such other person for whose benefit the premises is required has no other reasonably suitable residential accommodation. It cannot be said that the requirement of the landlord is not intermixed with the question of finding out whether he has any other reasonably suitable accommodation. If he has other reasonably suitable accommodation, ihen necessarily it would mean that he does not require the suit premises and his requirement may not be bona fide. In such circumstances further inquiry would be whether that premises is more suitable than the suit premises. Therefore, the questions raised before the Court would not necessarily depend upon only the pleadings. It could be a good defence that the landlord has other reasonably suitable residential accommodation and thereby defend the claim of the landlord.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. There cannot be a pedantic or a dogmatic approach in the matter of analysis of pleadings or of the evidence adduced thereto. It is no doubt true that if the pleadings are clearly set out, it would be easy for the Court to decide the matters. But if the pleadings are lacking or vague and if both parties have understood what was the case pleaded and put forth with reference to requirement of law and placed such material before the Court, neither party is prejudiced. If we analyse from this angle, we do not think that the High Court was not justified in interfering with the order made by the Rent Controller.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">23. From the perusal of the judgment of the Apex Court it is apparent that the Rent Controller must approach the matter in a practical manner. In case the non-disclosure is such as that it goes to the very root of the case the Rent Controller would be justified in non-suiting the landlord. However, if the non-disclosure is such that it would not prejudice the rights of the respondent then the landlord should not be non-suited only on this ground.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">24. The decisions of this Court cited hereinabove were delivered prior to the judgment delivered by the Apex Court in Ram Nar'ain Arora's case. Further more both in Tara Chand Sharma's case and Vijay Kapoor's case decided by this Court, no averment had been made ixi respect of other residential buildings owned by a landlord. There was complete non-disclosure as to whether any such residential building owned by the landlord was in his possession or not. In the present case, as I have held above, the residential premises at 31, The Mall, Shimla was not owned by the landlord and hence these two earlier judgments of this Court are distinguishable on facts also.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">25. In the present case, the landlord has been non-suited only on the ground that he did not disclose the fact that he was in occupation of certain premises on the Mall Road. Under law he was not required to disclose this fact. He was only required to disclose the factum of occupying another residential building owned by him in the urban area concerned. True it may be, that it would have been better if the landlord had disclosed all the facts but non-disclosure of a fact which he was not under law required to disclose could not in my opinion be a ground to dismiss his eviction petition.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">26. However, what are the premises in his occupation even as a tenant can be taken into consideration while deciding the question whether he bona fide requires the demised premises for his personal use or occupation or not.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">27. Lastly comes the question with regard to the bona fide requirement of the landlord. The landlord has no children. According to the landlord as well as his other witnesses i.e. his brother-in-law PW-2 and his wife PW-3, the wife now wants to come back and settle in Shimla. There is no reason to disbelieve their statements. Even according to the evidence led by the tenant the accommodation in possession of the landlord consists of two rooms, kitchen, bath room etc. Admittedly, the landlord is also having his office as an Architect in this building. The landlord belongs to the middle class of the Society. It cannot be expected of a landlord who owns sufficient property to reside in a two room set wherein he also runs his office.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">28. The law by now is well settled that the landlord is the best judge of the suitability of the accommodation required by him. This suitability has however to be judged in the context of reasonable expectations. The landlord and his wife who are both well educated can reasonably be expected to entertain guests and they will have visitors to their house. They would obviously require a drawing room, a bed room and a spare bed room for guests. Even at his residence the landlord may require another room for his professional work. This is the minimum accommodation which they would require. Even if the accommodation possessed by the landlord, though not owned by him, at 31, the Mall, Shimla is taken into consideration such accommodation is not sufficient to meet his requirements since admittedly the landlord is running his profession of Architect from some portion of his these premises.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">29. Keeping in view the entire facts and circumstances, I am of the considered view that the learned Appellate Authority gravely erred in rejecting the eviction petition of the landlord solely on the ground that he had not disclosed the factum of being in possession of the premises at 31, the Mall Shimla. Even though I have held that the said premises are residential premises, in view of the above discussion I hold that the landlord cannot be non-suited only on the ground of his being in possession of such premises since same were not owned by him.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">30. In view of the above discussion, the Revision Petition is allowed, the order of the learned Appellate Authority dated 6.5.2003 is seaside and the order of the Rent Controller dated 22.8.2001 is restored.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">31. Keeping in view the fact that the tenant has been in possession of the premises for a long period he is granted time up to 31st October, 2008 to vacate the premises.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">32. No order as to costs.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '2008(2)ShimLC491',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'Shri S.L. Srivastava',
			'sub' => 'Tenancy',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'shri-arun-bhanwara-vs-s-l-srivastava',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '891084',
		(int) 1 => 'shri-arun-bhanwara-vs-s-l-srivastava'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Shri Arun Bhanwara Vs Shri S L Srivastava - Citation 891084 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '891084',
		'acts' => '',
		'appealno' => '',
		'appellant' => 'Shri Arun Bhanwara',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Shri Arun Bhanwara Vs. Shri S.L. Srivastava',
		'casenote' => ' - CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908.[C.A. No. 5/1908]. Order 14, Rule 2 [As amended by Amending Act of 1976]: [V.K. Gupta, CJ, Deepak Gupta & Surjit Singh, JJ] Preliminary issue of law and fact  Court framing all issues both of law and facts together and also  tried all the issues together, including the issue relating to jurisdiction of Court  Held, Except in situations perceived or warranted under sub-rule (2) of Rule 2 of Order 14 where a  Court in fact frames only issues of law in the first instance and postpones settlement of other issues, clearly and explicitly in situations where the Court has framed all issues together, both of law as well as facts and has also tried all these issues together, it is not open to the Court to adopt the principle of severability and proceed to decide issues of law first, without taking up simultaneously other issues for decision. This course of action is not available to a Court because sub-rule (1) does not permit the  Court to adopt any such principle of severability and to dispose of a suit only on preliminary issues, or what can be termed as issues of law. Sub-rule (1)  clearly mandates that in a situation contemplated under it, where all the issues have been together and have also been taken up for adjudication during the course of the trial, these must be decided together and the judgment in the suit as a whole must be pronounced by the Court covering all the issues framed in the suit.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => 'Ram Narain Arora v. Asha Rani;',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => '',
		'counseldef' => '',
		'court' => 'Himachal Pradesh',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2008-07-31',
		'deposition' => 'Petition allowed',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => ' Deepak Gupta, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>Deepak Gupta, J.</p><p>1. This Revision Petition under Section 25(5) of the H.P. Urban Rent Control Act, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) is directed against the order of the learned Appellate Authority, Shimla in CMA No. 60-S/14 of 2001 whereby the appeal filed by the respondent (hereinafter referred to as the tenant) has been allowed, the order of the Rent Controller has been set-aside and the petition for eviction filed by the present petitioner (hereinafter referred to as the Landlord) on the ground of personal bona fide requirement has been set-aside.</p><p>2. The undisputed facts are that the landlord is owner of the demised premises situated in building known as Tunnel View, Sanjauli, Shimla-6 consisting of two bed rooms with attached bath room and latrine, drawing-cum-dining room, kitchen and balcony. These premises were purchased by the landlord in the year 1986. Thereafter, the landlord had rented out the premises to one Sh. B.K. Chauhan. According to the landlord, when he got married he requested Sh. B.K. Chauhan to vacate the said premises. Sh. Chauhan vacated the said premises but admittedly the landlord did not occupy the same but rented out the same to the tenant in the year 1990.</p><p>3. In the year 1997 the landlord filed a petition for eviction of the tenant on two grounds; firstly that the tenant is in arrears of rent from 1.11.1990 to 31.7.1997 and secondly that the premises are bona fide required by the landlord for the use and occupation of himself and his family.</p><p>4. This petition was contested by the tenant. After trial, the Rent Controller ordered the eviction of the tenant on two grounds; (i) that the tenant was in arrears of rent from November, 1999 till date of order i.e. 22nd August, 2001 and (ii) that the landlord required the premises for his own use and occupation.</p><p>5. The tenant deposited the rent within the time prescribed. He also filed an appeal challenging the finding on the issue of bona fide requirement. The learned Appellate Authority came to the conclusion that the landlord had not made a proper and full disclosure of facts as required under the provisions of the Act and had withheld material facts from the Court viz. that the landlord was in occupation of residential premises on 31, Mall Road in the urban area of Shimla and as such rejected this petition on this short ground.</p><p>6. Aggrieved by the said order, the landlord has filed the present Revision Petition.</p><p>7. I have heard Sh. Ramakant Sharma, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sh. Bhupinder Gupta, learned senior Counsel for the tenant.</p><p>8. It has been urged on behalf of the landlord that the building which is alleged to be in possession of the landlord i.e. 31, the Mall Shimla is not a residential building and secondly that the building is not owned by him.</p><p>9. On the other hand Sh. Bhupinder Gupta, learned Counsel of the tenant has strenuously urged that the landlord in para 18 has not stated anything about any building being owned by him and has only made an averment that he does not own or possess any other such building within the urban area Shimla. It is contended by Sh. Bhupinder Gupta that the landlord of his own volition did not state anything about the ownership of the building and since he has kept silent about the building which he is in occupation he has made a false averment and therefore his petition for eviction has rightly been rejected.</p><p>10. I am not at all in agreement with the contention of the landlord that the premises known as 31, the Mall Shimla which are admittedly in the occupation of the landlord are commercial premises only and not being used by him for his residence. As pointed out above, the landlord purchased the demised premises in 1986. They fell vacant when he got married despite that he did not occupy the same and rented out the same to the tenant in the year 1990. The question that arises is where was the landlord living for this entire period. According to the landlord after the year 1994 he has been living with his brother-in-law Rajan (wife's brother) PW-2, since the year 1994. Prior to 1994 the landlord will have this Court to believe that he was living off and on with one friend or the other. This story is impossible to believe. The landlord was married in the year 1999. He is an Architect by profession. His wife is a law graduate. It is not believable that such a person would have no permanent abode and would continue to live as a guest with his friends for almost 5 years after his marriage. Even the story that he has been living with his brother-in-law after the year 1994 does not inspire confidence. It stands proved on record that the brother-in-law PW-2 Rajan lives with his own family i.e. wife and children. From the evidence it is also clear that the parents of the brother-in-law also reside with him, His flat consists of only two rooms. The flat in possession of the landlord at 31, the Mall Shimla, also consists of two rooms, kitchen and bath room. Even assuming that he was running an office in the part of the flat it cannot be believed that he would not live on his own flat on the Mall Road and reside with his brother-in-law in cramped premises. Even in the electoral list the landlord is shown to be a resident of 31, The Mall, Shimla. Therefore, I am of the considered view that the building 31, the Mall, Shimla was also being used as a residence by the landlord.</p><p>11. Having held so, the question that arises is whether the landlord can be non-suited only on the ground that he has not made any disclosure about the residential accommodation available with him which premises were admittedly not owned by him.</p><p>12. The short question which arises for decision in this petition is whether the landlord was guilty of suppressing and withholding such relevant facts which would disentitle him from seeking eviction of the tenant. To appreciate these contentions it would be necessary to refer to relevant portion of Section 14(3) of the Act:</p><p>Section 14:</p><p>1 and 2 xxxxxxxxxxx</p><p>(3) A landlord may apply to the Controller for an order directing the tenant to put the landlord in possession-</p><p>(a) in case of residential building, if</p><p>(i) he required it for his own occupation:</p><p>Provided that he is not occupying another residential building owned by him, in the urban area concerned:</p><p>Provided further that he has not vacated such a building without sufficient cause within five years of the filing of the application, in the said urban area....</p><p>13. A perusal of the bare provisions of the Act makes it clear that there are certain essential ingredients which the landlord must satisfy before seeking eviction of the tenant under the Act. Not only must he prove that the residential building is bona fide required by him for his own use and occupation but he must also plead and prove that he is not occupying any other residential building owned by him in the urban area concerned and further that he has not vacated such a building without sufficient cause within 5 years of the filing of the application.</p><p>14. Reference may now be made to the relevant allegations made in para 18 of the eviction petition:</p><p>(ii) That the petitioner bona fide requires the premises for his own use and occupation and also for the use and occupation of his family.</p><p>The petitioner does not own or possess any other such building within the urban area of Simla nor the petitioner has vacated any such premises within five years of the filing of this petition.</p><p>The family of the petitioner presently consists of himself and his wife. Due to paucity of accommodation the petitioner has not been able to keep his wife with himself at Simla, where he is working as an Engineer and she has been residing at Chandigarh since 1991 but on account of her ill health she has been brought to Simla by the petitioner. The petitioner at present is seeking temporary shelter, from time to time, with his relations.</p><p>15. The learned Appellate Authority came to the conclusion that the landlord had falsely pleaded that he does not own or possess any other such building within the urban area of Shimla and hence rejected the eviction petition on this ground.</p><p>16. On a close analysis of the proviso to Section 14(3)(a)(i) of the Act it is clear that a landlord is not entitled to seek eviction of a tenant from residential building even in case of bona fide requirement if the landlord is occupying another residential building owned by him in the urban area concerned. One can read three essential ingredients in this proviso i.e. (i) that the landlord is in occupation of another residential building; (ii) that the said residential building is owned by him and (iii) that the said residential building is situated in the concerned urban area.</p><p>17. The question that arises is what is the impact of the landlord not making a disclosure in respect of premises which he is occupying but are not owned by him.</p><p>18. The Apex Court in Onkar Nath v. Ved Vyas ILR 1979 HP 1, held as follows:</p><p>It is common ground that there are three requirements to make out a cause of action for eviction under that provision, and indeed this is apparent from a bare reading of the sub-section. In the present case the finding is to the effect that the landlord requires the residential building for his own occupation. But, the legislation has taken care to insist upon two more conditions, namely; (a) that the landlord is not occupying any other residential building in the area concerned; and (b) that he has not vacated such a building without sufficient cause. There is not a scintilla of evidence nor indeed there is any averment in compliance with these latter conditions. The necessary consequence follows that not merely is there inadequacy of pleadings sufficient to make out a cause of action but total absence of proof of two vital requirements....</p><p>The Supreme Court also said that:.The statute benignly designed to protect tenants from unreasonable evictions has taken case to put restrictions which must be rigorously construed to fulfil the purpose of the statute.</p><p>19. Following the aforesaid judgment and other pronouncements of the Apex Court, a learned Single Judge of this Court in Tara Chand Sharma v. Baij Nath and Ors. 1992 (2) R.C.J. 323, held as follows:</p><p>16. What appears as the legislative intent, in bold relief, is that the landlord, while seeking eviction of a tenant on the ground that he needs a residential building for his own occupation, must come out clearly and honestly with facts relating to the requirement that he is not occupying another residential building owned by him, in the urban area concerned and that he had not vacated such a building without sufficient cause within five years of the filing of the application, in the said urban area. The primal burden of making a clear disclosure would lie upon the landlord, for, the true facts would be in his special knowledge. An order in his favour by the Rent Controller would depend upon the satisfaction of the Rent Controller in regard not only to the claim that the landlord requires the accommodation, from which he wishes to evict a tenant, for his own occupation but also that he was not occupying another residential building owned by him nor had he vacated such building without sufficient cause within five years of the filing of the application in the application in the urban area concerned....</p><p>It was further held as under:</p><p>18. That the landlord should make a full disclosure of the relevant facts, pertaining to the requirements of Sub-section (3)(a)(i) and the two provisos, becomes all the more necessary because the satisfaction of the Rent Controller in regard thereto is the condition precedent for the making of an order in favour of the landlord....</p><p>20. The aforesaid judgment has been followed in a number of other cases including Vijay Kapoor v. Maya Ram 1997 (2) RCR 437, wherein another learned single Judge of this Court following the aforesaid judgment held that the landlord must make complete and proper disclosure of all the material facts.</p><p>21. On the other hand Sh. Ramakant Sharma has relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in Ram Narain Arora v. Asha Rani 1998(2) RCR 268. In that case the Rent Controller came to the conclusion that the landlord had suppressed material information and had not disclosed the fact that he was already in occupation of a house in Subji Mandi. Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act reads as follows:</p><p>Section 14(1)(e). That the premises let for residential purposes are required bona fide by the landlord for occupation as a residence for himself or for any member of his family dependent on him, if he is the owner thereof, or for any person for whose benefit the premises are held and that the landlord or such person has no other reasonably suitable residential accommodation.</p><p>22. The difference between Delhi Act and the present Act is that under the Delhi Act the only requirement is that the landlord has no other reasonably suitable accommodation whereas under the Himachal Act the residential premises are required to be owned by the landlord. The Apex Court in Rama Narain Arora's case (supra) held that the nondisclosure of the fact that the landlord was in occupation of certain premises in Subji Mandi was.not a ground to non-suit the landlord in view of the facts and circumstances of the case. The Apex Court held as follows:</p><p>9. In making a claim that the suit premises is required bona fide for his own occupation as a residence for himself and other members of his family dependent on him and that he has no other reasonably suitable accommodation is a requirement of law before the Court can state whether the landlord requires the premises bona fide for his use and occupation. In doing so, the Court must also find out whether the landlord or such other person for whose benefit the premises is required has no other reasonably suitable residential accommodation. It cannot be said that the requirement of the landlord is not intermixed with the question of finding out whether he has any other reasonably suitable accommodation. If he has other reasonably suitable accommodation, ihen necessarily it would mean that he does not require the suit premises and his requirement may not be bona fide. In such circumstances further inquiry would be whether that premises is more suitable than the suit premises. Therefore, the questions raised before the Court would not necessarily depend upon only the pleadings. It could be a good defence that the landlord has other reasonably suitable residential accommodation and thereby defend the claim of the landlord.</p><p>10. There cannot be a pedantic or a dogmatic approach in the matter of analysis of pleadings or of the evidence adduced thereto. It is no doubt true that if the pleadings are clearly set out, it would be easy for the Court to decide the matters. But if the pleadings are lacking or vague and if both parties have understood what was the case pleaded and put forth with reference to requirement of law and placed such material before the Court, neither party is prejudiced. If we analyse from this angle, we do not think that the High Court was not justified in interfering with the order made by the Rent Controller.</p><p>23. From the perusal of the judgment of the Apex Court it is apparent that the Rent Controller must approach the matter in a practical manner. In case the non-disclosure is such as that it goes to the very root of the case the Rent Controller would be justified in non-suiting the landlord. However, if the non-disclosure is such that it would not prejudice the rights of the respondent then the landlord should not be non-suited only on this ground.</p><p>24. The decisions of this Court cited hereinabove were delivered prior to the judgment delivered by the Apex Court in Ram Nar'ain Arora's case. Further more both in Tara Chand Sharma's case and Vijay Kapoor's case decided by this Court, no averment had been made ixi respect of other residential buildings owned by a landlord. There was complete non-disclosure as to whether any such residential building owned by the landlord was in his possession or not. In the present case, as I have held above, the residential premises at 31, The Mall, Shimla was not owned by the landlord and hence these two earlier judgments of this Court are distinguishable on facts also.</p><p>25. In the present case, the landlord has been non-suited only on the ground that he did not disclose the fact that he was in occupation of certain premises on the Mall Road. Under law he was not required to disclose this fact. He was only required to disclose the factum of occupying another residential building owned by him in the urban area concerned. True it may be, that it would have been better if the landlord had disclosed all the facts but non-disclosure of a fact which he was not under law required to disclose could not in my opinion be a ground to dismiss his eviction petition.</p><p>26. However, what are the premises in his occupation even as a tenant can be taken into consideration while deciding the question whether he bona fide requires the demised premises for his personal use or occupation or not.</p><p>27. Lastly comes the question with regard to the bona fide requirement of the landlord. The landlord has no children. According to the landlord as well as his other witnesses i.e. his brother-in-law PW-2 and his wife PW-3, the wife now wants to come back and settle in Shimla. There is no reason to disbelieve their statements. Even according to the evidence led by the tenant the accommodation in possession of the landlord consists of two rooms, kitchen, bath room etc. Admittedly, the landlord is also having his office as an Architect in this building. The landlord belongs to the middle class of the Society. It cannot be expected of a landlord who owns sufficient property to reside in a two room set wherein he also runs his office.</p><p>28. The law by now is well settled that the landlord is the best judge of the suitability of the accommodation required by him. This suitability has however to be judged in the context of reasonable expectations. The landlord and his wife who are both well educated can reasonably be expected to entertain guests and they will have visitors to their house. They would obviously require a drawing room, a bed room and a spare bed room for guests. Even at his residence the landlord may require another room for his professional work. This is the minimum accommodation which they would require. Even if the accommodation possessed by the landlord, though not owned by him, at 31, the Mall, Shimla is taken into consideration such accommodation is not sufficient to meet his requirements since admittedly the landlord is running his profession of Architect from some portion of his these premises.</p><p>29. Keeping in view the entire facts and circumstances, I am of the considered view that the learned Appellate Authority gravely erred in rejecting the eviction petition of the landlord solely on the ground that he had not disclosed the factum of being in possession of the premises at 31, the Mall Shimla. Even though I have held that the said premises are residential premises, in view of the above discussion I hold that the landlord cannot be non-suited only on the ground of his being in possession of such premises since same were not owned by him.</p><p>30. In view of the above discussion, the Revision Petition is allowed, the order of the learned Appellate Authority dated 6.5.2003 is seaside and the order of the Rent Controller dated 22.8.2001 is restored.</p><p>31. Keeping in view the fact that the tenant has been in possession of the premises for a long period he is granted time up to 31st October, 2008 to vacate the premises.</p><p>32. No order as to costs.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '2008(2)ShimLC491',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'Shri S.L. Srivastava',
		'sub' => 'Tenancy',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'shri-arun-bhanwara-vs-s-l-srivastava'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '891084',
	(int) 1 => 'shri-arun-bhanwara-vs-s-l-srivastava'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/891084/shri-arun-bhanwara-vs-s-l-srivastava'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$caseref = 'Ram Narain Arora v. Asha Rani<br>'
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 120
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 120]
Code Context
                                echo "<div class='table-bordered'><b>Excerpt:</b><br/>";

                                    if (trim($desc['Judgement']['casenote'])) {

                                        echo $this->Wand->highlight($this->Excerpt->extractRelevant($kword,strtolower(strip_tags($desc['Judgement']['casenote']))), $query);
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Shri Arun Bhanwara Vs Shri S L Srivastava - Citation 891084 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '891084',
			'acts' => '',
			'appealno' => '',
			'appellant' => 'Shri Arun Bhanwara',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Shri Arun Bhanwara Vs. Shri S.L. Srivastava',
			'casenote' => ' - CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908.[C.A. No. 5/1908]. Order 14, Rule 2 [As amended by Amending Act of 1976]: [V.K. Gupta, CJ, Deepak Gupta & Surjit Singh, JJ] Preliminary issue of law and fact  Court framing all issues both of law and facts together and also  tried all the issues together, including the issue relating to jurisdiction of Court  Held, Except in situations perceived or warranted under sub-rule (2) of Rule 2 of Order 14 where a  Court in fact frames only issues of law in the first instance and postpones settlement of other issues, clearly and explicitly in situations where the Court has framed all issues together, both of law as well as facts and has also tried all these issues together, it is not open to the Court to adopt the principle of severability and proceed to decide issues of law first, without taking up simultaneously other issues for decision. This course of action is not available to a Court because sub-rule (1) does not permit the  Court to adopt any such principle of severability and to dispose of a suit only on preliminary issues, or what can be termed as issues of law. Sub-rule (1)  clearly mandates that in a situation contemplated under it, where all the issues have been together and have also been taken up for adjudication during the course of the trial, these must be decided together and the judgment in the suit as a whole must be pronounced by the Court covering all the issues framed in the suit.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => 'Ram Narain Arora v. Asha Rani;',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => '',
			'counseldef' => '',
			'court' => 'Himachal Pradesh',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2008-07-31',
			'deposition' => 'Petition allowed',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => ' Deepak Gupta, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">Deepak Gupta, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. This Revision Petition under Section 25(5) of the H.P. Urban Rent Control Act, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) is directed against the order of the learned Appellate Authority, Shimla in CMA No. 60-S/14 of 2001 whereby the appeal filed by the respondent (hereinafter referred to as the tenant) has been allowed, the order of the Rent Controller has been set-aside and the petition for eviction filed by the present petitioner (hereinafter referred to as the Landlord) on the ground of personal bona fide requirement has been set-aside.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The undisputed facts are that the landlord is owner of the demised premises situated in building known as Tunnel View, Sanjauli, Shimla-6 consisting of two bed rooms with attached bath room and latrine, drawing-cum-dining room, kitchen and balcony. These premises were purchased by the landlord in the year 1986. Thereafter, the landlord had rented out the premises to one Sh. B.K. Chauhan. According to the landlord, when he got married he requested Sh. B.K. Chauhan to vacate the said premises. Sh. Chauhan vacated the said premises but admittedly the landlord did not occupy the same but rented out the same to the tenant in the year 1990.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. In the year 1997 the landlord filed a petition for eviction of the tenant on two grounds; firstly that the tenant is in arrears of rent from 1.11.1990 to 31.7.1997 and secondly that the premises are bona fide required by the landlord for the use and occupation of himself and his family.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. This petition was contested by the tenant. After trial, the Rent Controller ordered the eviction of the tenant on two grounds; (i) that the tenant was in arrears of rent from November, 1999 till date of order i.e. 22nd August, 2001 and (ii) that the landlord required the premises for his own use and occupation.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. The tenant deposited the rent within the time prescribed. He also filed an appeal challenging the finding on the issue of bona fide requirement. The learned Appellate Authority came to the conclusion that the landlord had not made a proper and full disclosure of facts as required under the provisions of the Act and had withheld material facts from the Court viz. that the landlord was in occupation of residential premises on 31, Mall Road in the urban area of Shimla and as such rejected this petition on this short ground.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. Aggrieved by the said order, the landlord has filed the present Revision Petition.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. I have heard Sh. Ramakant Sharma, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sh. Bhupinder Gupta, learned senior Counsel for the tenant.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. It has been urged on behalf of the landlord that the building which is alleged to be in possession of the landlord i.e. 31, the Mall Shimla is not a residential building and secondly that the building is not owned by him.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. On the other hand Sh. Bhupinder Gupta, learned Counsel of the tenant has strenuously urged that the landlord in para 18 has not stated anything about any building being owned by him and has only made an averment that he does not own or possess any other such building within the urban area Shimla. It is contended by Sh. Bhupinder Gupta that the landlord of his own volition did not state anything about the ownership of the building and since he has kept silent about the building which he is in occupation he has made a false averment and therefore his petition for eviction has rightly been rejected.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. I am not at all in agreement with the contention of the landlord that the premises known as 31, the Mall Shimla which are admittedly in the occupation of the landlord are commercial premises only and not being used by him for his residence. As pointed out above, the landlord purchased the demised premises in 1986. They fell vacant when he got married despite that he did not occupy the same and rented out the same to the tenant in the year 1990. The question that arises is where was the landlord living for this entire period. According to the landlord after the year 1994 he has been living with his brother-in-law Rajan (wife's brother) PW-2, since the year 1994. Prior to 1994 the landlord will have this Court to believe that he was living off and on with one friend or the other. This story is impossible to believe. The landlord was married in the year 1999. He is an Architect by profession. His wife is a law graduate. It is not believable that such a person would have no permanent abode and would continue to live as a guest with his friends for almost 5 years after his marriage. Even the story that he has been living with his brother-in-law after the year 1994 does not inspire confidence. It stands proved on record that the brother-in-law PW-2 Rajan lives with his own family i.e. wife and children. From the evidence it is also clear that the parents of the brother-in-law also reside with him, His flat consists of only two rooms. The flat in possession of the landlord at 31, the Mall Shimla, also consists of two rooms, kitchen and bath room. Even assuming that he was running an office in the part of the flat it cannot be believed that he would not live on his own flat on the Mall Road and reside with his brother-in-law in cramped premises. Even in the electoral list the landlord is shown to be a resident of 31, The Mall, Shimla. Therefore, I am of the considered view that the building 31, the Mall, Shimla was also being used as a residence by the landlord.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. Having held so, the question that arises is whether the landlord can be non-suited only on the ground that he has not made any disclosure about the residential accommodation available with him which premises were admittedly not owned by him.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. The short question which arises for decision in this petition is whether the landlord was guilty of suppressing and withholding such relevant facts which would disentitle him from seeking eviction of the tenant. To appreciate these contentions it would be necessary to refer to relevant portion of Section 14(3) of the Act:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Section 14:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1 and 2 xxxxxxxxxxx</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(3) A landlord may apply to the Controller for an order directing the tenant to put the landlord in possession-</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(a) in case of residential building, if</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(i) he required it for his own occupation:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Provided that he is not occupying another residential building owned by him, in the urban area concerned:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Provided further that he has not vacated such a building without sufficient cause within five years of the filing of the application, in the said urban area....</p><p style="text-align: justify;">13. A perusal of the bare provisions of the Act makes it clear that there are certain essential ingredients which the landlord must satisfy before seeking eviction of the tenant under the Act. Not only must he prove that the residential building is bona fide required by him for his own use and occupation but he must also plead and prove that he is not occupying any other residential building owned by him in the urban area concerned and further that he has not vacated such a building without sufficient cause within 5 years of the filing of the application.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">14. Reference may now be made to the relevant allegations made in para 18 of the eviction petition:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(ii) That the petitioner bona fide requires the premises for his own use and occupation and also for the use and occupation of his family.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The petitioner does not own or possess any other such building within the urban area of Simla nor the petitioner has vacated any such premises within five years of the filing of this petition.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The family of the petitioner presently consists of himself and his wife. Due to paucity of accommodation the petitioner has not been able to keep his wife with himself at Simla, where he is working as an Engineer and she has been residing at Chandigarh since 1991 but on account of her ill health she has been brought to Simla by the petitioner. The petitioner at present is seeking temporary shelter, from time to time, with his relations.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">15. The learned Appellate Authority came to the conclusion that the landlord had falsely pleaded that he does not own or possess any other such building within the urban area of Shimla and hence rejected the eviction petition on this ground.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">16. On a close analysis of the proviso to Section 14(3)(a)(i) of the Act it is clear that a landlord is not entitled to seek eviction of a tenant from residential building even in case of bona fide requirement if the landlord is occupying another residential building owned by him in the urban area concerned. One can read three essential ingredients in this proviso i.e. (i) that the landlord is in occupation of another residential building; (ii) that the said residential building is owned by him and (iii) that the said residential building is situated in the concerned urban area.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">17. The question that arises is what is the impact of the landlord not making a disclosure in respect of premises which he is occupying but are not owned by him.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">18. The Apex Court in Onkar Nath v. Ved Vyas ILR 1979 HP 1, held as follows:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">It is common ground that there are three requirements to make out a cause of action for eviction under that provision, and indeed this is apparent from a bare reading of the sub-section. In the present case the finding is to the effect that the landlord requires the residential building for his own occupation. But, the legislation has taken care to insist upon two more conditions, namely; (a) that the landlord is not occupying any other residential building in the area concerned; and (b) that he has not vacated such a building without sufficient cause. There is not a scintilla of evidence nor indeed there is any averment in compliance with these latter conditions. The necessary consequence follows that not merely is there inadequacy of pleadings sufficient to make out a cause of action but total absence of proof of two vital requirements....</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The Supreme Court also said that:.The statute benignly designed to protect tenants from unreasonable evictions has taken case to put restrictions which must be rigorously construed to fulfil the purpose of the statute.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">19. Following the aforesaid judgment and other pronouncements of the Apex Court, a learned Single Judge of this Court in Tara Chand Sharma v. Baij Nath and Ors. 1992 (2) R.C.J. 323, held as follows:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">16. What appears as the legislative intent, in bold relief, is that the landlord, while seeking eviction of a tenant on the ground that he needs a residential building for his own occupation, must come out clearly and honestly with facts relating to the requirement that he is not occupying another residential building owned by him, in the urban area concerned and that he had not vacated such a building without sufficient cause within five years of the filing of the application, in the said urban area. The primal burden of making a clear disclosure would lie upon the landlord, for, the true facts would be in his special knowledge. An order in his favour by the Rent Controller would depend upon the satisfaction of the Rent Controller in regard not only to the claim that the landlord requires the accommodation, from which he wishes to evict a tenant, for his own occupation but also that he was not occupying another residential building owned by him nor had he vacated such building without sufficient cause within five years of the filing of the application in the application in the urban area concerned....</p><p style="text-align: justify;">It was further held as under:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">18. That the landlord should make a full disclosure of the relevant facts, pertaining to the requirements of Sub-section (3)(a)(i) and the two provisos, becomes all the more necessary because the satisfaction of the Rent Controller in regard thereto is the condition precedent for the making of an order in favour of the landlord....</p><p style="text-align: justify;">20. The aforesaid judgment has been followed in a number of other cases including Vijay Kapoor v. Maya Ram 1997 (2) RCR 437, wherein another learned single Judge of this Court following the aforesaid judgment held that the landlord must make complete and proper disclosure of all the material facts.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">21. On the other hand Sh. Ramakant Sharma has relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in Ram Narain Arora v. Asha Rani 1998(2) RCR 268. In that case the Rent Controller came to the conclusion that the landlord had suppressed material information and had not disclosed the fact that he was already in occupation of a house in Subji Mandi. Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act reads as follows:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Section 14(1)(e). That the premises let for residential purposes are required bona fide by the landlord for occupation as a residence for himself or for any member of his family dependent on him, if he is the owner thereof, or for any person for whose benefit the premises are held and that the landlord or such person has no other reasonably suitable residential accommodation.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">22. The difference between Delhi Act and the present Act is that under the Delhi Act the only requirement is that the landlord has no other reasonably suitable accommodation whereas under the Himachal Act the residential premises are required to be owned by the landlord. The Apex Court in Rama Narain Arora's case (supra) held that the nondisclosure of the fact that the landlord was in occupation of certain premises in Subji Mandi was.not a ground to non-suit the landlord in view of the facts and circumstances of the case. The Apex Court held as follows:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. In making a claim that the suit premises is required bona fide for his own occupation as a residence for himself and other members of his family dependent on him and that he has no other reasonably suitable accommodation is a requirement of law before the Court can state whether the landlord requires the premises bona fide for his use and occupation. In doing so, the Court must also find out whether the landlord or such other person for whose benefit the premises is required has no other reasonably suitable residential accommodation. It cannot be said that the requirement of the landlord is not intermixed with the question of finding out whether he has any other reasonably suitable accommodation. If he has other reasonably suitable accommodation, ihen necessarily it would mean that he does not require the suit premises and his requirement may not be bona fide. In such circumstances further inquiry would be whether that premises is more suitable than the suit premises. Therefore, the questions raised before the Court would not necessarily depend upon only the pleadings. It could be a good defence that the landlord has other reasonably suitable residential accommodation and thereby defend the claim of the landlord.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. There cannot be a pedantic or a dogmatic approach in the matter of analysis of pleadings or of the evidence adduced thereto. It is no doubt true that if the pleadings are clearly set out, it would be easy for the Court to decide the matters. But if the pleadings are lacking or vague and if both parties have understood what was the case pleaded and put forth with reference to requirement of law and placed such material before the Court, neither party is prejudiced. If we analyse from this angle, we do not think that the High Court was not justified in interfering with the order made by the Rent Controller.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">23. From the perusal of the judgment of the Apex Court it is apparent that the Rent Controller must approach the matter in a practical manner. In case the non-disclosure is such as that it goes to the very root of the case the Rent Controller would be justified in non-suiting the landlord. However, if the non-disclosure is such that it would not prejudice the rights of the respondent then the landlord should not be non-suited only on this ground.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">24. The decisions of this Court cited hereinabove were delivered prior to the judgment delivered by the Apex Court in Ram Nar'ain Arora's case. Further more both in Tara Chand Sharma's case and Vijay Kapoor's case decided by this Court, no averment had been made ixi respect of other residential buildings owned by a landlord. There was complete non-disclosure as to whether any such residential building owned by the landlord was in his possession or not. In the present case, as I have held above, the residential premises at 31, The Mall, Shimla was not owned by the landlord and hence these two earlier judgments of this Court are distinguishable on facts also.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">25. In the present case, the landlord has been non-suited only on the ground that he did not disclose the fact that he was in occupation of certain premises on the Mall Road. Under law he was not required to disclose this fact. He was only required to disclose the factum of occupying another residential building owned by him in the urban area concerned. True it may be, that it would have been better if the landlord had disclosed all the facts but non-disclosure of a fact which he was not under law required to disclose could not in my opinion be a ground to dismiss his eviction petition.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">26. However, what are the premises in his occupation even as a tenant can be taken into consideration while deciding the question whether he bona fide requires the demised premises for his personal use or occupation or not.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">27. Lastly comes the question with regard to the bona fide requirement of the landlord. The landlord has no children. According to the landlord as well as his other witnesses i.e. his brother-in-law PW-2 and his wife PW-3, the wife now wants to come back and settle in Shimla. There is no reason to disbelieve their statements. Even according to the evidence led by the tenant the accommodation in possession of the landlord consists of two rooms, kitchen, bath room etc. Admittedly, the landlord is also having his office as an Architect in this building. The landlord belongs to the middle class of the Society. It cannot be expected of a landlord who owns sufficient property to reside in a two room set wherein he also runs his office.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">28. The law by now is well settled that the landlord is the best judge of the suitability of the accommodation required by him. This suitability has however to be judged in the context of reasonable expectations. The landlord and his wife who are both well educated can reasonably be expected to entertain guests and they will have visitors to their house. They would obviously require a drawing room, a bed room and a spare bed room for guests. Even at his residence the landlord may require another room for his professional work. This is the minimum accommodation which they would require. Even if the accommodation possessed by the landlord, though not owned by him, at 31, the Mall, Shimla is taken into consideration such accommodation is not sufficient to meet his requirements since admittedly the landlord is running his profession of Architect from some portion of his these premises.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">29. Keeping in view the entire facts and circumstances, I am of the considered view that the learned Appellate Authority gravely erred in rejecting the eviction petition of the landlord solely on the ground that he had not disclosed the factum of being in possession of the premises at 31, the Mall Shimla. Even though I have held that the said premises are residential premises, in view of the above discussion I hold that the landlord cannot be non-suited only on the ground of his being in possession of such premises since same were not owned by him.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">30. In view of the above discussion, the Revision Petition is allowed, the order of the learned Appellate Authority dated 6.5.2003 is seaside and the order of the Rent Controller dated 22.8.2001 is restored.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">31. Keeping in view the fact that the tenant has been in possession of the premises for a long period he is granted time up to 31st October, 2008 to vacate the premises.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">32. No order as to costs.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '2008(2)ShimLC491',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'Shri S.L. Srivastava',
			'sub' => 'Tenancy',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'shri-arun-bhanwara-vs-s-l-srivastava',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '891084',
		(int) 1 => 'shri-arun-bhanwara-vs-s-l-srivastava'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Shri Arun Bhanwara Vs Shri S L Srivastava - Citation 891084 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '891084',
		'acts' => '',
		'appealno' => '',
		'appellant' => 'Shri Arun Bhanwara',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Shri Arun Bhanwara Vs. Shri S.L. Srivastava',
		'casenote' => ' - CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908.[C.A. No. 5/1908]. Order 14, Rule 2 [As amended by Amending Act of 1976]: [V.K. Gupta, CJ, Deepak Gupta & Surjit Singh, JJ] Preliminary issue of law and fact  Court framing all issues both of law and facts together and also  tried all the issues together, including the issue relating to jurisdiction of Court  Held, Except in situations perceived or warranted under sub-rule (2) of Rule 2 of Order 14 where a  Court in fact frames only issues of law in the first instance and postpones settlement of other issues, clearly and explicitly in situations where the Court has framed all issues together, both of law as well as facts and has also tried all these issues together, it is not open to the Court to adopt the principle of severability and proceed to decide issues of law first, without taking up simultaneously other issues for decision. This course of action is not available to a Court because sub-rule (1) does not permit the  Court to adopt any such principle of severability and to dispose of a suit only on preliminary issues, or what can be termed as issues of law. Sub-rule (1)  clearly mandates that in a situation contemplated under it, where all the issues have been together and have also been taken up for adjudication during the course of the trial, these must be decided together and the judgment in the suit as a whole must be pronounced by the Court covering all the issues framed in the suit.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => 'Ram Narain Arora v. Asha Rani;',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => '',
		'counseldef' => '',
		'court' => 'Himachal Pradesh',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2008-07-31',
		'deposition' => 'Petition allowed',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => ' Deepak Gupta, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>Deepak Gupta, J.</p><p>1. This Revision Petition under Section 25(5) of the H.P. Urban Rent Control Act, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) is directed against the order of the learned Appellate Authority, Shimla in CMA No. 60-S/14 of 2001 whereby the appeal filed by the respondent (hereinafter referred to as the tenant) has been allowed, the order of the Rent Controller has been set-aside and the petition for eviction filed by the present petitioner (hereinafter referred to as the Landlord) on the ground of personal bona fide requirement has been set-aside.</p><p>2. The undisputed facts are that the landlord is owner of the demised premises situated in building known as Tunnel View, Sanjauli, Shimla-6 consisting of two bed rooms with attached bath room and latrine, drawing-cum-dining room, kitchen and balcony. These premises were purchased by the landlord in the year 1986. Thereafter, the landlord had rented out the premises to one Sh. B.K. Chauhan. According to the landlord, when he got married he requested Sh. B.K. Chauhan to vacate the said premises. Sh. Chauhan vacated the said premises but admittedly the landlord did not occupy the same but rented out the same to the tenant in the year 1990.</p><p>3. In the year 1997 the landlord filed a petition for eviction of the tenant on two grounds; firstly that the tenant is in arrears of rent from 1.11.1990 to 31.7.1997 and secondly that the premises are bona fide required by the landlord for the use and occupation of himself and his family.</p><p>4. This petition was contested by the tenant. After trial, the Rent Controller ordered the eviction of the tenant on two grounds; (i) that the tenant was in arrears of rent from November, 1999 till date of order i.e. 22nd August, 2001 and (ii) that the landlord required the premises for his own use and occupation.</p><p>5. The tenant deposited the rent within the time prescribed. He also filed an appeal challenging the finding on the issue of bona fide requirement. The learned Appellate Authority came to the conclusion that the landlord had not made a proper and full disclosure of facts as required under the provisions of the Act and had withheld material facts from the Court viz. that the landlord was in occupation of residential premises on 31, Mall Road in the urban area of Shimla and as such rejected this petition on this short ground.</p><p>6. Aggrieved by the said order, the landlord has filed the present Revision Petition.</p><p>7. I have heard Sh. Ramakant Sharma, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sh. Bhupinder Gupta, learned senior Counsel for the tenant.</p><p>8. It has been urged on behalf of the landlord that the building which is alleged to be in possession of the landlord i.e. 31, the Mall Shimla is not a residential building and secondly that the building is not owned by him.</p><p>9. On the other hand Sh. Bhupinder Gupta, learned Counsel of the tenant has strenuously urged that the landlord in para 18 has not stated anything about any building being owned by him and has only made an averment that he does not own or possess any other such building within the urban area Shimla. It is contended by Sh. Bhupinder Gupta that the landlord of his own volition did not state anything about the ownership of the building and since he has kept silent about the building which he is in occupation he has made a false averment and therefore his petition for eviction has rightly been rejected.</p><p>10. I am not at all in agreement with the contention of the landlord that the premises known as 31, the Mall Shimla which are admittedly in the occupation of the landlord are commercial premises only and not being used by him for his residence. As pointed out above, the landlord purchased the demised premises in 1986. They fell vacant when he got married despite that he did not occupy the same and rented out the same to the tenant in the year 1990. The question that arises is where was the landlord living for this entire period. According to the landlord after the year 1994 he has been living with his brother-in-law Rajan (wife's brother) PW-2, since the year 1994. Prior to 1994 the landlord will have this Court to believe that he was living off and on with one friend or the other. This story is impossible to believe. The landlord was married in the year 1999. He is an Architect by profession. His wife is a law graduate. It is not believable that such a person would have no permanent abode and would continue to live as a guest with his friends for almost 5 years after his marriage. Even the story that he has been living with his brother-in-law after the year 1994 does not inspire confidence. It stands proved on record that the brother-in-law PW-2 Rajan lives with his own family i.e. wife and children. From the evidence it is also clear that the parents of the brother-in-law also reside with him, His flat consists of only two rooms. The flat in possession of the landlord at 31, the Mall Shimla, also consists of two rooms, kitchen and bath room. Even assuming that he was running an office in the part of the flat it cannot be believed that he would not live on his own flat on the Mall Road and reside with his brother-in-law in cramped premises. Even in the electoral list the landlord is shown to be a resident of 31, The Mall, Shimla. Therefore, I am of the considered view that the building 31, the Mall, Shimla was also being used as a residence by the landlord.</p><p>11. Having held so, the question that arises is whether the landlord can be non-suited only on the ground that he has not made any disclosure about the residential accommodation available with him which premises were admittedly not owned by him.</p><p>12. The short question which arises for decision in this petition is whether the landlord was guilty of suppressing and withholding such relevant facts which would disentitle him from seeking eviction of the tenant. To appreciate these contentions it would be necessary to refer to relevant portion of Section 14(3) of the Act:</p><p>Section 14:</p><p>1 and 2 xxxxxxxxxxx</p><p>(3) A landlord may apply to the Controller for an order directing the tenant to put the landlord in possession-</p><p>(a) in case of residential building, if</p><p>(i) he required it for his own occupation:</p><p>Provided that he is not occupying another residential building owned by him, in the urban area concerned:</p><p>Provided further that he has not vacated such a building without sufficient cause within five years of the filing of the application, in the said urban area....</p><p>13. A perusal of the bare provisions of the Act makes it clear that there are certain essential ingredients which the landlord must satisfy before seeking eviction of the tenant under the Act. Not only must he prove that the residential building is bona fide required by him for his own use and occupation but he must also plead and prove that he is not occupying any other residential building owned by him in the urban area concerned and further that he has not vacated such a building without sufficient cause within 5 years of the filing of the application.</p><p>14. Reference may now be made to the relevant allegations made in para 18 of the eviction petition:</p><p>(ii) That the petitioner bona fide requires the premises for his own use and occupation and also for the use and occupation of his family.</p><p>The petitioner does not own or possess any other such building within the urban area of Simla nor the petitioner has vacated any such premises within five years of the filing of this petition.</p><p>The family of the petitioner presently consists of himself and his wife. Due to paucity of accommodation the petitioner has not been able to keep his wife with himself at Simla, where he is working as an Engineer and she has been residing at Chandigarh since 1991 but on account of her ill health she has been brought to Simla by the petitioner. The petitioner at present is seeking temporary shelter, from time to time, with his relations.</p><p>15. The learned Appellate Authority came to the conclusion that the landlord had falsely pleaded that he does not own or possess any other such building within the urban area of Shimla and hence rejected the eviction petition on this ground.</p><p>16. On a close analysis of the proviso to Section 14(3)(a)(i) of the Act it is clear that a landlord is not entitled to seek eviction of a tenant from residential building even in case of bona fide requirement if the landlord is occupying another residential building owned by him in the urban area concerned. One can read three essential ingredients in this proviso i.e. (i) that the landlord is in occupation of another residential building; (ii) that the said residential building is owned by him and (iii) that the said residential building is situated in the concerned urban area.</p><p>17. The question that arises is what is the impact of the landlord not making a disclosure in respect of premises which he is occupying but are not owned by him.</p><p>18. The Apex Court in Onkar Nath v. Ved Vyas ILR 1979 HP 1, held as follows:</p><p>It is common ground that there are three requirements to make out a cause of action for eviction under that provision, and indeed this is apparent from a bare reading of the sub-section. In the present case the finding is to the effect that the landlord requires the residential building for his own occupation. But, the legislation has taken care to insist upon two more conditions, namely; (a) that the landlord is not occupying any other residential building in the area concerned; and (b) that he has not vacated such a building without sufficient cause. There is not a scintilla of evidence nor indeed there is any averment in compliance with these latter conditions. The necessary consequence follows that not merely is there inadequacy of pleadings sufficient to make out a cause of action but total absence of proof of two vital requirements....</p><p>The Supreme Court also said that:.The statute benignly designed to protect tenants from unreasonable evictions has taken case to put restrictions which must be rigorously construed to fulfil the purpose of the statute.</p><p>19. Following the aforesaid judgment and other pronouncements of the Apex Court, a learned Single Judge of this Court in Tara Chand Sharma v. Baij Nath and Ors. 1992 (2) R.C.J. 323, held as follows:</p><p>16. What appears as the legislative intent, in bold relief, is that the landlord, while seeking eviction of a tenant on the ground that he needs a residential building for his own occupation, must come out clearly and honestly with facts relating to the requirement that he is not occupying another residential building owned by him, in the urban area concerned and that he had not vacated such a building without sufficient cause within five years of the filing of the application, in the said urban area. The primal burden of making a clear disclosure would lie upon the landlord, for, the true facts would be in his special knowledge. An order in his favour by the Rent Controller would depend upon the satisfaction of the Rent Controller in regard not only to the claim that the landlord requires the accommodation, from which he wishes to evict a tenant, for his own occupation but also that he was not occupying another residential building owned by him nor had he vacated such building without sufficient cause within five years of the filing of the application in the application in the urban area concerned....</p><p>It was further held as under:</p><p>18. That the landlord should make a full disclosure of the relevant facts, pertaining to the requirements of Sub-section (3)(a)(i) and the two provisos, becomes all the more necessary because the satisfaction of the Rent Controller in regard thereto is the condition precedent for the making of an order in favour of the landlord....</p><p>20. The aforesaid judgment has been followed in a number of other cases including Vijay Kapoor v. Maya Ram 1997 (2) RCR 437, wherein another learned single Judge of this Court following the aforesaid judgment held that the landlord must make complete and proper disclosure of all the material facts.</p><p>21. On the other hand Sh. Ramakant Sharma has relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in Ram Narain Arora v. Asha Rani 1998(2) RCR 268. In that case the Rent Controller came to the conclusion that the landlord had suppressed material information and had not disclosed the fact that he was already in occupation of a house in Subji Mandi. Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act reads as follows:</p><p>Section 14(1)(e). That the premises let for residential purposes are required bona fide by the landlord for occupation as a residence for himself or for any member of his family dependent on him, if he is the owner thereof, or for any person for whose benefit the premises are held and that the landlord or such person has no other reasonably suitable residential accommodation.</p><p>22. The difference between Delhi Act and the present Act is that under the Delhi Act the only requirement is that the landlord has no other reasonably suitable accommodation whereas under the Himachal Act the residential premises are required to be owned by the landlord. The Apex Court in Rama Narain Arora's case (supra) held that the nondisclosure of the fact that the landlord was in occupation of certain premises in Subji Mandi was.not a ground to non-suit the landlord in view of the facts and circumstances of the case. The Apex Court held as follows:</p><p>9. In making a claim that the suit premises is required bona fide for his own occupation as a residence for himself and other members of his family dependent on him and that he has no other reasonably suitable accommodation is a requirement of law before the Court can state whether the landlord requires the premises bona fide for his use and occupation. In doing so, the Court must also find out whether the landlord or such other person for whose benefit the premises is required has no other reasonably suitable residential accommodation. It cannot be said that the requirement of the landlord is not intermixed with the question of finding out whether he has any other reasonably suitable accommodation. If he has other reasonably suitable accommodation, ihen necessarily it would mean that he does not require the suit premises and his requirement may not be bona fide. In such circumstances further inquiry would be whether that premises is more suitable than the suit premises. Therefore, the questions raised before the Court would not necessarily depend upon only the pleadings. It could be a good defence that the landlord has other reasonably suitable residential accommodation and thereby defend the claim of the landlord.</p><p>10. There cannot be a pedantic or a dogmatic approach in the matter of analysis of pleadings or of the evidence adduced thereto. It is no doubt true that if the pleadings are clearly set out, it would be easy for the Court to decide the matters. But if the pleadings are lacking or vague and if both parties have understood what was the case pleaded and put forth with reference to requirement of law and placed such material before the Court, neither party is prejudiced. If we analyse from this angle, we do not think that the High Court was not justified in interfering with the order made by the Rent Controller.</p><p>23. From the perusal of the judgment of the Apex Court it is apparent that the Rent Controller must approach the matter in a practical manner. In case the non-disclosure is such as that it goes to the very root of the case the Rent Controller would be justified in non-suiting the landlord. However, if the non-disclosure is such that it would not prejudice the rights of the respondent then the landlord should not be non-suited only on this ground.</p><p>24. The decisions of this Court cited hereinabove were delivered prior to the judgment delivered by the Apex Court in Ram Nar'ain Arora's case. Further more both in Tara Chand Sharma's case and Vijay Kapoor's case decided by this Court, no averment had been made ixi respect of other residential buildings owned by a landlord. There was complete non-disclosure as to whether any such residential building owned by the landlord was in his possession or not. In the present case, as I have held above, the residential premises at 31, The Mall, Shimla was not owned by the landlord and hence these two earlier judgments of this Court are distinguishable on facts also.</p><p>25. In the present case, the landlord has been non-suited only on the ground that he did not disclose the fact that he was in occupation of certain premises on the Mall Road. Under law he was not required to disclose this fact. He was only required to disclose the factum of occupying another residential building owned by him in the urban area concerned. True it may be, that it would have been better if the landlord had disclosed all the facts but non-disclosure of a fact which he was not under law required to disclose could not in my opinion be a ground to dismiss his eviction petition.</p><p>26. However, what are the premises in his occupation even as a tenant can be taken into consideration while deciding the question whether he bona fide requires the demised premises for his personal use or occupation or not.</p><p>27. Lastly comes the question with regard to the bona fide requirement of the landlord. The landlord has no children. According to the landlord as well as his other witnesses i.e. his brother-in-law PW-2 and his wife PW-3, the wife now wants to come back and settle in Shimla. There is no reason to disbelieve their statements. Even according to the evidence led by the tenant the accommodation in possession of the landlord consists of two rooms, kitchen, bath room etc. Admittedly, the landlord is also having his office as an Architect in this building. The landlord belongs to the middle class of the Society. It cannot be expected of a landlord who owns sufficient property to reside in a two room set wherein he also runs his office.</p><p>28. The law by now is well settled that the landlord is the best judge of the suitability of the accommodation required by him. This suitability has however to be judged in the context of reasonable expectations. The landlord and his wife who are both well educated can reasonably be expected to entertain guests and they will have visitors to their house. They would obviously require a drawing room, a bed room and a spare bed room for guests. Even at his residence the landlord may require another room for his professional work. This is the minimum accommodation which they would require. Even if the accommodation possessed by the landlord, though not owned by him, at 31, the Mall, Shimla is taken into consideration such accommodation is not sufficient to meet his requirements since admittedly the landlord is running his profession of Architect from some portion of his these premises.</p><p>29. Keeping in view the entire facts and circumstances, I am of the considered view that the learned Appellate Authority gravely erred in rejecting the eviction petition of the landlord solely on the ground that he had not disclosed the factum of being in possession of the premises at 31, the Mall Shimla. Even though I have held that the said premises are residential premises, in view of the above discussion I hold that the landlord cannot be non-suited only on the ground of his being in possession of such premises since same were not owned by him.</p><p>30. In view of the above discussion, the Revision Petition is allowed, the order of the learned Appellate Authority dated 6.5.2003 is seaside and the order of the Rent Controller dated 22.8.2001 is restored.</p><p>31. Keeping in view the fact that the tenant has been in possession of the premises for a long period he is granted time up to 31st October, 2008 to vacate the premises.</p><p>32. No order as to costs.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '2008(2)ShimLC491',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'Shri S.L. Srivastava',
		'sub' => 'Tenancy',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'shri-arun-bhanwara-vs-s-l-srivastava'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '891084',
	(int) 1 => 'shri-arun-bhanwara-vs-s-l-srivastava'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/891084/shri-arun-bhanwara-vs-s-l-srivastava'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$caseref = 'Ram Narain Arora v. Asha Rani<br>'
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 120
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

Notice (8): Undefined variable: kword [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 123]
Code Context
                                    }

                                //highest occurence of word in the judgement

                                echo $this->Wand->highlight($this->Excerpt->extractRelevant($kword,strtolower(strip_tags($desc['Judgement']['judgement']))), $query) . "</div>";
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Shri Arun Bhanwara Vs Shri S L Srivastava - Citation 891084 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '891084',
			'acts' => '',
			'appealno' => '',
			'appellant' => 'Shri Arun Bhanwara',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Shri Arun Bhanwara Vs. Shri S.L. Srivastava',
			'casenote' => ' - CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908.[C.A. No. 5/1908]. Order 14, Rule 2 [As amended by Amending Act of 1976]: [V.K. Gupta, CJ, Deepak Gupta & Surjit Singh, JJ] Preliminary issue of law and fact  Court framing all issues both of law and facts together and also  tried all the issues together, including the issue relating to jurisdiction of Court  Held, Except in situations perceived or warranted under sub-rule (2) of Rule 2 of Order 14 where a  Court in fact frames only issues of law in the first instance and postpones settlement of other issues, clearly and explicitly in situations where the Court has framed all issues together, both of law as well as facts and has also tried all these issues together, it is not open to the Court to adopt the principle of severability and proceed to decide issues of law first, without taking up simultaneously other issues for decision. This course of action is not available to a Court because sub-rule (1) does not permit the  Court to adopt any such principle of severability and to dispose of a suit only on preliminary issues, or what can be termed as issues of law. Sub-rule (1)  clearly mandates that in a situation contemplated under it, where all the issues have been together and have also been taken up for adjudication during the course of the trial, these must be decided together and the judgment in the suit as a whole must be pronounced by the Court covering all the issues framed in the suit.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => 'Ram Narain Arora v. Asha Rani;',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => '',
			'counseldef' => '',
			'court' => 'Himachal Pradesh',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2008-07-31',
			'deposition' => 'Petition allowed',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => ' Deepak Gupta, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">Deepak Gupta, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. This Revision Petition under Section 25(5) of the H.P. Urban Rent Control Act, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) is directed against the order of the learned Appellate Authority, Shimla in CMA No. 60-S/14 of 2001 whereby the appeal filed by the respondent (hereinafter referred to as the tenant) has been allowed, the order of the Rent Controller has been set-aside and the petition for eviction filed by the present petitioner (hereinafter referred to as the Landlord) on the ground of personal bona fide requirement has been set-aside.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The undisputed facts are that the landlord is owner of the demised premises situated in building known as Tunnel View, Sanjauli, Shimla-6 consisting of two bed rooms with attached bath room and latrine, drawing-cum-dining room, kitchen and balcony. These premises were purchased by the landlord in the year 1986. Thereafter, the landlord had rented out the premises to one Sh. B.K. Chauhan. According to the landlord, when he got married he requested Sh. B.K. Chauhan to vacate the said premises. Sh. Chauhan vacated the said premises but admittedly the landlord did not occupy the same but rented out the same to the tenant in the year 1990.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. In the year 1997 the landlord filed a petition for eviction of the tenant on two grounds; firstly that the tenant is in arrears of rent from 1.11.1990 to 31.7.1997 and secondly that the premises are bona fide required by the landlord for the use and occupation of himself and his family.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. This petition was contested by the tenant. After trial, the Rent Controller ordered the eviction of the tenant on two grounds; (i) that the tenant was in arrears of rent from November, 1999 till date of order i.e. 22nd August, 2001 and (ii) that the landlord required the premises for his own use and occupation.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. The tenant deposited the rent within the time prescribed. He also filed an appeal challenging the finding on the issue of bona fide requirement. The learned Appellate Authority came to the conclusion that the landlord had not made a proper and full disclosure of facts as required under the provisions of the Act and had withheld material facts from the Court viz. that the landlord was in occupation of residential premises on 31, Mall Road in the urban area of Shimla and as such rejected this petition on this short ground.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. Aggrieved by the said order, the landlord has filed the present Revision Petition.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. I have heard Sh. Ramakant Sharma, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sh. Bhupinder Gupta, learned senior Counsel for the tenant.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. It has been urged on behalf of the landlord that the building which is alleged to be in possession of the landlord i.e. 31, the Mall Shimla is not a residential building and secondly that the building is not owned by him.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. On the other hand Sh. Bhupinder Gupta, learned Counsel of the tenant has strenuously urged that the landlord in para 18 has not stated anything about any building being owned by him and has only made an averment that he does not own or possess any other such building within the urban area Shimla. It is contended by Sh. Bhupinder Gupta that the landlord of his own volition did not state anything about the ownership of the building and since he has kept silent about the building which he is in occupation he has made a false averment and therefore his petition for eviction has rightly been rejected.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. I am not at all in agreement with the contention of the landlord that the premises known as 31, the Mall Shimla which are admittedly in the occupation of the landlord are commercial premises only and not being used by him for his residence. As pointed out above, the landlord purchased the demised premises in 1986. They fell vacant when he got married despite that he did not occupy the same and rented out the same to the tenant in the year 1990. The question that arises is where was the landlord living for this entire period. According to the landlord after the year 1994 he has been living with his brother-in-law Rajan (wife's brother) PW-2, since the year 1994. Prior to 1994 the landlord will have this Court to believe that he was living off and on with one friend or the other. This story is impossible to believe. The landlord was married in the year 1999. He is an Architect by profession. His wife is a law graduate. It is not believable that such a person would have no permanent abode and would continue to live as a guest with his friends for almost 5 years after his marriage. Even the story that he has been living with his brother-in-law after the year 1994 does not inspire confidence. It stands proved on record that the brother-in-law PW-2 Rajan lives with his own family i.e. wife and children. From the evidence it is also clear that the parents of the brother-in-law also reside with him, His flat consists of only two rooms. The flat in possession of the landlord at 31, the Mall Shimla, also consists of two rooms, kitchen and bath room. Even assuming that he was running an office in the part of the flat it cannot be believed that he would not live on his own flat on the Mall Road and reside with his brother-in-law in cramped premises. Even in the electoral list the landlord is shown to be a resident of 31, The Mall, Shimla. Therefore, I am of the considered view that the building 31, the Mall, Shimla was also being used as a residence by the landlord.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. Having held so, the question that arises is whether the landlord can be non-suited only on the ground that he has not made any disclosure about the residential accommodation available with him which premises were admittedly not owned by him.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. The short question which arises for decision in this petition is whether the landlord was guilty of suppressing and withholding such relevant facts which would disentitle him from seeking eviction of the tenant. To appreciate these contentions it would be necessary to refer to relevant portion of Section 14(3) of the Act:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Section 14:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1 and 2 xxxxxxxxxxx</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(3) A landlord may apply to the Controller for an order directing the tenant to put the landlord in possession-</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(a) in case of residential building, if</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(i) he required it for his own occupation:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Provided that he is not occupying another residential building owned by him, in the urban area concerned:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Provided further that he has not vacated such a building without sufficient cause within five years of the filing of the application, in the said urban area....</p><p style="text-align: justify;">13. A perusal of the bare provisions of the Act makes it clear that there are certain essential ingredients which the landlord must satisfy before seeking eviction of the tenant under the Act. Not only must he prove that the residential building is bona fide required by him for his own use and occupation but he must also plead and prove that he is not occupying any other residential building owned by him in the urban area concerned and further that he has not vacated such a building without sufficient cause within 5 years of the filing of the application.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">14. Reference may now be made to the relevant allegations made in para 18 of the eviction petition:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(ii) That the petitioner bona fide requires the premises for his own use and occupation and also for the use and occupation of his family.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The petitioner does not own or possess any other such building within the urban area of Simla nor the petitioner has vacated any such premises within five years of the filing of this petition.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The family of the petitioner presently consists of himself and his wife. Due to paucity of accommodation the petitioner has not been able to keep his wife with himself at Simla, where he is working as an Engineer and she has been residing at Chandigarh since 1991 but on account of her ill health she has been brought to Simla by the petitioner. The petitioner at present is seeking temporary shelter, from time to time, with his relations.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">15. The learned Appellate Authority came to the conclusion that the landlord had falsely pleaded that he does not own or possess any other such building within the urban area of Shimla and hence rejected the eviction petition on this ground.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">16. On a close analysis of the proviso to Section 14(3)(a)(i) of the Act it is clear that a landlord is not entitled to seek eviction of a tenant from residential building even in case of bona fide requirement if the landlord is occupying another residential building owned by him in the urban area concerned. One can read three essential ingredients in this proviso i.e. (i) that the landlord is in occupation of another residential building; (ii) that the said residential building is owned by him and (iii) that the said residential building is situated in the concerned urban area.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">17. The question that arises is what is the impact of the landlord not making a disclosure in respect of premises which he is occupying but are not owned by him.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">18. The Apex Court in Onkar Nath v. Ved Vyas ILR 1979 HP 1, held as follows:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">It is common ground that there are three requirements to make out a cause of action for eviction under that provision, and indeed this is apparent from a bare reading of the sub-section. In the present case the finding is to the effect that the landlord requires the residential building for his own occupation. But, the legislation has taken care to insist upon two more conditions, namely; (a) that the landlord is not occupying any other residential building in the area concerned; and (b) that he has not vacated such a building without sufficient cause. There is not a scintilla of evidence nor indeed there is any averment in compliance with these latter conditions. The necessary consequence follows that not merely is there inadequacy of pleadings sufficient to make out a cause of action but total absence of proof of two vital requirements....</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The Supreme Court also said that:.The statute benignly designed to protect tenants from unreasonable evictions has taken case to put restrictions which must be rigorously construed to fulfil the purpose of the statute.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">19. Following the aforesaid judgment and other pronouncements of the Apex Court, a learned Single Judge of this Court in Tara Chand Sharma v. Baij Nath and Ors. 1992 (2) R.C.J. 323, held as follows:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">16. What appears as the legislative intent, in bold relief, is that the landlord, while seeking eviction of a tenant on the ground that he needs a residential building for his own occupation, must come out clearly and honestly with facts relating to the requirement that he is not occupying another residential building owned by him, in the urban area concerned and that he had not vacated such a building without sufficient cause within five years of the filing of the application, in the said urban area. The primal burden of making a clear disclosure would lie upon the landlord, for, the true facts would be in his special knowledge. An order in his favour by the Rent Controller would depend upon the satisfaction of the Rent Controller in regard not only to the claim that the landlord requires the accommodation, from which he wishes to evict a tenant, for his own occupation but also that he was not occupying another residential building owned by him nor had he vacated such building without sufficient cause within five years of the filing of the application in the application in the urban area concerned....</p><p style="text-align: justify;">It was further held as under:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">18. That the landlord should make a full disclosure of the relevant facts, pertaining to the requirements of Sub-section (3)(a)(i) and the two provisos, becomes all the more necessary because the satisfaction of the Rent Controller in regard thereto is the condition precedent for the making of an order in favour of the landlord....</p><p style="text-align: justify;">20. The aforesaid judgment has been followed in a number of other cases including Vijay Kapoor v. Maya Ram 1997 (2) RCR 437, wherein another learned single Judge of this Court following the aforesaid judgment held that the landlord must make complete and proper disclosure of all the material facts.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">21. On the other hand Sh. Ramakant Sharma has relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in Ram Narain Arora v. Asha Rani 1998(2) RCR 268. In that case the Rent Controller came to the conclusion that the landlord had suppressed material information and had not disclosed the fact that he was already in occupation of a house in Subji Mandi. Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act reads as follows:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Section 14(1)(e). That the premises let for residential purposes are required bona fide by the landlord for occupation as a residence for himself or for any member of his family dependent on him, if he is the owner thereof, or for any person for whose benefit the premises are held and that the landlord or such person has no other reasonably suitable residential accommodation.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">22. The difference between Delhi Act and the present Act is that under the Delhi Act the only requirement is that the landlord has no other reasonably suitable accommodation whereas under the Himachal Act the residential premises are required to be owned by the landlord. The Apex Court in Rama Narain Arora's case (supra) held that the nondisclosure of the fact that the landlord was in occupation of certain premises in Subji Mandi was.not a ground to non-suit the landlord in view of the facts and circumstances of the case. The Apex Court held as follows:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. In making a claim that the suit premises is required bona fide for his own occupation as a residence for himself and other members of his family dependent on him and that he has no other reasonably suitable accommodation is a requirement of law before the Court can state whether the landlord requires the premises bona fide for his use and occupation. In doing so, the Court must also find out whether the landlord or such other person for whose benefit the premises is required has no other reasonably suitable residential accommodation. It cannot be said that the requirement of the landlord is not intermixed with the question of finding out whether he has any other reasonably suitable accommodation. If he has other reasonably suitable accommodation, ihen necessarily it would mean that he does not require the suit premises and his requirement may not be bona fide. In such circumstances further inquiry would be whether that premises is more suitable than the suit premises. Therefore, the questions raised before the Court would not necessarily depend upon only the pleadings. It could be a good defence that the landlord has other reasonably suitable residential accommodation and thereby defend the claim of the landlord.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. There cannot be a pedantic or a dogmatic approach in the matter of analysis of pleadings or of the evidence adduced thereto. It is no doubt true that if the pleadings are clearly set out, it would be easy for the Court to decide the matters. But if the pleadings are lacking or vague and if both parties have understood what was the case pleaded and put forth with reference to requirement of law and placed such material before the Court, neither party is prejudiced. If we analyse from this angle, we do not think that the High Court was not justified in interfering with the order made by the Rent Controller.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">23. From the perusal of the judgment of the Apex Court it is apparent that the Rent Controller must approach the matter in a practical manner. In case the non-disclosure is such as that it goes to the very root of the case the Rent Controller would be justified in non-suiting the landlord. However, if the non-disclosure is such that it would not prejudice the rights of the respondent then the landlord should not be non-suited only on this ground.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">24. The decisions of this Court cited hereinabove were delivered prior to the judgment delivered by the Apex Court in Ram Nar'ain Arora's case. Further more both in Tara Chand Sharma's case and Vijay Kapoor's case decided by this Court, no averment had been made ixi respect of other residential buildings owned by a landlord. There was complete non-disclosure as to whether any such residential building owned by the landlord was in his possession or not. In the present case, as I have held above, the residential premises at 31, The Mall, Shimla was not owned by the landlord and hence these two earlier judgments of this Court are distinguishable on facts also.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">25. In the present case, the landlord has been non-suited only on the ground that he did not disclose the fact that he was in occupation of certain premises on the Mall Road. Under law he was not required to disclose this fact. He was only required to disclose the factum of occupying another residential building owned by him in the urban area concerned. True it may be, that it would have been better if the landlord had disclosed all the facts but non-disclosure of a fact which he was not under law required to disclose could not in my opinion be a ground to dismiss his eviction petition.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">26. However, what are the premises in his occupation even as a tenant can be taken into consideration while deciding the question whether he bona fide requires the demised premises for his personal use or occupation or not.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">27. Lastly comes the question with regard to the bona fide requirement of the landlord. The landlord has no children. According to the landlord as well as his other witnesses i.e. his brother-in-law PW-2 and his wife PW-3, the wife now wants to come back and settle in Shimla. There is no reason to disbelieve their statements. Even according to the evidence led by the tenant the accommodation in possession of the landlord consists of two rooms, kitchen, bath room etc. Admittedly, the landlord is also having his office as an Architect in this building. The landlord belongs to the middle class of the Society. It cannot be expected of a landlord who owns sufficient property to reside in a two room set wherein he also runs his office.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">28. The law by now is well settled that the landlord is the best judge of the suitability of the accommodation required by him. This suitability has however to be judged in the context of reasonable expectations. The landlord and his wife who are both well educated can reasonably be expected to entertain guests and they will have visitors to their house. They would obviously require a drawing room, a bed room and a spare bed room for guests. Even at his residence the landlord may require another room for his professional work. This is the minimum accommodation which they would require. Even if the accommodation possessed by the landlord, though not owned by him, at 31, the Mall, Shimla is taken into consideration such accommodation is not sufficient to meet his requirements since admittedly the landlord is running his profession of Architect from some portion of his these premises.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">29. Keeping in view the entire facts and circumstances, I am of the considered view that the learned Appellate Authority gravely erred in rejecting the eviction petition of the landlord solely on the ground that he had not disclosed the factum of being in possession of the premises at 31, the Mall Shimla. Even though I have held that the said premises are residential premises, in view of the above discussion I hold that the landlord cannot be non-suited only on the ground of his being in possession of such premises since same were not owned by him.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">30. In view of the above discussion, the Revision Petition is allowed, the order of the learned Appellate Authority dated 6.5.2003 is seaside and the order of the Rent Controller dated 22.8.2001 is restored.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">31. Keeping in view the fact that the tenant has been in possession of the premises for a long period he is granted time up to 31st October, 2008 to vacate the premises.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">32. No order as to costs.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '2008(2)ShimLC491',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'Shri S.L. Srivastava',
			'sub' => 'Tenancy',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'shri-arun-bhanwara-vs-s-l-srivastava',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '891084',
		(int) 1 => 'shri-arun-bhanwara-vs-s-l-srivastava'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Shri Arun Bhanwara Vs Shri S L Srivastava - Citation 891084 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '891084',
		'acts' => '',
		'appealno' => '',
		'appellant' => 'Shri Arun Bhanwara',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Shri Arun Bhanwara Vs. Shri S.L. Srivastava',
		'casenote' => ' - CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908.[C.A. No. 5/1908]. Order 14, Rule 2 [As amended by Amending Act of 1976]: [V.K. Gupta, CJ, Deepak Gupta & Surjit Singh, JJ] Preliminary issue of law and fact  Court framing all issues both of law and facts together and also  tried all the issues together, including the issue relating to jurisdiction of Court  Held, Except in situations perceived or warranted under sub-rule (2) of Rule 2 of Order 14 where a  Court in fact frames only issues of law in the first instance and postpones settlement of other issues, clearly and explicitly in situations where the Court has framed all issues together, both of law as well as facts and has also tried all these issues together, it is not open to the Court to adopt the principle of severability and proceed to decide issues of law first, without taking up simultaneously other issues for decision. This course of action is not available to a Court because sub-rule (1) does not permit the  Court to adopt any such principle of severability and to dispose of a suit only on preliminary issues, or what can be termed as issues of law. Sub-rule (1)  clearly mandates that in a situation contemplated under it, where all the issues have been together and have also been taken up for adjudication during the course of the trial, these must be decided together and the judgment in the suit as a whole must be pronounced by the Court covering all the issues framed in the suit.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => 'Ram Narain Arora v. Asha Rani;',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => '',
		'counseldef' => '',
		'court' => 'Himachal Pradesh',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2008-07-31',
		'deposition' => 'Petition allowed',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => ' Deepak Gupta, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>Deepak Gupta, J.</p><p>1. This Revision Petition under Section 25(5) of the H.P. Urban Rent Control Act, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) is directed against the order of the learned Appellate Authority, Shimla in CMA No. 60-S/14 of 2001 whereby the appeal filed by the respondent (hereinafter referred to as the tenant) has been allowed, the order of the Rent Controller has been set-aside and the petition for eviction filed by the present petitioner (hereinafter referred to as the Landlord) on the ground of personal bona fide requirement has been set-aside.</p><p>2. The undisputed facts are that the landlord is owner of the demised premises situated in building known as Tunnel View, Sanjauli, Shimla-6 consisting of two bed rooms with attached bath room and latrine, drawing-cum-dining room, kitchen and balcony. These premises were purchased by the landlord in the year 1986. Thereafter, the landlord had rented out the premises to one Sh. B.K. Chauhan. According to the landlord, when he got married he requested Sh. B.K. Chauhan to vacate the said premises. Sh. Chauhan vacated the said premises but admittedly the landlord did not occupy the same but rented out the same to the tenant in the year 1990.</p><p>3. In the year 1997 the landlord filed a petition for eviction of the tenant on two grounds; firstly that the tenant is in arrears of rent from 1.11.1990 to 31.7.1997 and secondly that the premises are bona fide required by the landlord for the use and occupation of himself and his family.</p><p>4. This petition was contested by the tenant. After trial, the Rent Controller ordered the eviction of the tenant on two grounds; (i) that the tenant was in arrears of rent from November, 1999 till date of order i.e. 22nd August, 2001 and (ii) that the landlord required the premises for his own use and occupation.</p><p>5. The tenant deposited the rent within the time prescribed. He also filed an appeal challenging the finding on the issue of bona fide requirement. The learned Appellate Authority came to the conclusion that the landlord had not made a proper and full disclosure of facts as required under the provisions of the Act and had withheld material facts from the Court viz. that the landlord was in occupation of residential premises on 31, Mall Road in the urban area of Shimla and as such rejected this petition on this short ground.</p><p>6. Aggrieved by the said order, the landlord has filed the present Revision Petition.</p><p>7. I have heard Sh. Ramakant Sharma, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sh. Bhupinder Gupta, learned senior Counsel for the tenant.</p><p>8. It has been urged on behalf of the landlord that the building which is alleged to be in possession of the landlord i.e. 31, the Mall Shimla is not a residential building and secondly that the building is not owned by him.</p><p>9. On the other hand Sh. Bhupinder Gupta, learned Counsel of the tenant has strenuously urged that the landlord in para 18 has not stated anything about any building being owned by him and has only made an averment that he does not own or possess any other such building within the urban area Shimla. It is contended by Sh. Bhupinder Gupta that the landlord of his own volition did not state anything about the ownership of the building and since he has kept silent about the building which he is in occupation he has made a false averment and therefore his petition for eviction has rightly been rejected.</p><p>10. I am not at all in agreement with the contention of the landlord that the premises known as 31, the Mall Shimla which are admittedly in the occupation of the landlord are commercial premises only and not being used by him for his residence. As pointed out above, the landlord purchased the demised premises in 1986. They fell vacant when he got married despite that he did not occupy the same and rented out the same to the tenant in the year 1990. The question that arises is where was the landlord living for this entire period. According to the landlord after the year 1994 he has been living with his brother-in-law Rajan (wife's brother) PW-2, since the year 1994. Prior to 1994 the landlord will have this Court to believe that he was living off and on with one friend or the other. This story is impossible to believe. The landlord was married in the year 1999. He is an Architect by profession. His wife is a law graduate. It is not believable that such a person would have no permanent abode and would continue to live as a guest with his friends for almost 5 years after his marriage. Even the story that he has been living with his brother-in-law after the year 1994 does not inspire confidence. It stands proved on record that the brother-in-law PW-2 Rajan lives with his own family i.e. wife and children. From the evidence it is also clear that the parents of the brother-in-law also reside with him, His flat consists of only two rooms. The flat in possession of the landlord at 31, the Mall Shimla, also consists of two rooms, kitchen and bath room. Even assuming that he was running an office in the part of the flat it cannot be believed that he would not live on his own flat on the Mall Road and reside with his brother-in-law in cramped premises. Even in the electoral list the landlord is shown to be a resident of 31, The Mall, Shimla. Therefore, I am of the considered view that the building 31, the Mall, Shimla was also being used as a residence by the landlord.</p><p>11. Having held so, the question that arises is whether the landlord can be non-suited only on the ground that he has not made any disclosure about the residential accommodation available with him which premises were admittedly not owned by him.</p><p>12. The short question which arises for decision in this petition is whether the landlord was guilty of suppressing and withholding such relevant facts which would disentitle him from seeking eviction of the tenant. To appreciate these contentions it would be necessary to refer to relevant portion of Section 14(3) of the Act:</p><p>Section 14:</p><p>1 and 2 xxxxxxxxxxx</p><p>(3) A landlord may apply to the Controller for an order directing the tenant to put the landlord in possession-</p><p>(a) in case of residential building, if</p><p>(i) he required it for his own occupation:</p><p>Provided that he is not occupying another residential building owned by him, in the urban area concerned:</p><p>Provided further that he has not vacated such a building without sufficient cause within five years of the filing of the application, in the said urban area....</p><p>13. A perusal of the bare provisions of the Act makes it clear that there are certain essential ingredients which the landlord must satisfy before seeking eviction of the tenant under the Act. Not only must he prove that the residential building is bona fide required by him for his own use and occupation but he must also plead and prove that he is not occupying any other residential building owned by him in the urban area concerned and further that he has not vacated such a building without sufficient cause within 5 years of the filing of the application.</p><p>14. Reference may now be made to the relevant allegations made in para 18 of the eviction petition:</p><p>(ii) That the petitioner bona fide requires the premises for his own use and occupation and also for the use and occupation of his family.</p><p>The petitioner does not own or possess any other such building within the urban area of Simla nor the petitioner has vacated any such premises within five years of the filing of this petition.</p><p>The family of the petitioner presently consists of himself and his wife. Due to paucity of accommodation the petitioner has not been able to keep his wife with himself at Simla, where he is working as an Engineer and she has been residing at Chandigarh since 1991 but on account of her ill health she has been brought to Simla by the petitioner. The petitioner at present is seeking temporary shelter, from time to time, with his relations.</p><p>15. The learned Appellate Authority came to the conclusion that the landlord had falsely pleaded that he does not own or possess any other such building within the urban area of Shimla and hence rejected the eviction petition on this ground.</p><p>16. On a close analysis of the proviso to Section 14(3)(a)(i) of the Act it is clear that a landlord is not entitled to seek eviction of a tenant from residential building even in case of bona fide requirement if the landlord is occupying another residential building owned by him in the urban area concerned. One can read three essential ingredients in this proviso i.e. (i) that the landlord is in occupation of another residential building; (ii) that the said residential building is owned by him and (iii) that the said residential building is situated in the concerned urban area.</p><p>17. The question that arises is what is the impact of the landlord not making a disclosure in respect of premises which he is occupying but are not owned by him.</p><p>18. The Apex Court in Onkar Nath v. Ved Vyas ILR 1979 HP 1, held as follows:</p><p>It is common ground that there are three requirements to make out a cause of action for eviction under that provision, and indeed this is apparent from a bare reading of the sub-section. In the present case the finding is to the effect that the landlord requires the residential building for his own occupation. But, the legislation has taken care to insist upon two more conditions, namely; (a) that the landlord is not occupying any other residential building in the area concerned; and (b) that he has not vacated such a building without sufficient cause. There is not a scintilla of evidence nor indeed there is any averment in compliance with these latter conditions. The necessary consequence follows that not merely is there inadequacy of pleadings sufficient to make out a cause of action but total absence of proof of two vital requirements....</p><p>The Supreme Court also said that:.The statute benignly designed to protect tenants from unreasonable evictions has taken case to put restrictions which must be rigorously construed to fulfil the purpose of the statute.</p><p>19. Following the aforesaid judgment and other pronouncements of the Apex Court, a learned Single Judge of this Court in Tara Chand Sharma v. Baij Nath and Ors. 1992 (2) R.C.J. 323, held as follows:</p><p>16. What appears as the legislative intent, in bold relief, is that the landlord, while seeking eviction of a tenant on the ground that he needs a residential building for his own occupation, must come out clearly and honestly with facts relating to the requirement that he is not occupying another residential building owned by him, in the urban area concerned and that he had not vacated such a building without sufficient cause within five years of the filing of the application, in the said urban area. The primal burden of making a clear disclosure would lie upon the landlord, for, the true facts would be in his special knowledge. An order in his favour by the Rent Controller would depend upon the satisfaction of the Rent Controller in regard not only to the claim that the landlord requires the accommodation, from which he wishes to evict a tenant, for his own occupation but also that he was not occupying another residential building owned by him nor had he vacated such building without sufficient cause within five years of the filing of the application in the application in the urban area concerned....</p><p>It was further held as under:</p><p>18. That the landlord should make a full disclosure of the relevant facts, pertaining to the requirements of Sub-section (3)(a)(i) and the two provisos, becomes all the more necessary because the satisfaction of the Rent Controller in regard thereto is the condition precedent for the making of an order in favour of the landlord....</p><p>20. The aforesaid judgment has been followed in a number of other cases including Vijay Kapoor v. Maya Ram 1997 (2) RCR 437, wherein another learned single Judge of this Court following the aforesaid judgment held that the landlord must make complete and proper disclosure of all the material facts.</p><p>21. On the other hand Sh. Ramakant Sharma has relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in Ram Narain Arora v. Asha Rani 1998(2) RCR 268. In that case the Rent Controller came to the conclusion that the landlord had suppressed material information and had not disclosed the fact that he was already in occupation of a house in Subji Mandi. Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act reads as follows:</p><p>Section 14(1)(e). That the premises let for residential purposes are required bona fide by the landlord for occupation as a residence for himself or for any member of his family dependent on him, if he is the owner thereof, or for any person for whose benefit the premises are held and that the landlord or such person has no other reasonably suitable residential accommodation.</p><p>22. The difference between Delhi Act and the present Act is that under the Delhi Act the only requirement is that the landlord has no other reasonably suitable accommodation whereas under the Himachal Act the residential premises are required to be owned by the landlord. The Apex Court in Rama Narain Arora's case (supra) held that the nondisclosure of the fact that the landlord was in occupation of certain premises in Subji Mandi was.not a ground to non-suit the landlord in view of the facts and circumstances of the case. The Apex Court held as follows:</p><p>9. In making a claim that the suit premises is required bona fide for his own occupation as a residence for himself and other members of his family dependent on him and that he has no other reasonably suitable accommodation is a requirement of law before the Court can state whether the landlord requires the premises bona fide for his use and occupation. In doing so, the Court must also find out whether the landlord or such other person for whose benefit the premises is required has no other reasonably suitable residential accommodation. It cannot be said that the requirement of the landlord is not intermixed with the question of finding out whether he has any other reasonably suitable accommodation. If he has other reasonably suitable accommodation, ihen necessarily it would mean that he does not require the suit premises and his requirement may not be bona fide. In such circumstances further inquiry would be whether that premises is more suitable than the suit premises. Therefore, the questions raised before the Court would not necessarily depend upon only the pleadings. It could be a good defence that the landlord has other reasonably suitable residential accommodation and thereby defend the claim of the landlord.</p><p>10. There cannot be a pedantic or a dogmatic approach in the matter of analysis of pleadings or of the evidence adduced thereto. It is no doubt true that if the pleadings are clearly set out, it would be easy for the Court to decide the matters. But if the pleadings are lacking or vague and if both parties have understood what was the case pleaded and put forth with reference to requirement of law and placed such material before the Court, neither party is prejudiced. If we analyse from this angle, we do not think that the High Court was not justified in interfering with the order made by the Rent Controller.</p><p>23. From the perusal of the judgment of the Apex Court it is apparent that the Rent Controller must approach the matter in a practical manner. In case the non-disclosure is such as that it goes to the very root of the case the Rent Controller would be justified in non-suiting the landlord. However, if the non-disclosure is such that it would not prejudice the rights of the respondent then the landlord should not be non-suited only on this ground.</p><p>24. The decisions of this Court cited hereinabove were delivered prior to the judgment delivered by the Apex Court in Ram Nar'ain Arora's case. Further more both in Tara Chand Sharma's case and Vijay Kapoor's case decided by this Court, no averment had been made ixi respect of other residential buildings owned by a landlord. There was complete non-disclosure as to whether any such residential building owned by the landlord was in his possession or not. In the present case, as I have held above, the residential premises at 31, The Mall, Shimla was not owned by the landlord and hence these two earlier judgments of this Court are distinguishable on facts also.</p><p>25. In the present case, the landlord has been non-suited only on the ground that he did not disclose the fact that he was in occupation of certain premises on the Mall Road. Under law he was not required to disclose this fact. He was only required to disclose the factum of occupying another residential building owned by him in the urban area concerned. True it may be, that it would have been better if the landlord had disclosed all the facts but non-disclosure of a fact which he was not under law required to disclose could not in my opinion be a ground to dismiss his eviction petition.</p><p>26. However, what are the premises in his occupation even as a tenant can be taken into consideration while deciding the question whether he bona fide requires the demised premises for his personal use or occupation or not.</p><p>27. Lastly comes the question with regard to the bona fide requirement of the landlord. The landlord has no children. According to the landlord as well as his other witnesses i.e. his brother-in-law PW-2 and his wife PW-3, the wife now wants to come back and settle in Shimla. There is no reason to disbelieve their statements. Even according to the evidence led by the tenant the accommodation in possession of the landlord consists of two rooms, kitchen, bath room etc. Admittedly, the landlord is also having his office as an Architect in this building. The landlord belongs to the middle class of the Society. It cannot be expected of a landlord who owns sufficient property to reside in a two room set wherein he also runs his office.</p><p>28. The law by now is well settled that the landlord is the best judge of the suitability of the accommodation required by him. This suitability has however to be judged in the context of reasonable expectations. The landlord and his wife who are both well educated can reasonably be expected to entertain guests and they will have visitors to their house. They would obviously require a drawing room, a bed room and a spare bed room for guests. Even at his residence the landlord may require another room for his professional work. This is the minimum accommodation which they would require. Even if the accommodation possessed by the landlord, though not owned by him, at 31, the Mall, Shimla is taken into consideration such accommodation is not sufficient to meet his requirements since admittedly the landlord is running his profession of Architect from some portion of his these premises.</p><p>29. Keeping in view the entire facts and circumstances, I am of the considered view that the learned Appellate Authority gravely erred in rejecting the eviction petition of the landlord solely on the ground that he had not disclosed the factum of being in possession of the premises at 31, the Mall Shimla. Even though I have held that the said premises are residential premises, in view of the above discussion I hold that the landlord cannot be non-suited only on the ground of his being in possession of such premises since same were not owned by him.</p><p>30. In view of the above discussion, the Revision Petition is allowed, the order of the learned Appellate Authority dated 6.5.2003 is seaside and the order of the Rent Controller dated 22.8.2001 is restored.</p><p>31. Keeping in view the fact that the tenant has been in possession of the premises for a long period he is granted time up to 31st October, 2008 to vacate the premises.</p><p>32. No order as to costs.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '2008(2)ShimLC491',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'Shri S.L. Srivastava',
		'sub' => 'Tenancy',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'shri-arun-bhanwara-vs-s-l-srivastava'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '891084',
	(int) 1 => 'shri-arun-bhanwara-vs-s-l-srivastava'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/891084/shri-arun-bhanwara-vs-s-l-srivastava'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$caseref = 'Ram Narain Arora v. Asha Rani<br>'
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 123
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 123]
Code Context
                                    }

                                //highest occurence of word in the judgement

                                echo $this->Wand->highlight($this->Excerpt->extractRelevant($kword,strtolower(strip_tags($desc['Judgement']['judgement']))), $query) . "</div>";
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Shri Arun Bhanwara Vs Shri S L Srivastava - Citation 891084 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '891084',
			'acts' => '',
			'appealno' => '',
			'appellant' => 'Shri Arun Bhanwara',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Shri Arun Bhanwara Vs. Shri S.L. Srivastava',
			'casenote' => ' - CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908.[C.A. No. 5/1908]. Order 14, Rule 2 [As amended by Amending Act of 1976]: [V.K. Gupta, CJ, Deepak Gupta & Surjit Singh, JJ] Preliminary issue of law and fact  Court framing all issues both of law and facts together and also  tried all the issues together, including the issue relating to jurisdiction of Court  Held, Except in situations perceived or warranted under sub-rule (2) of Rule 2 of Order 14 where a  Court in fact frames only issues of law in the first instance and postpones settlement of other issues, clearly and explicitly in situations where the Court has framed all issues together, both of law as well as facts and has also tried all these issues together, it is not open to the Court to adopt the principle of severability and proceed to decide issues of law first, without taking up simultaneously other issues for decision. This course of action is not available to a Court because sub-rule (1) does not permit the  Court to adopt any such principle of severability and to dispose of a suit only on preliminary issues, or what can be termed as issues of law. Sub-rule (1)  clearly mandates that in a situation contemplated under it, where all the issues have been together and have also been taken up for adjudication during the course of the trial, these must be decided together and the judgment in the suit as a whole must be pronounced by the Court covering all the issues framed in the suit.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => 'Ram Narain Arora v. Asha Rani;',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => '',
			'counseldef' => '',
			'court' => 'Himachal Pradesh',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2008-07-31',
			'deposition' => 'Petition allowed',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => ' Deepak Gupta, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">Deepak Gupta, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. This Revision Petition under Section 25(5) of the H.P. Urban Rent Control Act, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) is directed against the order of the learned Appellate Authority, Shimla in CMA No. 60-S/14 of 2001 whereby the appeal filed by the respondent (hereinafter referred to as the tenant) has been allowed, the order of the Rent Controller has been set-aside and the petition for eviction filed by the present petitioner (hereinafter referred to as the Landlord) on the ground of personal bona fide requirement has been set-aside.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The undisputed facts are that the landlord is owner of the demised premises situated in building known as Tunnel View, Sanjauli, Shimla-6 consisting of two bed rooms with attached bath room and latrine, drawing-cum-dining room, kitchen and balcony. These premises were purchased by the landlord in the year 1986. Thereafter, the landlord had rented out the premises to one Sh. B.K. Chauhan. According to the landlord, when he got married he requested Sh. B.K. Chauhan to vacate the said premises. Sh. Chauhan vacated the said premises but admittedly the landlord did not occupy the same but rented out the same to the tenant in the year 1990.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. In the year 1997 the landlord filed a petition for eviction of the tenant on two grounds; firstly that the tenant is in arrears of rent from 1.11.1990 to 31.7.1997 and secondly that the premises are bona fide required by the landlord for the use and occupation of himself and his family.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. This petition was contested by the tenant. After trial, the Rent Controller ordered the eviction of the tenant on two grounds; (i) that the tenant was in arrears of rent from November, 1999 till date of order i.e. 22nd August, 2001 and (ii) that the landlord required the premises for his own use and occupation.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. The tenant deposited the rent within the time prescribed. He also filed an appeal challenging the finding on the issue of bona fide requirement. The learned Appellate Authority came to the conclusion that the landlord had not made a proper and full disclosure of facts as required under the provisions of the Act and had withheld material facts from the Court viz. that the landlord was in occupation of residential premises on 31, Mall Road in the urban area of Shimla and as such rejected this petition on this short ground.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. Aggrieved by the said order, the landlord has filed the present Revision Petition.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. I have heard Sh. Ramakant Sharma, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sh. Bhupinder Gupta, learned senior Counsel for the tenant.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. It has been urged on behalf of the landlord that the building which is alleged to be in possession of the landlord i.e. 31, the Mall Shimla is not a residential building and secondly that the building is not owned by him.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. On the other hand Sh. Bhupinder Gupta, learned Counsel of the tenant has strenuously urged that the landlord in para 18 has not stated anything about any building being owned by him and has only made an averment that he does not own or possess any other such building within the urban area Shimla. It is contended by Sh. Bhupinder Gupta that the landlord of his own volition did not state anything about the ownership of the building and since he has kept silent about the building which he is in occupation he has made a false averment and therefore his petition for eviction has rightly been rejected.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. I am not at all in agreement with the contention of the landlord that the premises known as 31, the Mall Shimla which are admittedly in the occupation of the landlord are commercial premises only and not being used by him for his residence. As pointed out above, the landlord purchased the demised premises in 1986. They fell vacant when he got married despite that he did not occupy the same and rented out the same to the tenant in the year 1990. The question that arises is where was the landlord living for this entire period. According to the landlord after the year 1994 he has been living with his brother-in-law Rajan (wife's brother) PW-2, since the year 1994. Prior to 1994 the landlord will have this Court to believe that he was living off and on with one friend or the other. This story is impossible to believe. The landlord was married in the year 1999. He is an Architect by profession. His wife is a law graduate. It is not believable that such a person would have no permanent abode and would continue to live as a guest with his friends for almost 5 years after his marriage. Even the story that he has been living with his brother-in-law after the year 1994 does not inspire confidence. It stands proved on record that the brother-in-law PW-2 Rajan lives with his own family i.e. wife and children. From the evidence it is also clear that the parents of the brother-in-law also reside with him, His flat consists of only two rooms. The flat in possession of the landlord at 31, the Mall Shimla, also consists of two rooms, kitchen and bath room. Even assuming that he was running an office in the part of the flat it cannot be believed that he would not live on his own flat on the Mall Road and reside with his brother-in-law in cramped premises. Even in the electoral list the landlord is shown to be a resident of 31, The Mall, Shimla. Therefore, I am of the considered view that the building 31, the Mall, Shimla was also being used as a residence by the landlord.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. Having held so, the question that arises is whether the landlord can be non-suited only on the ground that he has not made any disclosure about the residential accommodation available with him which premises were admittedly not owned by him.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. The short question which arises for decision in this petition is whether the landlord was guilty of suppressing and withholding such relevant facts which would disentitle him from seeking eviction of the tenant. To appreciate these contentions it would be necessary to refer to relevant portion of Section 14(3) of the Act:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Section 14:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1 and 2 xxxxxxxxxxx</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(3) A landlord may apply to the Controller for an order directing the tenant to put the landlord in possession-</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(a) in case of residential building, if</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(i) he required it for his own occupation:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Provided that he is not occupying another residential building owned by him, in the urban area concerned:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Provided further that he has not vacated such a building without sufficient cause within five years of the filing of the application, in the said urban area....</p><p style="text-align: justify;">13. A perusal of the bare provisions of the Act makes it clear that there are certain essential ingredients which the landlord must satisfy before seeking eviction of the tenant under the Act. Not only must he prove that the residential building is bona fide required by him for his own use and occupation but he must also plead and prove that he is not occupying any other residential building owned by him in the urban area concerned and further that he has not vacated such a building without sufficient cause within 5 years of the filing of the application.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">14. Reference may now be made to the relevant allegations made in para 18 of the eviction petition:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(ii) That the petitioner bona fide requires the premises for his own use and occupation and also for the use and occupation of his family.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The petitioner does not own or possess any other such building within the urban area of Simla nor the petitioner has vacated any such premises within five years of the filing of this petition.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The family of the petitioner presently consists of himself and his wife. Due to paucity of accommodation the petitioner has not been able to keep his wife with himself at Simla, where he is working as an Engineer and she has been residing at Chandigarh since 1991 but on account of her ill health she has been brought to Simla by the petitioner. The petitioner at present is seeking temporary shelter, from time to time, with his relations.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">15. The learned Appellate Authority came to the conclusion that the landlord had falsely pleaded that he does not own or possess any other such building within the urban area of Shimla and hence rejected the eviction petition on this ground.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">16. On a close analysis of the proviso to Section 14(3)(a)(i) of the Act it is clear that a landlord is not entitled to seek eviction of a tenant from residential building even in case of bona fide requirement if the landlord is occupying another residential building owned by him in the urban area concerned. One can read three essential ingredients in this proviso i.e. (i) that the landlord is in occupation of another residential building; (ii) that the said residential building is owned by him and (iii) that the said residential building is situated in the concerned urban area.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">17. The question that arises is what is the impact of the landlord not making a disclosure in respect of premises which he is occupying but are not owned by him.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">18. The Apex Court in Onkar Nath v. Ved Vyas ILR 1979 HP 1, held as follows:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">It is common ground that there are three requirements to make out a cause of action for eviction under that provision, and indeed this is apparent from a bare reading of the sub-section. In the present case the finding is to the effect that the landlord requires the residential building for his own occupation. But, the legislation has taken care to insist upon two more conditions, namely; (a) that the landlord is not occupying any other residential building in the area concerned; and (b) that he has not vacated such a building without sufficient cause. There is not a scintilla of evidence nor indeed there is any averment in compliance with these latter conditions. The necessary consequence follows that not merely is there inadequacy of pleadings sufficient to make out a cause of action but total absence of proof of two vital requirements....</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The Supreme Court also said that:.The statute benignly designed to protect tenants from unreasonable evictions has taken case to put restrictions which must be rigorously construed to fulfil the purpose of the statute.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">19. Following the aforesaid judgment and other pronouncements of the Apex Court, a learned Single Judge of this Court in Tara Chand Sharma v. Baij Nath and Ors. 1992 (2) R.C.J. 323, held as follows:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">16. What appears as the legislative intent, in bold relief, is that the landlord, while seeking eviction of a tenant on the ground that he needs a residential building for his own occupation, must come out clearly and honestly with facts relating to the requirement that he is not occupying another residential building owned by him, in the urban area concerned and that he had not vacated such a building without sufficient cause within five years of the filing of the application, in the said urban area. The primal burden of making a clear disclosure would lie upon the landlord, for, the true facts would be in his special knowledge. An order in his favour by the Rent Controller would depend upon the satisfaction of the Rent Controller in regard not only to the claim that the landlord requires the accommodation, from which he wishes to evict a tenant, for his own occupation but also that he was not occupying another residential building owned by him nor had he vacated such building without sufficient cause within five years of the filing of the application in the application in the urban area concerned....</p><p style="text-align: justify;">It was further held as under:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">18. That the landlord should make a full disclosure of the relevant facts, pertaining to the requirements of Sub-section (3)(a)(i) and the two provisos, becomes all the more necessary because the satisfaction of the Rent Controller in regard thereto is the condition precedent for the making of an order in favour of the landlord....</p><p style="text-align: justify;">20. The aforesaid judgment has been followed in a number of other cases including Vijay Kapoor v. Maya Ram 1997 (2) RCR 437, wherein another learned single Judge of this Court following the aforesaid judgment held that the landlord must make complete and proper disclosure of all the material facts.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">21. On the other hand Sh. Ramakant Sharma has relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in Ram Narain Arora v. Asha Rani 1998(2) RCR 268. In that case the Rent Controller came to the conclusion that the landlord had suppressed material information and had not disclosed the fact that he was already in occupation of a house in Subji Mandi. Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act reads as follows:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Section 14(1)(e). That the premises let for residential purposes are required bona fide by the landlord for occupation as a residence for himself or for any member of his family dependent on him, if he is the owner thereof, or for any person for whose benefit the premises are held and that the landlord or such person has no other reasonably suitable residential accommodation.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">22. The difference between Delhi Act and the present Act is that under the Delhi Act the only requirement is that the landlord has no other reasonably suitable accommodation whereas under the Himachal Act the residential premises are required to be owned by the landlord. The Apex Court in Rama Narain Arora's case (supra) held that the nondisclosure of the fact that the landlord was in occupation of certain premises in Subji Mandi was.not a ground to non-suit the landlord in view of the facts and circumstances of the case. The Apex Court held as follows:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. In making a claim that the suit premises is required bona fide for his own occupation as a residence for himself and other members of his family dependent on him and that he has no other reasonably suitable accommodation is a requirement of law before the Court can state whether the landlord requires the premises bona fide for his use and occupation. In doing so, the Court must also find out whether the landlord or such other person for whose benefit the premises is required has no other reasonably suitable residential accommodation. It cannot be said that the requirement of the landlord is not intermixed with the question of finding out whether he has any other reasonably suitable accommodation. If he has other reasonably suitable accommodation, ihen necessarily it would mean that he does not require the suit premises and his requirement may not be bona fide. In such circumstances further inquiry would be whether that premises is more suitable than the suit premises. Therefore, the questions raised before the Court would not necessarily depend upon only the pleadings. It could be a good defence that the landlord has other reasonably suitable residential accommodation and thereby defend the claim of the landlord.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. There cannot be a pedantic or a dogmatic approach in the matter of analysis of pleadings or of the evidence adduced thereto. It is no doubt true that if the pleadings are clearly set out, it would be easy for the Court to decide the matters. But if the pleadings are lacking or vague and if both parties have understood what was the case pleaded and put forth with reference to requirement of law and placed such material before the Court, neither party is prejudiced. If we analyse from this angle, we do not think that the High Court was not justified in interfering with the order made by the Rent Controller.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">23. From the perusal of the judgment of the Apex Court it is apparent that the Rent Controller must approach the matter in a practical manner. In case the non-disclosure is such as that it goes to the very root of the case the Rent Controller would be justified in non-suiting the landlord. However, if the non-disclosure is such that it would not prejudice the rights of the respondent then the landlord should not be non-suited only on this ground.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">24. The decisions of this Court cited hereinabove were delivered prior to the judgment delivered by the Apex Court in Ram Nar'ain Arora's case. Further more both in Tara Chand Sharma's case and Vijay Kapoor's case decided by this Court, no averment had been made ixi respect of other residential buildings owned by a landlord. There was complete non-disclosure as to whether any such residential building owned by the landlord was in his possession or not. In the present case, as I have held above, the residential premises at 31, The Mall, Shimla was not owned by the landlord and hence these two earlier judgments of this Court are distinguishable on facts also.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">25. In the present case, the landlord has been non-suited only on the ground that he did not disclose the fact that he was in occupation of certain premises on the Mall Road. Under law he was not required to disclose this fact. He was only required to disclose the factum of occupying another residential building owned by him in the urban area concerned. True it may be, that it would have been better if the landlord had disclosed all the facts but non-disclosure of a fact which he was not under law required to disclose could not in my opinion be a ground to dismiss his eviction petition.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">26. However, what are the premises in his occupation even as a tenant can be taken into consideration while deciding the question whether he bona fide requires the demised premises for his personal use or occupation or not.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">27. Lastly comes the question with regard to the bona fide requirement of the landlord. The landlord has no children. According to the landlord as well as his other witnesses i.e. his brother-in-law PW-2 and his wife PW-3, the wife now wants to come back and settle in Shimla. There is no reason to disbelieve their statements. Even according to the evidence led by the tenant the accommodation in possession of the landlord consists of two rooms, kitchen, bath room etc. Admittedly, the landlord is also having his office as an Architect in this building. The landlord belongs to the middle class of the Society. It cannot be expected of a landlord who owns sufficient property to reside in a two room set wherein he also runs his office.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">28. The law by now is well settled that the landlord is the best judge of the suitability of the accommodation required by him. This suitability has however to be judged in the context of reasonable expectations. The landlord and his wife who are both well educated can reasonably be expected to entertain guests and they will have visitors to their house. They would obviously require a drawing room, a bed room and a spare bed room for guests. Even at his residence the landlord may require another room for his professional work. This is the minimum accommodation which they would require. Even if the accommodation possessed by the landlord, though not owned by him, at 31, the Mall, Shimla is taken into consideration such accommodation is not sufficient to meet his requirements since admittedly the landlord is running his profession of Architect from some portion of his these premises.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">29. Keeping in view the entire facts and circumstances, I am of the considered view that the learned Appellate Authority gravely erred in rejecting the eviction petition of the landlord solely on the ground that he had not disclosed the factum of being in possession of the premises at 31, the Mall Shimla. Even though I have held that the said premises are residential premises, in view of the above discussion I hold that the landlord cannot be non-suited only on the ground of his being in possession of such premises since same were not owned by him.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">30. In view of the above discussion, the Revision Petition is allowed, the order of the learned Appellate Authority dated 6.5.2003 is seaside and the order of the Rent Controller dated 22.8.2001 is restored.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">31. Keeping in view the fact that the tenant has been in possession of the premises for a long period he is granted time up to 31st October, 2008 to vacate the premises.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">32. No order as to costs.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '2008(2)ShimLC491',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'Shri S.L. Srivastava',
			'sub' => 'Tenancy',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'shri-arun-bhanwara-vs-s-l-srivastava',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '891084',
		(int) 1 => 'shri-arun-bhanwara-vs-s-l-srivastava'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Shri Arun Bhanwara Vs Shri S L Srivastava - Citation 891084 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '891084',
		'acts' => '',
		'appealno' => '',
		'appellant' => 'Shri Arun Bhanwara',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Shri Arun Bhanwara Vs. Shri S.L. Srivastava',
		'casenote' => ' - CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908.[C.A. No. 5/1908]. Order 14, Rule 2 [As amended by Amending Act of 1976]: [V.K. Gupta, CJ, Deepak Gupta & Surjit Singh, JJ] Preliminary issue of law and fact  Court framing all issues both of law and facts together and also  tried all the issues together, including the issue relating to jurisdiction of Court  Held, Except in situations perceived or warranted under sub-rule (2) of Rule 2 of Order 14 where a  Court in fact frames only issues of law in the first instance and postpones settlement of other issues, clearly and explicitly in situations where the Court has framed all issues together, both of law as well as facts and has also tried all these issues together, it is not open to the Court to adopt the principle of severability and proceed to decide issues of law first, without taking up simultaneously other issues for decision. This course of action is not available to a Court because sub-rule (1) does not permit the  Court to adopt any such principle of severability and to dispose of a suit only on preliminary issues, or what can be termed as issues of law. Sub-rule (1)  clearly mandates that in a situation contemplated under it, where all the issues have been together and have also been taken up for adjudication during the course of the trial, these must be decided together and the judgment in the suit as a whole must be pronounced by the Court covering all the issues framed in the suit.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => 'Ram Narain Arora v. Asha Rani;',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => '',
		'counseldef' => '',
		'court' => 'Himachal Pradesh',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2008-07-31',
		'deposition' => 'Petition allowed',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => ' Deepak Gupta, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>Deepak Gupta, J.</p><p>1. This Revision Petition under Section 25(5) of the H.P. Urban Rent Control Act, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) is directed against the order of the learned Appellate Authority, Shimla in CMA No. 60-S/14 of 2001 whereby the appeal filed by the respondent (hereinafter referred to as the tenant) has been allowed, the order of the Rent Controller has been set-aside and the petition for eviction filed by the present petitioner (hereinafter referred to as the Landlord) on the ground of personal bona fide requirement has been set-aside.</p><p>2. The undisputed facts are that the landlord is owner of the demised premises situated in building known as Tunnel View, Sanjauli, Shimla-6 consisting of two bed rooms with attached bath room and latrine, drawing-cum-dining room, kitchen and balcony. These premises were purchased by the landlord in the year 1986. Thereafter, the landlord had rented out the premises to one Sh. B.K. Chauhan. According to the landlord, when he got married he requested Sh. B.K. Chauhan to vacate the said premises. Sh. Chauhan vacated the said premises but admittedly the landlord did not occupy the same but rented out the same to the tenant in the year 1990.</p><p>3. In the year 1997 the landlord filed a petition for eviction of the tenant on two grounds; firstly that the tenant is in arrears of rent from 1.11.1990 to 31.7.1997 and secondly that the premises are bona fide required by the landlord for the use and occupation of himself and his family.</p><p>4. This petition was contested by the tenant. After trial, the Rent Controller ordered the eviction of the tenant on two grounds; (i) that the tenant was in arrears of rent from November, 1999 till date of order i.e. 22nd August, 2001 and (ii) that the landlord required the premises for his own use and occupation.</p><p>5. The tenant deposited the rent within the time prescribed. He also filed an appeal challenging the finding on the issue of bona fide requirement. The learned Appellate Authority came to the conclusion that the landlord had not made a proper and full disclosure of facts as required under the provisions of the Act and had withheld material facts from the Court viz. that the landlord was in occupation of residential premises on 31, Mall Road in the urban area of Shimla and as such rejected this petition on this short ground.</p><p>6. Aggrieved by the said order, the landlord has filed the present Revision Petition.</p><p>7. I have heard Sh. Ramakant Sharma, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sh. Bhupinder Gupta, learned senior Counsel for the tenant.</p><p>8. It has been urged on behalf of the landlord that the building which is alleged to be in possession of the landlord i.e. 31, the Mall Shimla is not a residential building and secondly that the building is not owned by him.</p><p>9. On the other hand Sh. Bhupinder Gupta, learned Counsel of the tenant has strenuously urged that the landlord in para 18 has not stated anything about any building being owned by him and has only made an averment that he does not own or possess any other such building within the urban area Shimla. It is contended by Sh. Bhupinder Gupta that the landlord of his own volition did not state anything about the ownership of the building and since he has kept silent about the building which he is in occupation he has made a false averment and therefore his petition for eviction has rightly been rejected.</p><p>10. I am not at all in agreement with the contention of the landlord that the premises known as 31, the Mall Shimla which are admittedly in the occupation of the landlord are commercial premises only and not being used by him for his residence. As pointed out above, the landlord purchased the demised premises in 1986. They fell vacant when he got married despite that he did not occupy the same and rented out the same to the tenant in the year 1990. The question that arises is where was the landlord living for this entire period. According to the landlord after the year 1994 he has been living with his brother-in-law Rajan (wife's brother) PW-2, since the year 1994. Prior to 1994 the landlord will have this Court to believe that he was living off and on with one friend or the other. This story is impossible to believe. The landlord was married in the year 1999. He is an Architect by profession. His wife is a law graduate. It is not believable that such a person would have no permanent abode and would continue to live as a guest with his friends for almost 5 years after his marriage. Even the story that he has been living with his brother-in-law after the year 1994 does not inspire confidence. It stands proved on record that the brother-in-law PW-2 Rajan lives with his own family i.e. wife and children. From the evidence it is also clear that the parents of the brother-in-law also reside with him, His flat consists of only two rooms. The flat in possession of the landlord at 31, the Mall Shimla, also consists of two rooms, kitchen and bath room. Even assuming that he was running an office in the part of the flat it cannot be believed that he would not live on his own flat on the Mall Road and reside with his brother-in-law in cramped premises. Even in the electoral list the landlord is shown to be a resident of 31, The Mall, Shimla. Therefore, I am of the considered view that the building 31, the Mall, Shimla was also being used as a residence by the landlord.</p><p>11. Having held so, the question that arises is whether the landlord can be non-suited only on the ground that he has not made any disclosure about the residential accommodation available with him which premises were admittedly not owned by him.</p><p>12. The short question which arises for decision in this petition is whether the landlord was guilty of suppressing and withholding such relevant facts which would disentitle him from seeking eviction of the tenant. To appreciate these contentions it would be necessary to refer to relevant portion of Section 14(3) of the Act:</p><p>Section 14:</p><p>1 and 2 xxxxxxxxxxx</p><p>(3) A landlord may apply to the Controller for an order directing the tenant to put the landlord in possession-</p><p>(a) in case of residential building, if</p><p>(i) he required it for his own occupation:</p><p>Provided that he is not occupying another residential building owned by him, in the urban area concerned:</p><p>Provided further that he has not vacated such a building without sufficient cause within five years of the filing of the application, in the said urban area....</p><p>13. A perusal of the bare provisions of the Act makes it clear that there are certain essential ingredients which the landlord must satisfy before seeking eviction of the tenant under the Act. Not only must he prove that the residential building is bona fide required by him for his own use and occupation but he must also plead and prove that he is not occupying any other residential building owned by him in the urban area concerned and further that he has not vacated such a building without sufficient cause within 5 years of the filing of the application.</p><p>14. Reference may now be made to the relevant allegations made in para 18 of the eviction petition:</p><p>(ii) That the petitioner bona fide requires the premises for his own use and occupation and also for the use and occupation of his family.</p><p>The petitioner does not own or possess any other such building within the urban area of Simla nor the petitioner has vacated any such premises within five years of the filing of this petition.</p><p>The family of the petitioner presently consists of himself and his wife. Due to paucity of accommodation the petitioner has not been able to keep his wife with himself at Simla, where he is working as an Engineer and she has been residing at Chandigarh since 1991 but on account of her ill health she has been brought to Simla by the petitioner. The petitioner at present is seeking temporary shelter, from time to time, with his relations.</p><p>15. The learned Appellate Authority came to the conclusion that the landlord had falsely pleaded that he does not own or possess any other such building within the urban area of Shimla and hence rejected the eviction petition on this ground.</p><p>16. On a close analysis of the proviso to Section 14(3)(a)(i) of the Act it is clear that a landlord is not entitled to seek eviction of a tenant from residential building even in case of bona fide requirement if the landlord is occupying another residential building owned by him in the urban area concerned. One can read three essential ingredients in this proviso i.e. (i) that the landlord is in occupation of another residential building; (ii) that the said residential building is owned by him and (iii) that the said residential building is situated in the concerned urban area.</p><p>17. The question that arises is what is the impact of the landlord not making a disclosure in respect of premises which he is occupying but are not owned by him.</p><p>18. The Apex Court in Onkar Nath v. Ved Vyas ILR 1979 HP 1, held as follows:</p><p>It is common ground that there are three requirements to make out a cause of action for eviction under that provision, and indeed this is apparent from a bare reading of the sub-section. In the present case the finding is to the effect that the landlord requires the residential building for his own occupation. But, the legislation has taken care to insist upon two more conditions, namely; (a) that the landlord is not occupying any other residential building in the area concerned; and (b) that he has not vacated such a building without sufficient cause. There is not a scintilla of evidence nor indeed there is any averment in compliance with these latter conditions. The necessary consequence follows that not merely is there inadequacy of pleadings sufficient to make out a cause of action but total absence of proof of two vital requirements....</p><p>The Supreme Court also said that:.The statute benignly designed to protect tenants from unreasonable evictions has taken case to put restrictions which must be rigorously construed to fulfil the purpose of the statute.</p><p>19. Following the aforesaid judgment and other pronouncements of the Apex Court, a learned Single Judge of this Court in Tara Chand Sharma v. Baij Nath and Ors. 1992 (2) R.C.J. 323, held as follows:</p><p>16. What appears as the legislative intent, in bold relief, is that the landlord, while seeking eviction of a tenant on the ground that he needs a residential building for his own occupation, must come out clearly and honestly with facts relating to the requirement that he is not occupying another residential building owned by him, in the urban area concerned and that he had not vacated such a building without sufficient cause within five years of the filing of the application, in the said urban area. The primal burden of making a clear disclosure would lie upon the landlord, for, the true facts would be in his special knowledge. An order in his favour by the Rent Controller would depend upon the satisfaction of the Rent Controller in regard not only to the claim that the landlord requires the accommodation, from which he wishes to evict a tenant, for his own occupation but also that he was not occupying another residential building owned by him nor had he vacated such building without sufficient cause within five years of the filing of the application in the application in the urban area concerned....</p><p>It was further held as under:</p><p>18. That the landlord should make a full disclosure of the relevant facts, pertaining to the requirements of Sub-section (3)(a)(i) and the two provisos, becomes all the more necessary because the satisfaction of the Rent Controller in regard thereto is the condition precedent for the making of an order in favour of the landlord....</p><p>20. The aforesaid judgment has been followed in a number of other cases including Vijay Kapoor v. Maya Ram 1997 (2) RCR 437, wherein another learned single Judge of this Court following the aforesaid judgment held that the landlord must make complete and proper disclosure of all the material facts.</p><p>21. On the other hand Sh. Ramakant Sharma has relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in Ram Narain Arora v. Asha Rani 1998(2) RCR 268. In that case the Rent Controller came to the conclusion that the landlord had suppressed material information and had not disclosed the fact that he was already in occupation of a house in Subji Mandi. Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act reads as follows:</p><p>Section 14(1)(e). That the premises let for residential purposes are required bona fide by the landlord for occupation as a residence for himself or for any member of his family dependent on him, if he is the owner thereof, or for any person for whose benefit the premises are held and that the landlord or such person has no other reasonably suitable residential accommodation.</p><p>22. The difference between Delhi Act and the present Act is that under the Delhi Act the only requirement is that the landlord has no other reasonably suitable accommodation whereas under the Himachal Act the residential premises are required to be owned by the landlord. The Apex Court in Rama Narain Arora's case (supra) held that the nondisclosure of the fact that the landlord was in occupation of certain premises in Subji Mandi was.not a ground to non-suit the landlord in view of the facts and circumstances of the case. The Apex Court held as follows:</p><p>9. In making a claim that the suit premises is required bona fide for his own occupation as a residence for himself and other members of his family dependent on him and that he has no other reasonably suitable accommodation is a requirement of law before the Court can state whether the landlord requires the premises bona fide for his use and occupation. In doing so, the Court must also find out whether the landlord or such other person for whose benefit the premises is required has no other reasonably suitable residential accommodation. It cannot be said that the requirement of the landlord is not intermixed with the question of finding out whether he has any other reasonably suitable accommodation. If he has other reasonably suitable accommodation, ihen necessarily it would mean that he does not require the suit premises and his requirement may not be bona fide. In such circumstances further inquiry would be whether that premises is more suitable than the suit premises. Therefore, the questions raised before the Court would not necessarily depend upon only the pleadings. It could be a good defence that the landlord has other reasonably suitable residential accommodation and thereby defend the claim of the landlord.</p><p>10. There cannot be a pedantic or a dogmatic approach in the matter of analysis of pleadings or of the evidence adduced thereto. It is no doubt true that if the pleadings are clearly set out, it would be easy for the Court to decide the matters. But if the pleadings are lacking or vague and if both parties have understood what was the case pleaded and put forth with reference to requirement of law and placed such material before the Court, neither party is prejudiced. If we analyse from this angle, we do not think that the High Court was not justified in interfering with the order made by the Rent Controller.</p><p>23. From the perusal of the judgment of the Apex Court it is apparent that the Rent Controller must approach the matter in a practical manner. In case the non-disclosure is such as that it goes to the very root of the case the Rent Controller would be justified in non-suiting the landlord. However, if the non-disclosure is such that it would not prejudice the rights of the respondent then the landlord should not be non-suited only on this ground.</p><p>24. The decisions of this Court cited hereinabove were delivered prior to the judgment delivered by the Apex Court in Ram Nar'ain Arora's case. Further more both in Tara Chand Sharma's case and Vijay Kapoor's case decided by this Court, no averment had been made ixi respect of other residential buildings owned by a landlord. There was complete non-disclosure as to whether any such residential building owned by the landlord was in his possession or not. In the present case, as I have held above, the residential premises at 31, The Mall, Shimla was not owned by the landlord and hence these two earlier judgments of this Court are distinguishable on facts also.</p><p>25. In the present case, the landlord has been non-suited only on the ground that he did not disclose the fact that he was in occupation of certain premises on the Mall Road. Under law he was not required to disclose this fact. He was only required to disclose the factum of occupying another residential building owned by him in the urban area concerned. True it may be, that it would have been better if the landlord had disclosed all the facts but non-disclosure of a fact which he was not under law required to disclose could not in my opinion be a ground to dismiss his eviction petition.</p><p>26. However, what are the premises in his occupation even as a tenant can be taken into consideration while deciding the question whether he bona fide requires the demised premises for his personal use or occupation or not.</p><p>27. Lastly comes the question with regard to the bona fide requirement of the landlord. The landlord has no children. According to the landlord as well as his other witnesses i.e. his brother-in-law PW-2 and his wife PW-3, the wife now wants to come back and settle in Shimla. There is no reason to disbelieve their statements. Even according to the evidence led by the tenant the accommodation in possession of the landlord consists of two rooms, kitchen, bath room etc. Admittedly, the landlord is also having his office as an Architect in this building. The landlord belongs to the middle class of the Society. It cannot be expected of a landlord who owns sufficient property to reside in a two room set wherein he also runs his office.</p><p>28. The law by now is well settled that the landlord is the best judge of the suitability of the accommodation required by him. This suitability has however to be judged in the context of reasonable expectations. The landlord and his wife who are both well educated can reasonably be expected to entertain guests and they will have visitors to their house. They would obviously require a drawing room, a bed room and a spare bed room for guests. Even at his residence the landlord may require another room for his professional work. This is the minimum accommodation which they would require. Even if the accommodation possessed by the landlord, though not owned by him, at 31, the Mall, Shimla is taken into consideration such accommodation is not sufficient to meet his requirements since admittedly the landlord is running his profession of Architect from some portion of his these premises.</p><p>29. Keeping in view the entire facts and circumstances, I am of the considered view that the learned Appellate Authority gravely erred in rejecting the eviction petition of the landlord solely on the ground that he had not disclosed the factum of being in possession of the premises at 31, the Mall Shimla. Even though I have held that the said premises are residential premises, in view of the above discussion I hold that the landlord cannot be non-suited only on the ground of his being in possession of such premises since same were not owned by him.</p><p>30. In view of the above discussion, the Revision Petition is allowed, the order of the learned Appellate Authority dated 6.5.2003 is seaside and the order of the Rent Controller dated 22.8.2001 is restored.</p><p>31. Keeping in view the fact that the tenant has been in possession of the premises for a long period he is granted time up to 31st October, 2008 to vacate the premises.</p><p>32. No order as to costs.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '2008(2)ShimLC491',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'Shri S.L. Srivastava',
		'sub' => 'Tenancy',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'shri-arun-bhanwara-vs-s-l-srivastava'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '891084',
	(int) 1 => 'shri-arun-bhanwara-vs-s-l-srivastava'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/891084/shri-arun-bhanwara-vs-s-l-srivastava'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$caseref = 'Ram Narain Arora v. Asha Rani<br>'
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 123
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Shri Arun Bhanwara Vs Shri S L Srivastava - Citation 891084 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '891084',
			'acts' => '',
			'appealno' => '',
			'appellant' => 'Shri Arun Bhanwara',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Shri Arun Bhanwara Vs. Shri S.L. Srivastava',
			'casenote' => ' - CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908.[C.A. No. 5/1908]. Order 14, Rule 2 [As amended by Amending Act of 1976]: [V.K. Gupta, CJ, Deepak Gupta & Surjit Singh, JJ] Preliminary issue of law and fact  Court framing all issues both of law and facts together and also  tried all the issues together, including the issue relating to jurisdiction of Court  Held, Except in situations perceived or warranted under sub-rule (2) of Rule 2 of Order 14 where a  Court in fact frames only issues of law in the first instance and postpones settlement of other issues, clearly and explicitly in situations where the Court has framed all issues together, both of law as well as facts and has also tried all these issues together, it is not open to the Court to adopt the principle of severability and proceed to decide issues of law first, without taking up simultaneously other issues for decision. This course of action is not available to a Court because sub-rule (1) does not permit the  Court to adopt any such principle of severability and to dispose of a suit only on preliminary issues, or what can be termed as issues of law. Sub-rule (1)  clearly mandates that in a situation contemplated under it, where all the issues have been together and have also been taken up for adjudication during the course of the trial, these must be decided together and the judgment in the suit as a whole must be pronounced by the Court covering all the issues framed in the suit.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => 'Ram Narain Arora v. Asha Rani;',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => '',
			'counseldef' => '',
			'court' => 'Himachal Pradesh',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2008-07-31',
			'deposition' => 'Petition allowed',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => ' Deepak Gupta, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">Deepak Gupta, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. This Revision Petition under Section 25(5) of the H.P. Urban Rent Control Act, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) is directed against the order of the learned Appellate Authority, Shimla in CMA No. 60-S/14 of 2001 whereby the appeal filed by the respondent (hereinafter referred to as the tenant) has been allowed, the order of the Rent Controller has been set-aside and the petition for eviction filed by the present petitioner (hereinafter referred to as the Landlord) on the ground of personal bona fide requirement has been set-aside.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The undisputed facts are that the landlord is owner of the demised premises situated in building known as Tunnel View, Sanjauli, Shimla-6 consisting of two bed rooms with attached bath room and latrine, drawing-cum-dining room, kitchen and balcony. These premises were purchased by the landlord in the year 1986. Thereafter, the landlord had rented out the premises to one Sh. B.K. Chauhan. According to the landlord, when he got married he requested Sh. B.K. Chauhan to vacate the said premises. Sh. Chauhan vacated the said premises but admittedly the landlord did not occupy the same but rented out the same to the tenant in the year 1990.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. In the year 1997 the landlord filed a petition for eviction of the tenant on two grounds; firstly that the tenant is in arrears of rent from 1.11.1990 to 31.7.1997 and secondly that the premises are bona fide required by the landlord for the use and occupation of himself and his family.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. This petition was contested by the tenant. After trial, the Rent Controller ordered the eviction of the tenant on two grounds; (i) that the tenant was in arrears of rent from November, 1999 till date of order i.e. 22nd August, 2001 and (ii) that the landlord required the premises for his own use and occupation.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. The tenant deposited the rent within the time prescribed. He also filed an appeal challenging the finding on the issue of bona fide requirement. The learned Appellate Authority came to the conclusion that the landlord had not made a proper and full disclosure of facts as required under the provisions of the Act and had withheld material facts from the Court viz. that the landlord was in occupation of residential premises on 31, Mall Road in the urban area of Shimla and as such rejected this petition on this short ground.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. Aggrieved by the said order, the landlord has filed the present Revision Petition.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. I have heard Sh. Ramakant Sharma, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sh. Bhupinder Gupta, learned senior Counsel for the tenant.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. It has been urged on behalf of the landlord that the building which is alleged to be in possession of the landlord i.e. 31, the Mall Shimla is not a residential building and secondly that the building is not owned by him.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. On the other hand Sh. Bhupinder Gupta, learned Counsel of the tenant has strenuously urged that the landlord in para 18 has not stated anything about any building being owned by him and has only made an averment that he does not own or possess any other such building within the urban area Shimla. It is contended by Sh. Bhupinder Gupta that the landlord of his own volition did not state anything about the ownership of the building and since he has kept silent about the building which he is in occupation he has made a false averment and therefore his petition for eviction has rightly been rejected.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. I am not at all in agreement with the contention of the landlord that the premises known as 31, the Mall Shimla which are admittedly in the occupation of the landlord are commercial premises only and not being used by him for his residence. As pointed out above, the landlord purchased the demised premises in 1986. They fell vacant when he got married despite that he did not occupy the same and rented out the same to the tenant in the year 1990. The question that arises is where was the landlord living for this entire period. According to the landlord after the year 1994 he has been living with his brother-in-law Rajan (wife's brother) PW-2, since the year 1994. Prior to 1994 the landlord will have this Court to believe that he was living off and on with one friend or the other. This story is impossible to believe. The landlord was married in the year 1999. He is an Architect by profession. His wife is a law graduate. It is not believable that such a person would have no permanent abode and would continue to live as a guest with his friends for almost 5 years after his marriage. Even the story that he has been living with his brother-in-law after the year 1994 does not inspire confidence. It stands proved on record that the brother-in-law PW-2 Rajan lives with his own family i.e. wife and children. From the evidence it is also clear that the parents of the brother-in-law also reside with him, His flat consists of only two rooms. The flat in possession of the landlord at 31, the Mall Shimla, also consists of two rooms, kitchen and bath room. Even assuming that he was running an office in the part of the flat it cannot be believed that he would not live on his own flat on the Mall Road and reside with his brother-in-law in cramped premises. Even in the electoral list the landlord is shown to be a resident of 31, The Mall, Shimla. Therefore, I am of the considered view that the building 31, the Mall, Shimla was also being used as a residence by the landlord.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. Having held so, the question that arises is whether the landlord can be non-suited only on the ground that he has not made any disclosure about the residential accommodation available with him which premises were admittedly not owned by him.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. The short question which arises for decision in this petition is whether the landlord was guilty of suppressing and withholding such relevant facts which would disentitle him from seeking eviction of the tenant. To appreciate these contentions it would be necessary to refer to relevant portion of Section 14(3) of the Act:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Section 14:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1 and 2 xxxxxxxxxxx</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(3) A landlord may apply to the Controller for an order directing the tenant to put the landlord in possession-</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(a) in case of residential building, if</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(i) he required it for his own occupation:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Provided that he is not occupying another residential building owned by him, in the urban area concerned:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Provided further that he has not vacated such a building without sufficient cause within five years of the filing of the application, in the said urban area....</p><p style="text-align: justify;">13. A perusal of the bare provisions of the Act makes it clear that there are certain essential ingredients which the landlord must satisfy before seeking eviction of the tenant under the Act. Not only must he prove that the residential building is bona fide required by him for his own use and occupation but he must also plead and prove that he is not occupying any other residential building owned by him in the urban area concerned and further that he has not vacated such a building without sufficient cause within 5 years of the filing of the application.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">14. Reference may now be made to the relevant allegations made in para 18 of the eviction petition:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(ii) That the petitioner bona fide requires the premises for his own use and occupation and also for the use and occupation of his family.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The petitioner does not own or possess any other such building within the urban area of Simla nor the petitioner has vacated any such premises within five years of the filing of this petition.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The family of the petitioner presently consists of himself and his wife. Due to paucity of accommodation the petitioner has not been able to keep his wife with himself at Simla, where he is working as an Engineer and she has been residing at Chandigarh since 1991 but on account of her ill health she has been brought to Simla by the petitioner. The petitioner at present is seeking temporary shelter, from time to time, with his relations.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">15. The learned Appellate Authority came to the conclusion that the landlord had falsely pleaded that he does not own or possess any other such building within the urban area of Shimla and hence rejected the eviction petition on this ground.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">16. On a close analysis of the proviso to Section 14(3)(a)(i) of the Act it is clear that a landlord is not entitled to seek eviction of a tenant from residential building even in case of bona fide requirement if the landlord is occupying another residential building owned by him in the urban area concerned. One can read three essential ingredients in this proviso i.e. (i) that the landlord is in occupation of another residential building; (ii) that the said residential building is owned by him and (iii) that the said residential building is situated in the concerned urban area.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">17. The question that arises is what is the impact of the landlord not making a disclosure in respect of premises which he is occupying but are not owned by him.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">18. The Apex Court in Onkar Nath v. Ved Vyas ILR 1979 HP 1, held as follows:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">It is common ground that there are three requirements to make out a cause of action for eviction under that provision, and indeed this is apparent from a bare reading of the sub-section. In the present case the finding is to the effect that the landlord requires the residential building for his own occupation. But, the legislation has taken care to insist upon two more conditions, namely; (a) that the landlord is not occupying any other residential building in the area concerned; and (b) that he has not vacated such a building without sufficient cause. There is not a scintilla of evidence nor indeed there is any averment in compliance with these latter conditions. The necessary consequence follows that not merely is there inadequacy of pleadings sufficient to make out a cause of action but total absence of proof of two vital requirements....</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The Supreme Court also said that:.The statute benignly designed to protect tenants from unreasonable evictions has taken case to put restrictions which must be rigorously construed to fulfil the purpose of the statute.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">19. Following the aforesaid judgment and other pronouncements of the Apex Court, a learned Single Judge of this Court in Tara Chand Sharma v. Baij Nath and Ors. 1992 (2) R.C.J. 323, held as follows:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">16. What appears as the legislative intent, in bold relief, is that the landlord, while seeking eviction of a tenant on the ground that he needs a residential building for his own occupation, must come out clearly and honestly with facts relating to the requirement that he is not occupying another residential building owned by him, in the urban area concerned and that he had not vacated such a building without sufficient cause within five years of the filing of the application, in the said urban area. The primal burden of making a clear disclosure would lie upon the landlord, for, the true facts would be in his special knowledge. An order in his favour by the Rent Controller would depend upon the satisfaction of the Rent Controller in regard not only to the claim that the landlord requires the accommodation, from which he wishes to evict a tenant, for his own occupation but also that he was not occupying another residential building owned by him nor had he vacated such building without sufficient cause within five years of the filing of the application in the application in the urban area concerned....</p><p style="text-align: justify;">It was further held as under:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">18. That the landlord should make a full disclosure of the relevant facts, pertaining to the requirements of Sub-section (3)(a)(i) and the two provisos, becomes all the more necessary because the satisfaction of the Rent Controller in regard thereto is the condition precedent for the making of an order in favour of the landlord....</p><p style="text-align: justify;">20. The aforesaid judgment has been followed in a number of other cases including Vijay Kapoor v. Maya Ram 1997 (2) RCR 437, wherein another learned single Judge of this Court following the aforesaid judgment held that the landlord must make complete and proper disclosure of all the material facts.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">21. On the other hand Sh. Ramakant Sharma has relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in Ram Narain Arora v. Asha Rani 1998(2) RCR 268. In that case the Rent Controller came to the conclusion that the landlord had suppressed material information and had not disclosed the fact that he was already in occupation of a house in Subji Mandi. Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act reads as follows:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Section 14(1)(e). That the premises let for residential purposes are required bona fide by the landlord for occupation as a residence for himself or for any member of his family dependent on him, if he is the owner thereof, or for any person for whose benefit the premises are held and that the landlord or such person has no other reasonably suitable residential accommodation.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">22. The difference between Delhi Act and the present Act is that under the Delhi Act the only requirement is that the landlord has no other reasonably suitable accommodation whereas under the Himachal Act the residential premises are required to be owned by the landlord. The Apex Court in Rama Narain Arora's case (supra) held that the nondisclosure of the fact that the landlord was in occupation of certain premises in Subji Mandi was.not a ground to non-suit the landlord in view of the facts and circumstances of the case. The Apex Court held as follows:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. In making a claim that the suit premises is required bona fide for his own occupation as a residence for himself and other members of his family dependent on him and that he has no other reasonably suitable accommodation is a requirement of law before the Court can state whether the landlord requires the premises bona fide for his use and occupation. In doing so, the Court must also find out whether the landlord or such other person for whose benefit the premises is required has no other reasonably suitable residential accommodation. It cannot be said that the requirement of the landlord is not intermixed with the question of finding out whether he has any other reasonably suitable accommodation. If he has other reasonably suitable accommodation, ihen necessarily it would mean that he does not require the suit premises and his requirement may not be bona fide. In such circumstances further inquiry would be whether that premises is more suitable than the suit premises. Therefore, the questions raised before the Court would not necessarily depend upon only the pleadings. It could be a good defence that the landlord has other reasonably suitable residential accommodation and thereby defend the claim of the landlord.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. There cannot be a pedantic or a dogmatic approach in the matter of analysis of pleadings or of the evidence adduced thereto. It is no doubt true that if the pleadings are clearly set out, it would be easy for the Court to decide the matters. But if the pleadings are lacking or vague and if both parties have understood what was the case pleaded and put forth with reference to requirement of law and placed such material before the Court, neither party is prejudiced. If we analyse from this angle, we do not think that the High Court was not justified in interfering with the order made by the Rent Controller.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">23. From the perusal of the judgment of the Apex Court it is apparent that the Rent Controller must approach the matter in a practical manner. In case the non-disclosure is such as that it goes to the very root of the case the Rent Controller would be justified in non-suiting the landlord. However, if the non-disclosure is such that it would not prejudice the rights of the respondent then the landlord should not be non-suited only on this ground.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">24. The decisions of this Court cited hereinabove were delivered prior to the judgment delivered by the Apex Court in Ram Nar'ain Arora's case. Further more both in Tara Chand Sharma's case and Vijay Kapoor's case decided by this Court, no averment had been made ixi respect of other residential buildings owned by a landlord. There was complete non-disclosure as to whether any such residential building owned by the landlord was in his possession or not. In the present case, as I have held above, the residential premises at 31, The Mall, Shimla was not owned by the landlord and hence these two earlier judgments of this Court are distinguishable on facts also.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">25. In the present case, the landlord has been non-suited only on the ground that he did not disclose the fact that he was in occupation of certain premises on the Mall Road. Under law he was not required to disclose this fact. He was only required to disclose the factum of occupying another residential building owned by him in the urban area concerned. True it may be, that it would have been better if the landlord had disclosed all the facts but non-disclosure of a fact which he was not under law required to disclose could not in my opinion be a ground to dismiss his eviction petition.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">26. However, what are the premises in his occupation even as a tenant can be taken into consideration while deciding the question whether he bona fide requires the demised premises for his personal use or occupation or not.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">27. Lastly comes the question with regard to the bona fide requirement of the landlord. The landlord has no children. According to the landlord as well as his other witnesses i.e. his brother-in-law PW-2 and his wife PW-3, the wife now wants to come back and settle in Shimla. There is no reason to disbelieve their statements. Even according to the evidence led by the tenant the accommodation in possession of the landlord consists of two rooms, kitchen, bath room etc. Admittedly, the landlord is also having his office as an Architect in this building. The landlord belongs to the middle class of the Society. It cannot be expected of a landlord who owns sufficient property to reside in a two room set wherein he also runs his office.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">28. The law by now is well settled that the landlord is the best judge of the suitability of the accommodation required by him. This suitability has however to be judged in the context of reasonable expectations. The landlord and his wife who are both well educated can reasonably be expected to entertain guests and they will have visitors to their house. They would obviously require a drawing room, a bed room and a spare bed room for guests. Even at his residence the landlord may require another room for his professional work. This is the minimum accommodation which they would require. Even if the accommodation possessed by the landlord, though not owned by him, at 31, the Mall, Shimla is taken into consideration such accommodation is not sufficient to meet his requirements since admittedly the landlord is running his profession of Architect from some portion of his these premises.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">29. Keeping in view the entire facts and circumstances, I am of the considered view that the learned Appellate Authority gravely erred in rejecting the eviction petition of the landlord solely on the ground that he had not disclosed the factum of being in possession of the premises at 31, the Mall Shimla. Even though I have held that the said premises are residential premises, in view of the above discussion I hold that the landlord cannot be non-suited only on the ground of his being in possession of such premises since same were not owned by him.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">30. In view of the above discussion, the Revision Petition is allowed, the order of the learned Appellate Authority dated 6.5.2003 is seaside and the order of the Rent Controller dated 22.8.2001 is restored.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">31. Keeping in view the fact that the tenant has been in possession of the premises for a long period he is granted time up to 31st October, 2008 to vacate the premises.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">32. No order as to costs.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '2008(2)ShimLC491',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'Shri S.L. Srivastava',
			'sub' => 'Tenancy',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'shri-arun-bhanwara-vs-s-l-srivastava',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '891084',
		(int) 1 => 'shri-arun-bhanwara-vs-s-l-srivastava'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Shri Arun Bhanwara Vs Shri S L Srivastava - Citation 891084 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '891084',
		'acts' => '',
		'appealno' => '',
		'appellant' => 'Shri Arun Bhanwara',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Shri Arun Bhanwara Vs. Shri S.L. Srivastava',
		'casenote' => ' - CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908.[C.A. No. 5/1908]. Order 14, Rule 2 [As amended by Amending Act of 1976]: [V.K. Gupta, CJ, Deepak Gupta & Surjit Singh, JJ] Preliminary issue of law and fact  Court framing all issues both of law and facts together and also  tried all the issues together, including the issue relating to jurisdiction of Court  Held, Except in situations perceived or warranted under sub-rule (2) of Rule 2 of Order 14 where a  Court in fact frames only issues of law in the first instance and postpones settlement of other issues, clearly and explicitly in situations where the Court has framed all issues together, both of law as well as facts and has also tried all these issues together, it is not open to the Court to adopt the principle of severability and proceed to decide issues of law first, without taking up simultaneously other issues for decision. This course of action is not available to a Court because sub-rule (1) does not permit the  Court to adopt any such principle of severability and to dispose of a suit only on preliminary issues, or what can be termed as issues of law. Sub-rule (1)  clearly mandates that in a situation contemplated under it, where all the issues have been together and have also been taken up for adjudication during the course of the trial, these must be decided together and the judgment in the suit as a whole must be pronounced by the Court covering all the issues framed in the suit.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => 'Ram Narain Arora v. Asha Rani;',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => '',
		'counseldef' => '',
		'court' => 'Himachal Pradesh',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2008-07-31',
		'deposition' => 'Petition allowed',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => ' Deepak Gupta, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>Deepak Gupta, J.</p><p>1. This Revision Petition under Section 25(5) of the H.P. Urban Rent Control Act, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) is directed against the order of the learned Appellate Authority, Shimla in CMA No. 60-S/14 of 2001 whereby the appeal filed by the respondent (hereinafter referred to as the tenant) has been allowed, the order of the Rent Controller has been set-aside and the petition for eviction filed by the present petitioner (hereinafter referred to as the Landlord) on the ground of personal bona fide requirement has been set-aside.</p><p>2. The undisputed facts are that the landlord is owner of the demised premises situated in building known as Tunnel View, Sanjauli, Shimla-6 consisting of two bed rooms with attached bath room and latrine, drawing-cum-dining room, kitchen and balcony. These premises were purchased by the landlord in the year 1986. Thereafter, the landlord had rented out the premises to one Sh. B.K. Chauhan. According to the landlord, when he got married he requested Sh. B.K. Chauhan to vacate the said premises. Sh. Chauhan vacated the said premises but admittedly the landlord did not occupy the same but rented out the same to the tenant in the year 1990.</p><p>3. In the year 1997 the landlord filed a petition for eviction of the tenant on two grounds; firstly that the tenant is in arrears of rent from 1.11.1990 to 31.7.1997 and secondly that the premises are bona fide required by the landlord for the use and occupation of himself and his family.</p><p>4. This petition was contested by the tenant. After trial, the Rent Controller ordered the eviction of the tenant on two grounds; (i) that the tenant was in arrears of rent from November, 1999 till date of order i.e. 22nd August, 2001 and (ii) that the landlord required the premises for his own use and occupation.</p><p>5. The tenant deposited the rent within the time prescribed. He also filed an appeal challenging the finding on the issue of bona fide requirement. The learned Appellate Authority came to the conclusion that the landlord had not made a proper and full disclosure of facts as required under the provisions of the Act and had withheld material facts from the Court viz. that the landlord was in occupation of residential premises on 31, Mall Road in the urban area of Shimla and as such rejected this petition on this short ground.</p><p>6. Aggrieved by the said order, the landlord has filed the present Revision Petition.</p><p>7. I have heard Sh. Ramakant Sharma, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sh. Bhupinder Gupta, learned senior Counsel for the tenant.</p><p>8. It has been urged on behalf of the landlord that the building which is alleged to be in possession of the landlord i.e. 31, the Mall Shimla is not a residential building and secondly that the building is not owned by him.</p><p>9. On the other hand Sh. Bhupinder Gupta, learned Counsel of the tenant has strenuously urged that the landlord in para 18 has not stated anything about any building being owned by him and has only made an averment that he does not own or possess any other such building within the urban area Shimla. It is contended by Sh. Bhupinder Gupta that the landlord of his own volition did not state anything about the ownership of the building and since he has kept silent about the building which he is in occupation he has made a false averment and therefore his petition for eviction has rightly been rejected.</p><p>10. I am not at all in agreement with the contention of the landlord that the premises known as 31, the Mall Shimla which are admittedly in the occupation of the landlord are commercial premises only and not being used by him for his residence. As pointed out above, the landlord purchased the demised premises in 1986. They fell vacant when he got married despite that he did not occupy the same and rented out the same to the tenant in the year 1990. The question that arises is where was the landlord living for this entire period. According to the landlord after the year 1994 he has been living with his brother-in-law Rajan (wife's brother) PW-2, since the year 1994. Prior to 1994 the landlord will have this Court to believe that he was living off and on with one friend or the other. This story is impossible to believe. The landlord was married in the year 1999. He is an Architect by profession. His wife is a law graduate. It is not believable that such a person would have no permanent abode and would continue to live as a guest with his friends for almost 5 years after his marriage. Even the story that he has been living with his brother-in-law after the year 1994 does not inspire confidence. It stands proved on record that the brother-in-law PW-2 Rajan lives with his own family i.e. wife and children. From the evidence it is also clear that the parents of the brother-in-law also reside with him, His flat consists of only two rooms. The flat in possession of the landlord at 31, the Mall Shimla, also consists of two rooms, kitchen and bath room. Even assuming that he was running an office in the part of the flat it cannot be believed that he would not live on his own flat on the Mall Road and reside with his brother-in-law in cramped premises. Even in the electoral list the landlord is shown to be a resident of 31, The Mall, Shimla. Therefore, I am of the considered view that the building 31, the Mall, Shimla was also being used as a residence by the landlord.</p><p>11. Having held so, the question that arises is whether the landlord can be non-suited only on the ground that he has not made any disclosure about the residential accommodation available with him which premises were admittedly not owned by him.</p><p>12. The short question which arises for decision in this petition is whether the landlord was guilty of suppressing and withholding such relevant facts which would disentitle him from seeking eviction of the tenant. To appreciate these contentions it would be necessary to refer to relevant portion of Section 14(3) of the Act:</p><p>Section 14:</p><p>1 and 2 xxxxxxxxxxx</p><p>(3) A landlord may apply to the Controller for an order directing the tenant to put the landlord in possession-</p><p>(a) in case of residential building, if</p><p>(i) he required it for his own occupation:</p><p>Provided that he is not occupying another residential building owned by him, in the urban area concerned:</p><p>Provided further that he has not vacated such a building without sufficient cause within five years of the filing of the application, in the said urban area....</p><p>13. A perusal of the bare provisions of the Act makes it clear that there are certain essential ingredients which the landlord must satisfy before seeking eviction of the tenant under the Act. Not only must he prove that the residential building is bona fide required by him for his own use and occupation but he must also plead and prove that he is not occupying any other residential building owned by him in the urban area concerned and further that he has not vacated such a building without sufficient cause within 5 years of the filing of the application.</p><p>14. Reference may now be made to the relevant allegations made in para 18 of the eviction petition:</p><p>(ii) That the petitioner bona fide requires the premises for his own use and occupation and also for the use and occupation of his family.</p><p>The petitioner does not own or possess any other such building within the urban area of Simla nor the petitioner has vacated any such premises within five years of the filing of this petition.</p><p>The family of the petitioner presently consists of himself and his wife. Due to paucity of accommodation the petitioner has not been able to keep his wife with himself at Simla, where he is working as an Engineer and she has been residing at Chandigarh since 1991 but on account of her ill health she has been brought to Simla by the petitioner. The petitioner at present is seeking temporary shelter, from time to time, with his relations.</p><p>15. The learned Appellate Authority came to the conclusion that the landlord had falsely pleaded that he does not own or possess any other such building within the urban area of Shimla and hence rejected the eviction petition on this ground.</p><p>16. On a close analysis of the proviso to Section 14(3)(a)(i) of the Act it is clear that a landlord is not entitled to seek eviction of a tenant from residential building even in case of bona fide requirement if the landlord is occupying another residential building owned by him in the urban area concerned. One can read three essential ingredients in this proviso i.e. (i) that the landlord is in occupation of another residential building; (ii) that the said residential building is owned by him and (iii) that the said residential building is situated in the concerned urban area.</p><p>17. The question that arises is what is the impact of the landlord not making a disclosure in respect of premises which he is occupying but are not owned by him.</p><p>18. The Apex Court in Onkar Nath v. Ved Vyas ILR 1979 HP 1, held as follows:</p><p>It is common ground that there are three requirements to make out a cause of action for eviction under that provision, and indeed this is apparent from a bare reading of the sub-section. In the present case the finding is to the effect that the landlord requires the residential building for his own occupation. But, the legislation has taken care to insist upon two more conditions, namely; (a) that the landlord is not occupying any other residential building in the area concerned; and (b) that he has not vacated such a building without sufficient cause. There is not a scintilla of evidence nor indeed there is any averment in compliance with these latter conditions. The necessary consequence follows that not merely is there inadequacy of pleadings sufficient to make out a cause of action but total absence of proof of two vital requirements....</p><p>The Supreme Court also said that:.The statute benignly designed to protect tenants from unreasonable evictions has taken case to put restrictions which must be rigorously construed to fulfil the purpose of the statute.</p><p>19. Following the aforesaid judgment and other pronouncements of the Apex Court, a learned Single Judge of this Court in Tara Chand Sharma v. Baij Nath and Ors. 1992 (2) R.C.J. 323, held as follows:</p><p>16. What appears as the legislative intent, in bold relief, is that the landlord, while seeking eviction of a tenant on the ground that he needs a residential building for his own occupation, must come out clearly and honestly with facts relating to the requirement that he is not occupying another residential building owned by him, in the urban area concerned and that he had not vacated such a building without sufficient cause within five years of the filing of the application, in the said urban area. The primal burden of making a clear disclosure would lie upon the landlord, for, the true facts would be in his special knowledge. An order in his favour by the Rent Controller would depend upon the satisfaction of the Rent Controller in regard not only to the claim that the landlord requires the accommodation, from which he wishes to evict a tenant, for his own occupation but also that he was not occupying another residential building owned by him nor had he vacated such building without sufficient cause within five years of the filing of the application in the application in the urban area concerned....</p><p>It was further held as under:</p><p>18. That the landlord should make a full disclosure of the relevant facts, pertaining to the requirements of Sub-section (3)(a)(i) and the two provisos, becomes all the more necessary because the satisfaction of the Rent Controller in regard thereto is the condition precedent for the making of an order in favour of the landlord....</p><p>20. The aforesaid judgment has been followed in a number of other cases including Vijay Kapoor v. Maya Ram 1997 (2) RCR 437, wherein another learned single Judge of this Court following the aforesaid judgment held that the landlord must make complete and proper disclosure of all the material facts.</p><p>21. On the other hand Sh. Ramakant Sharma has relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in Ram Narain Arora v. Asha Rani 1998(2) RCR 268. In that case the Rent Controller came to the conclusion that the landlord had suppressed material information and had not disclosed the fact that he was already in occupation of a house in Subji Mandi. Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act reads as follows:</p><p>Section 14(1)(e). That the premises let for residential purposes are required bona fide by the landlord for occupation as a residence for himself or for any member of his family dependent on him, if he is the owner thereof, or for any person for whose benefit the premises are held and that the landlord or such person has no other reasonably suitable residential accommodation.</p><p>22. The difference between Delhi Act and the present Act is that under the Delhi Act the only requirement is that the landlord has no other reasonably suitable accommodation whereas under the Himachal Act the residential premises are required to be owned by the landlord. The Apex Court in Rama Narain Arora's case (supra) held that the nondisclosure of the fact that the landlord was in occupation of certain premises in Subji Mandi was.not a ground to non-suit the landlord in view of the facts and circumstances of the case. The Apex Court held as follows:</p><p>9. In making a claim that the suit premises is required bona fide for his own occupation as a residence for himself and other members of his family dependent on him and that he has no other reasonably suitable accommodation is a requirement of law before the Court can state whether the landlord requires the premises bona fide for his use and occupation. In doing so, the Court must also find out whether the landlord or such other person for whose benefit the premises is required has no other reasonably suitable residential accommodation. It cannot be said that the requirement of the landlord is not intermixed with the question of finding out whether he has any other reasonably suitable accommodation. If he has other reasonably suitable accommodation, ihen necessarily it would mean that he does not require the suit premises and his requirement may not be bona fide. In such circumstances further inquiry would be whether that premises is more suitable than the suit premises. Therefore, the questions raised before the Court would not necessarily depend upon only the pleadings. It could be a good defence that the landlord has other reasonably suitable residential accommodation and thereby defend the claim of the landlord.</p><p>10. There cannot be a pedantic or a dogmatic approach in the matter of analysis of pleadings or of the evidence adduced thereto. It is no doubt true that if the pleadings are clearly set out, it would be easy for the Court to decide the matters. But if the pleadings are lacking or vague and if both parties have understood what was the case pleaded and put forth with reference to requirement of law and placed such material before the Court, neither party is prejudiced. If we analyse from this angle, we do not think that the High Court was not justified in interfering with the order made by the Rent Controller.</p><p>23. From the perusal of the judgment of the Apex Court it is apparent that the Rent Controller must approach the matter in a practical manner. In case the non-disclosure is such as that it goes to the very root of the case the Rent Controller would be justified in non-suiting the landlord. However, if the non-disclosure is such that it would not prejudice the rights of the respondent then the landlord should not be non-suited only on this ground.</p><p>24. The decisions of this Court cited hereinabove were delivered prior to the judgment delivered by the Apex Court in Ram Nar'ain Arora's case. Further more both in Tara Chand Sharma's case and Vijay Kapoor's case decided by this Court, no averment had been made ixi respect of other residential buildings owned by a landlord. There was complete non-disclosure as to whether any such residential building owned by the landlord was in his possession or not. In the present case, as I have held above, the residential premises at 31, The Mall, Shimla was not owned by the landlord and hence these two earlier judgments of this Court are distinguishable on facts also.</p><p>25. In the present case, the landlord has been non-suited only on the ground that he did not disclose the fact that he was in occupation of certain premises on the Mall Road. Under law he was not required to disclose this fact. He was only required to disclose the factum of occupying another residential building owned by him in the urban area concerned. True it may be, that it would have been better if the landlord had disclosed all the facts but non-disclosure of a fact which he was not under law required to disclose could not in my opinion be a ground to dismiss his eviction petition.</p><p>26. However, what are the premises in his occupation even as a tenant can be taken into consideration while deciding the question whether he bona fide requires the demised premises for his personal use or occupation or not.</p><p>27. Lastly comes the question with regard to the bona fide requirement of the landlord. The landlord has no children. According to the landlord as well as his other witnesses i.e. his brother-in-law PW-2 and his wife PW-3, the wife now wants to come back and settle in Shimla. There is no reason to disbelieve their statements. Even according to the evidence led by the tenant the accommodation in possession of the landlord consists of two rooms, kitchen, bath room etc. Admittedly, the landlord is also having his office as an Architect in this building. The landlord belongs to the middle class of the Society. It cannot be expected of a landlord who owns sufficient property to reside in a two room set wherein he also runs his office.</p><p>28. The law by now is well settled that the landlord is the best judge of the suitability of the accommodation required by him. This suitability has however to be judged in the context of reasonable expectations. The landlord and his wife who are both well educated can reasonably be expected to entertain guests and they will have visitors to their house. They would obviously require a drawing room, a bed room and a spare bed room for guests. Even at his residence the landlord may require another room for his professional work. This is the minimum accommodation which they would require. Even if the accommodation possessed by the landlord, though not owned by him, at 31, the Mall, Shimla is taken into consideration such accommodation is not sufficient to meet his requirements since admittedly the landlord is running his profession of Architect from some portion of his these premises.</p><p>29. Keeping in view the entire facts and circumstances, I am of the considered view that the learned Appellate Authority gravely erred in rejecting the eviction petition of the landlord solely on the ground that he had not disclosed the factum of being in possession of the premises at 31, the Mall Shimla. Even though I have held that the said premises are residential premises, in view of the above discussion I hold that the landlord cannot be non-suited only on the ground of his being in possession of such premises since same were not owned by him.</p><p>30. In view of the above discussion, the Revision Petition is allowed, the order of the learned Appellate Authority dated 6.5.2003 is seaside and the order of the Rent Controller dated 22.8.2001 is restored.</p><p>31. Keeping in view the fact that the tenant has been in possession of the premises for a long period he is granted time up to 31st October, 2008 to vacate the premises.</p><p>32. No order as to costs.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '2008(2)ShimLC491',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'Shri S.L. Srivastava',
		'sub' => 'Tenancy',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'shri-arun-bhanwara-vs-s-l-srivastava'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '891084',
	(int) 1 => 'shri-arun-bhanwara-vs-s-l-srivastava'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/891084/shri-arun-bhanwara-vs-s-l-srivastava'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$caseref = 'Ram Narain Arora v. Asha Rani<br>'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>Deepak Gupta, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. This Revision Petition under Section 25(5) of the H.P. Urban Rent Control Act, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) is directed against the order of the learned Appellate Authority, Shimla in CMA No. 60-S/14 of 2001 whereby the appeal filed by the respondent (hereinafter referred to as the tenant) has been allowed, the order of the Rent Controller has been set-aside and the petition for eviction filed by the present petitioner (hereinafter referred to as the Landlord) on the ground of personal bona fide requirement has been set-aside.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. The undisputed facts are that the landlord is owner of the demised premises situated in building known as Tunnel View, Sanjauli, Shimla-6 consisting of two bed rooms with attached bath room and latrine, drawing-cum-dining room, kitchen and balcony. These premises were purchased by the landlord in the year 1986. Thereafter, the landlord had rented out the premises to one Sh. B.K. Chauhan. According to the landlord, when he got married he requested Sh. B.K. Chauhan to vacate the said premises. Sh. Chauhan vacated the said premises but admittedly the landlord did not occupy the same but rented out the same to the tenant in the year 1990.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. In the year 1997 the landlord filed a petition for eviction of the tenant on two grounds; firstly that the tenant is in arrears of rent from 1.11.1990 to 31.7.1997 and secondly that the premises are bona fide required by the landlord for the use and occupation of himself and his family.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>4. This petition was contested by the tenant. After trial, the Rent Controller ordered the eviction of the tenant on two grounds; (i) that the tenant was in arrears of rent from November, 1999 till date of order i.e. 22nd August, 2001 and (ii) that the landlord required the premises for his own use and occupation.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>5. The tenant deposited the rent within the time prescribed. He also filed an appeal challenging the finding on the issue of bona fide requirement. The learned Appellate Authority came to the conclusion that the landlord had not made a proper and full disclosure of facts as required under the provisions of the Act and had withheld material facts from the Court viz. that the landlord was in occupation of residential premises on 31, Mall Road in the urban area of Shimla and as such rejected this petition on this short ground.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>6. Aggrieved by the said order, the landlord has filed the present Revision Petition.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>7. I have heard Sh. Ramakant Sharma, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sh. Bhupinder Gupta, learned senior Counsel for the tenant.',
	(int) 8 => '<p>8. It has been urged on behalf of the landlord that the building which is alleged to be in possession of the landlord i.e. 31, the Mall Shimla is not a residential building and secondly that the building is not owned by him.',
	(int) 9 => '<p>9. On the other hand Sh. Bhupinder Gupta, learned Counsel of the tenant has strenuously urged that the landlord in para 18 has not stated anything about any building being owned by him and has only made an averment that he does not own or possess any other such building within the urban area Shimla. It is contended by Sh. Bhupinder Gupta that the landlord of his own volition did not state anything about the ownership of the building and since he has kept silent about the building which he is in occupation he has made a false averment and therefore his petition for eviction has rightly been rejected.',
	(int) 10 => '<p>10. I am not at all in agreement with the contention of the landlord that the premises known as 31, the Mall Shimla which are admittedly in the occupation of the landlord are commercial premises only and not being used by him for his residence. As pointed out above, the landlord purchased the demised premises in 1986. They fell vacant when he got married despite that he did not occupy the same and rented out the same to the tenant in the year 1990. The question that arises is where was the landlord living for this entire period. According to the landlord after the year 1994 he has been living with his brother-in-law Rajan (wife's brother) PW-2, since the year 1994. Prior to 1994 the landlord will have this Court to believe that he was living off and on with one friend or the other. This story is impossible to believe. The landlord was married in the year 1999. He is an Architect by profession. His wife is a law graduate. It is not believable that such a person would have no permanent abode and would continue to live as a guest with his friends for almost 5 years after his marriage. Even the story that he has been living with his brother-in-law after the year 1994 does not inspire confidence. It stands proved on record that the brother-in-law PW-2 Rajan lives with his own family i.e. wife and children. From the evidence it is also clear that the parents of the brother-in-law also reside with him, His flat consists of only two rooms. The flat in possession of the landlord at 31, the Mall Shimla, also consists of two rooms, kitchen and bath room. Even assuming that he was running an office in the part of the flat it cannot be believed that he would not live on his own flat on the Mall Road and reside with his brother-in-law in cramped premises. Even in the electoral list the landlord is shown to be a resident of 31, The Mall, Shimla. Therefore, I am of the considered view that the building 31, the Mall, Shimla was also being used as a residence by the landlord.',
	(int) 11 => '<p>11. Having held so, the question that arises is whether the landlord can be non-suited only on the ground that he has not made any disclosure about the residential accommodation available with him which premises were admittedly not owned by him.',
	(int) 12 => '<p>12. The short question which arises for decision in this petition is whether the landlord was guilty of suppressing and withholding such relevant facts which would disentitle him from seeking eviction of the tenant. To appreciate these contentions it would be necessary to refer to relevant portion of Section 14(3) of the Act:',
	(int) 13 => '<p>Section 14:',
	(int) 14 => '<p>1 and 2 xxxxxxxxxxx',
	(int) 15 => '<p>(3) A landlord may apply to the Controller for an order directing the tenant to put the landlord in possession-',
	(int) 16 => '<p>(a) in case of residential building, if',
	(int) 17 => '<p>(i) he required it for his own occupation:',
	(int) 18 => '<p>Provided that he is not occupying another residential building owned by him, in the urban area concerned:',
	(int) 19 => '<p>Provided further that he has not vacated such a building without sufficient cause within five years of the filing of the application, in the said urban area....',
	(int) 20 => '<p>13. A perusal of the bare provisions of the Act makes it clear that there are certain essential ingredients which the landlord must satisfy before seeking eviction of the tenant under the Act. Not only must he prove that the residential building is bona fide required by him for his own use and occupation but he must also plead and prove that he is not occupying any other residential building owned by him in the urban area concerned and further that he has not vacated such a building without sufficient cause within 5 years of the filing of the application.',
	(int) 21 => '<p>14. Reference may now be made to the relevant allegations made in para 18 of the eviction petition:',
	(int) 22 => '<p>(ii) That the petitioner bona fide requires the premises for his own use and occupation and also for the use and occupation of his family.',
	(int) 23 => '<p>The petitioner does not own or possess any other such building within the urban area of Simla nor the petitioner has vacated any such premises within five years of the filing of this petition.',
	(int) 24 => '<p>The family of the petitioner presently consists of himself and his wife. Due to paucity of accommodation the petitioner has not been able to keep his wife with himself at Simla, where he is working as an Engineer and she has been residing at Chandigarh since 1991 but on account of her ill health she has been brought to Simla by the petitioner. The petitioner at present is seeking temporary shelter, from time to time, with his relations.',
	(int) 25 => '<p>15. The learned Appellate Authority came to the conclusion that the landlord had falsely pleaded that he does not own or possess any other such building within the urban area of Shimla and hence rejected the eviction petition on this ground.',
	(int) 26 => '<p>16. On a close analysis of the proviso to Section 14(3)(a)(i) of the Act it is clear that a landlord is not entitled to seek eviction of a tenant from residential building even in case of bona fide requirement if the landlord is occupying another residential building owned by him in the urban area concerned. One can read three essential ingredients in this proviso i.e. (i) that the landlord is in occupation of another residential building; (ii) that the said residential building is owned by him and (iii) that the said residential building is situated in the concerned urban area.',
	(int) 27 => '<p>17. The question that arises is what is the impact of the landlord not making a disclosure in respect of premises which he is occupying but are not owned by him.',
	(int) 28 => '<p>18. The Apex Court in Onkar Nath v. Ved Vyas ILR 1979 HP 1, held as follows:',
	(int) 29 => '<p>It is common ground that there are three requirements to make out a cause of action for eviction under that provision, and indeed this is apparent from a bare reading of the sub-section. In the present case the finding is to the effect that the landlord requires the residential building for his own occupation. But, the legislation has taken care to insist upon two more conditions, namely; (a) that the landlord is not occupying any other residential building in the area concerned; and (b) that he has not vacated such a building without sufficient cause. There is not a scintilla of evidence nor indeed there is any averment in compliance with these latter conditions. The necessary consequence follows that not merely is there inadequacy of pleadings sufficient to make out a cause of action but total absence of proof of two vital requirements....',
	(int) 30 => '<p>The Supreme Court also said that:.The statute benignly designed to protect tenants from unreasonable evictions has taken case to put restrictions which must be rigorously construed to fulfil the purpose of the statute.',
	(int) 31 => '<p>19. Following the aforesaid judgment and other pronouncements of the Apex Court, a learned Single Judge of this Court in Tara Chand Sharma v. Baij Nath and Ors. 1992 (2) R.C.J. 323, held as follows:',
	(int) 32 => '<p>16. What appears as the legislative intent, in bold relief, is that the landlord, while seeking eviction of a tenant on the ground that he needs a residential building for his own occupation, must come out clearly and honestly with facts relating to the requirement that he is not occupying another residential building owned by him, in the urban area concerned and that he had not vacated such a building without sufficient cause within five years of the filing of the application, in the said urban area. The primal burden of making a clear disclosure would lie upon the landlord, for, the true facts would be in his special knowledge. An order in his favour by the Rent Controller would depend upon the satisfaction of the Rent Controller in regard not only to the claim that the landlord requires the accommodation, from which he wishes to evict a tenant, for his own occupation but also that he was not occupying another residential building owned by him nor had he vacated such building without sufficient cause within five years of the filing of the application in the application in the urban area concerned....',
	(int) 33 => '<p>It was further held as under:',
	(int) 34 => '<p>18. That the landlord should make a full disclosure of the relevant facts, pertaining to the requirements of Sub-section (3)(a)(i) and the two provisos, becomes all the more necessary because the satisfaction of the Rent Controller in regard thereto is the condition precedent for the making of an order in favour of the landlord....',
	(int) 35 => '<p>20. The aforesaid judgment has been followed in a number of other cases including Vijay Kapoor v. Maya Ram 1997 (2) RCR 437, wherein another learned single Judge of this Court following the aforesaid judgment held that the landlord must make complete and proper disclosure of all the material facts.',
	(int) 36 => '<p>21. On the other hand Sh. Ramakant Sharma has relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in Ram Narain Arora v. Asha Rani 1998(2) RCR 268. In that case the Rent Controller came to the conclusion that the landlord had suppressed material information and had not disclosed the fact that he was already in occupation of a house in Subji Mandi. Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act reads as follows:',
	(int) 37 => '<p>Section 14(1)(e). That the premises let for residential purposes are required bona fide by the landlord for occupation as a residence for himself or for any member of his family dependent on him, if he is the owner thereof, or for any person for whose benefit the premises are held and that the landlord or such person has no other reasonably suitable residential accommodation.',
	(int) 38 => '<p>22. The difference between Delhi Act and the present Act is that under the Delhi Act the only requirement is that the landlord has no other reasonably suitable accommodation whereas under the Himachal Act the residential premises are required to be owned by the landlord. The Apex Court in Rama Narain Arora's case (supra) held that the nondisclosure of the fact that the landlord was in occupation of certain premises in Subji Mandi was.not a ground to non-suit the landlord in view of the facts and circumstances of the case. The Apex Court held as follows:',
	(int) 39 => '<p>9. In making a claim that the suit premises is required bona fide for his own occupation as a residence for himself and other members of his family dependent on him and that he has no other reasonably suitable accommodation is a requirement of law before the Court can state whether the landlord requires the premises bona fide for his use and occupation. In doing so, the Court must also find out whether the landlord or such other person for whose benefit the premises is required has no other reasonably suitable residential accommodation. It cannot be said that the requirement of the landlord is not intermixed with the question of finding out whether he has any other reasonably suitable accommodation. If he has other reasonably suitable accommodation, ihen necessarily it would mean that he does not require the suit premises and his requirement may not be bona fide. In such circumstances further inquiry would be whether that premises is more suitable than the suit premises. Therefore, the questions raised before the Court would not necessarily depend upon only the pleadings. It could be a good defence that the landlord has other reasonably suitable residential accommodation and thereby defend the claim of the landlord.',
	(int) 40 => '<p>10. There cannot be a pedantic or a dogmatic approach in the matter of analysis of pleadings or of the evidence adduced thereto. It is no doubt true that if the pleadings are clearly set out, it would be easy for the Court to decide the matters. But if the pleadings are lacking or vague and if both parties have understood what was the case pleaded and put forth with reference to requirement of law and placed such material before the Court, neither party is prejudiced. If we analyse from this angle, we do not think that the High Court was not justified in interfering with the order made by the Rent Controller.',
	(int) 41 => '<p>23. From the perusal of the judgment of the Apex Court it is apparent that the Rent Controller must approach the matter in a practical manner. In case the non-disclosure is such as that it goes to the very root of the case the Rent Controller would be justified in non-suiting the landlord. However, if the non-disclosure is such that it would not prejudice the rights of the respondent then the landlord should not be non-suited only on this ground.',
	(int) 42 => '<p>24. The decisions of this Court cited hereinabove were delivered prior to the judgment delivered by the Apex Court in Ram Nar'ain Arora's case. Further more both in Tara Chand Sharma's case and Vijay Kapoor's case decided by this Court, no averment had been made ixi respect of other residential buildings owned by a landlord. There was complete non-disclosure as to whether any such residential building owned by the landlord was in his possession or not. In the present case, as I have held above, the residential premises at 31, The Mall, Shimla was not owned by the landlord and hence these two earlier judgments of this Court are distinguishable on facts also.',
	(int) 43 => '<p>25. In the present case, the landlord has been non-suited only on the ground that he did not disclose the fact that he was in occupation of certain premises on the Mall Road. Under law he was not required to disclose this fact. He was only required to disclose the factum of occupying another residential building owned by him in the urban area concerned. True it may be, that it would have been better if the landlord had disclosed all the facts but non-disclosure of a fact which he was not under law required to disclose could not in my opinion be a ground to dismiss his eviction petition.',
	(int) 44 => '<p>26. However, what are the premises in his occupation even as a tenant can be taken into consideration while deciding the question whether he bona fide requires the demised premises for his personal use or occupation or not.',
	(int) 45 => '<p>27. Lastly comes the question with regard to the bona fide requirement of the landlord. The landlord has no children. According to the landlord as well as his other witnesses i.e. his brother-in-law PW-2 and his wife PW-3, the wife now wants to come back and settle in Shimla. There is no reason to disbelieve their statements. Even according to the evidence led by the tenant the accommodation in possession of the landlord consists of two rooms, kitchen, bath room etc. Admittedly, the landlord is also having his office as an Architect in this building. The landlord belongs to the middle class of the Society. It cannot be expected of a landlord who owns sufficient property to reside in a two room set wherein he also runs his office.',
	(int) 46 => '<p>28. The law by now is well settled that the landlord is the best judge of the suitability of the accommodation required by him. This suitability has however to be judged in the context of reasonable expectations. The landlord and his wife who are both well educated can reasonably be expected to entertain guests and they will have visitors to their house. They would obviously require a drawing room, a bed room and a spare bed room for guests. Even at his residence the landlord may require another room for his professional work. This is the minimum accommodation which they would require. Even if the accommodation possessed by the landlord, though not owned by him, at 31, the Mall, Shimla is taken into consideration such accommodation is not sufficient to meet his requirements since admittedly the landlord is running his profession of Architect from some portion of his these premises.',
	(int) 47 => '<p>29. Keeping in view the entire facts and circumstances, I am of the considered view that the learned Appellate Authority gravely erred in rejecting the eviction petition of the landlord solely on the ground that he had not disclosed the factum of being in possession of the premises at 31, the Mall Shimla. Even though I have held that the said premises are residential premises, in view of the above discussion I hold that the landlord cannot be non-suited only on the ground of his being in possession of such premises since same were not owned by him.',
	(int) 48 => '<p>30. In view of the above discussion, the Revision Petition is allowed, the order of the learned Appellate Authority dated 6.5.2003 is seaside and the order of the Rent Controller dated 22.8.2001 is restored.',
	(int) 49 => '<p>31. Keeping in view the fact that the tenant has been in possession of the premises for a long period he is granted time up to 31st October, 2008 to vacate the premises.',
	(int) 50 => '<p>32. No order as to costs.<p>',
	(int) 51 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 52
$i = (int) 0
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

Deepak Gupta, J.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Shri Arun Bhanwara Vs Shri S L Srivastava - Citation 891084 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '891084',
			'acts' => '',
			'appealno' => '',
			'appellant' => 'Shri Arun Bhanwara',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Shri Arun Bhanwara Vs. Shri S.L. Srivastava',
			'casenote' => ' - CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908.[C.A. No. 5/1908]. Order 14, Rule 2 [As amended by Amending Act of 1976]: [V.K. Gupta, CJ, Deepak Gupta & Surjit Singh, JJ] Preliminary issue of law and fact  Court framing all issues both of law and facts together and also  tried all the issues together, including the issue relating to jurisdiction of Court  Held, Except in situations perceived or warranted under sub-rule (2) of Rule 2 of Order 14 where a  Court in fact frames only issues of law in the first instance and postpones settlement of other issues, clearly and explicitly in situations where the Court has framed all issues together, both of law as well as facts and has also tried all these issues together, it is not open to the Court to adopt the principle of severability and proceed to decide issues of law first, without taking up simultaneously other issues for decision. This course of action is not available to a Court because sub-rule (1) does not permit the  Court to adopt any such principle of severability and to dispose of a suit only on preliminary issues, or what can be termed as issues of law. Sub-rule (1)  clearly mandates that in a situation contemplated under it, where all the issues have been together and have also been taken up for adjudication during the course of the trial, these must be decided together and the judgment in the suit as a whole must be pronounced by the Court covering all the issues framed in the suit.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => 'Ram Narain Arora v. Asha Rani;',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => '',
			'counseldef' => '',
			'court' => 'Himachal Pradesh',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2008-07-31',
			'deposition' => 'Petition allowed',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => ' Deepak Gupta, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">Deepak Gupta, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. This Revision Petition under Section 25(5) of the H.P. Urban Rent Control Act, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) is directed against the order of the learned Appellate Authority, Shimla in CMA No. 60-S/14 of 2001 whereby the appeal filed by the respondent (hereinafter referred to as the tenant) has been allowed, the order of the Rent Controller has been set-aside and the petition for eviction filed by the present petitioner (hereinafter referred to as the Landlord) on the ground of personal bona fide requirement has been set-aside.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The undisputed facts are that the landlord is owner of the demised premises situated in building known as Tunnel View, Sanjauli, Shimla-6 consisting of two bed rooms with attached bath room and latrine, drawing-cum-dining room, kitchen and balcony. These premises were purchased by the landlord in the year 1986. Thereafter, the landlord had rented out the premises to one Sh. B.K. Chauhan. According to the landlord, when he got married he requested Sh. B.K. Chauhan to vacate the said premises. Sh. Chauhan vacated the said premises but admittedly the landlord did not occupy the same but rented out the same to the tenant in the year 1990.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. In the year 1997 the landlord filed a petition for eviction of the tenant on two grounds; firstly that the tenant is in arrears of rent from 1.11.1990 to 31.7.1997 and secondly that the premises are bona fide required by the landlord for the use and occupation of himself and his family.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. This petition was contested by the tenant. After trial, the Rent Controller ordered the eviction of the tenant on two grounds; (i) that the tenant was in arrears of rent from November, 1999 till date of order i.e. 22nd August, 2001 and (ii) that the landlord required the premises for his own use and occupation.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. The tenant deposited the rent within the time prescribed. He also filed an appeal challenging the finding on the issue of bona fide requirement. The learned Appellate Authority came to the conclusion that the landlord had not made a proper and full disclosure of facts as required under the provisions of the Act and had withheld material facts from the Court viz. that the landlord was in occupation of residential premises on 31, Mall Road in the urban area of Shimla and as such rejected this petition on this short ground.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. Aggrieved by the said order, the landlord has filed the present Revision Petition.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. I have heard Sh. Ramakant Sharma, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sh. Bhupinder Gupta, learned senior Counsel for the tenant.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. It has been urged on behalf of the landlord that the building which is alleged to be in possession of the landlord i.e. 31, the Mall Shimla is not a residential building and secondly that the building is not owned by him.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. On the other hand Sh. Bhupinder Gupta, learned Counsel of the tenant has strenuously urged that the landlord in para 18 has not stated anything about any building being owned by him and has only made an averment that he does not own or possess any other such building within the urban area Shimla. It is contended by Sh. Bhupinder Gupta that the landlord of his own volition did not state anything about the ownership of the building and since he has kept silent about the building which he is in occupation he has made a false averment and therefore his petition for eviction has rightly been rejected.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. I am not at all in agreement with the contention of the landlord that the premises known as 31, the Mall Shimla which are admittedly in the occupation of the landlord are commercial premises only and not being used by him for his residence. As pointed out above, the landlord purchased the demised premises in 1986. They fell vacant when he got married despite that he did not occupy the same and rented out the same to the tenant in the year 1990. The question that arises is where was the landlord living for this entire period. According to the landlord after the year 1994 he has been living with his brother-in-law Rajan (wife's brother) PW-2, since the year 1994. Prior to 1994 the landlord will have this Court to believe that he was living off and on with one friend or the other. This story is impossible to believe. The landlord was married in the year 1999. He is an Architect by profession. His wife is a law graduate. It is not believable that such a person would have no permanent abode and would continue to live as a guest with his friends for almost 5 years after his marriage. Even the story that he has been living with his brother-in-law after the year 1994 does not inspire confidence. It stands proved on record that the brother-in-law PW-2 Rajan lives with his own family i.e. wife and children. From the evidence it is also clear that the parents of the brother-in-law also reside with him, His flat consists of only two rooms. The flat in possession of the landlord at 31, the Mall Shimla, also consists of two rooms, kitchen and bath room. Even assuming that he was running an office in the part of the flat it cannot be believed that he would not live on his own flat on the Mall Road and reside with his brother-in-law in cramped premises. Even in the electoral list the landlord is shown to be a resident of 31, The Mall, Shimla. Therefore, I am of the considered view that the building 31, the Mall, Shimla was also being used as a residence by the landlord.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. Having held so, the question that arises is whether the landlord can be non-suited only on the ground that he has not made any disclosure about the residential accommodation available with him which premises were admittedly not owned by him.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. The short question which arises for decision in this petition is whether the landlord was guilty of suppressing and withholding such relevant facts which would disentitle him from seeking eviction of the tenant. To appreciate these contentions it would be necessary to refer to relevant portion of Section 14(3) of the Act:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Section 14:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1 and 2 xxxxxxxxxxx</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(3) A landlord may apply to the Controller for an order directing the tenant to put the landlord in possession-</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(a) in case of residential building, if</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(i) he required it for his own occupation:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Provided that he is not occupying another residential building owned by him, in the urban area concerned:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Provided further that he has not vacated such a building without sufficient cause within five years of the filing of the application, in the said urban area....</p><p style="text-align: justify;">13. A perusal of the bare provisions of the Act makes it clear that there are certain essential ingredients which the landlord must satisfy before seeking eviction of the tenant under the Act. Not only must he prove that the residential building is bona fide required by him for his own use and occupation but he must also plead and prove that he is not occupying any other residential building owned by him in the urban area concerned and further that he has not vacated such a building without sufficient cause within 5 years of the filing of the application.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">14. Reference may now be made to the relevant allegations made in para 18 of the eviction petition:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(ii) That the petitioner bona fide requires the premises for his own use and occupation and also for the use and occupation of his family.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The petitioner does not own or possess any other such building within the urban area of Simla nor the petitioner has vacated any such premises within five years of the filing of this petition.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The family of the petitioner presently consists of himself and his wife. Due to paucity of accommodation the petitioner has not been able to keep his wife with himself at Simla, where he is working as an Engineer and she has been residing at Chandigarh since 1991 but on account of her ill health she has been brought to Simla by the petitioner. The petitioner at present is seeking temporary shelter, from time to time, with his relations.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">15. The learned Appellate Authority came to the conclusion that the landlord had falsely pleaded that he does not own or possess any other such building within the urban area of Shimla and hence rejected the eviction petition on this ground.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">16. On a close analysis of the proviso to Section 14(3)(a)(i) of the Act it is clear that a landlord is not entitled to seek eviction of a tenant from residential building even in case of bona fide requirement if the landlord is occupying another residential building owned by him in the urban area concerned. One can read three essential ingredients in this proviso i.e. (i) that the landlord is in occupation of another residential building; (ii) that the said residential building is owned by him and (iii) that the said residential building is situated in the concerned urban area.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">17. The question that arises is what is the impact of the landlord not making a disclosure in respect of premises which he is occupying but are not owned by him.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">18. The Apex Court in Onkar Nath v. Ved Vyas ILR 1979 HP 1, held as follows:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">It is common ground that there are three requirements to make out a cause of action for eviction under that provision, and indeed this is apparent from a bare reading of the sub-section. In the present case the finding is to the effect that the landlord requires the residential building for his own occupation. But, the legislation has taken care to insist upon two more conditions, namely; (a) that the landlord is not occupying any other residential building in the area concerned; and (b) that he has not vacated such a building without sufficient cause. There is not a scintilla of evidence nor indeed there is any averment in compliance with these latter conditions. The necessary consequence follows that not merely is there inadequacy of pleadings sufficient to make out a cause of action but total absence of proof of two vital requirements....</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The Supreme Court also said that:.The statute benignly designed to protect tenants from unreasonable evictions has taken case to put restrictions which must be rigorously construed to fulfil the purpose of the statute.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">19. Following the aforesaid judgment and other pronouncements of the Apex Court, a learned Single Judge of this Court in Tara Chand Sharma v. Baij Nath and Ors. 1992 (2) R.C.J. 323, held as follows:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">16. What appears as the legislative intent, in bold relief, is that the landlord, while seeking eviction of a tenant on the ground that he needs a residential building for his own occupation, must come out clearly and honestly with facts relating to the requirement that he is not occupying another residential building owned by him, in the urban area concerned and that he had not vacated such a building without sufficient cause within five years of the filing of the application, in the said urban area. The primal burden of making a clear disclosure would lie upon the landlord, for, the true facts would be in his special knowledge. An order in his favour by the Rent Controller would depend upon the satisfaction of the Rent Controller in regard not only to the claim that the landlord requires the accommodation, from which he wishes to evict a tenant, for his own occupation but also that he was not occupying another residential building owned by him nor had he vacated such building without sufficient cause within five years of the filing of the application in the application in the urban area concerned....</p><p style="text-align: justify;">It was further held as under:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">18. That the landlord should make a full disclosure of the relevant facts, pertaining to the requirements of Sub-section (3)(a)(i) and the two provisos, becomes all the more necessary because the satisfaction of the Rent Controller in regard thereto is the condition precedent for the making of an order in favour of the landlord....</p><p style="text-align: justify;">20. The aforesaid judgment has been followed in a number of other cases including Vijay Kapoor v. Maya Ram 1997 (2) RCR 437, wherein another learned single Judge of this Court following the aforesaid judgment held that the landlord must make complete and proper disclosure of all the material facts.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">21. On the other hand Sh. Ramakant Sharma has relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in Ram Narain Arora v. Asha Rani 1998(2) RCR 268. In that case the Rent Controller came to the conclusion that the landlord had suppressed material information and had not disclosed the fact that he was already in occupation of a house in Subji Mandi. Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act reads as follows:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Section 14(1)(e). That the premises let for residential purposes are required bona fide by the landlord for occupation as a residence for himself or for any member of his family dependent on him, if he is the owner thereof, or for any person for whose benefit the premises are held and that the landlord or such person has no other reasonably suitable residential accommodation.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">22. The difference between Delhi Act and the present Act is that under the Delhi Act the only requirement is that the landlord has no other reasonably suitable accommodation whereas under the Himachal Act the residential premises are required to be owned by the landlord. The Apex Court in Rama Narain Arora's case (supra) held that the nondisclosure of the fact that the landlord was in occupation of certain premises in Subji Mandi was.not a ground to non-suit the landlord in view of the facts and circumstances of the case. The Apex Court held as follows:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. In making a claim that the suit premises is required bona fide for his own occupation as a residence for himself and other members of his family dependent on him and that he has no other reasonably suitable accommodation is a requirement of law before the Court can state whether the landlord requires the premises bona fide for his use and occupation. In doing so, the Court must also find out whether the landlord or such other person for whose benefit the premises is required has no other reasonably suitable residential accommodation. It cannot be said that the requirement of the landlord is not intermixed with the question of finding out whether he has any other reasonably suitable accommodation. If he has other reasonably suitable accommodation, ihen necessarily it would mean that he does not require the suit premises and his requirement may not be bona fide. In such circumstances further inquiry would be whether that premises is more suitable than the suit premises. Therefore, the questions raised before the Court would not necessarily depend upon only the pleadings. It could be a good defence that the landlord has other reasonably suitable residential accommodation and thereby defend the claim of the landlord.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. There cannot be a pedantic or a dogmatic approach in the matter of analysis of pleadings or of the evidence adduced thereto. It is no doubt true that if the pleadings are clearly set out, it would be easy for the Court to decide the matters. But if the pleadings are lacking or vague and if both parties have understood what was the case pleaded and put forth with reference to requirement of law and placed such material before the Court, neither party is prejudiced. If we analyse from this angle, we do not think that the High Court was not justified in interfering with the order made by the Rent Controller.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">23. From the perusal of the judgment of the Apex Court it is apparent that the Rent Controller must approach the matter in a practical manner. In case the non-disclosure is such as that it goes to the very root of the case the Rent Controller would be justified in non-suiting the landlord. However, if the non-disclosure is such that it would not prejudice the rights of the respondent then the landlord should not be non-suited only on this ground.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">24. The decisions of this Court cited hereinabove were delivered prior to the judgment delivered by the Apex Court in Ram Nar'ain Arora's case. Further more both in Tara Chand Sharma's case and Vijay Kapoor's case decided by this Court, no averment had been made ixi respect of other residential buildings owned by a landlord. There was complete non-disclosure as to whether any such residential building owned by the landlord was in his possession or not. In the present case, as I have held above, the residential premises at 31, The Mall, Shimla was not owned by the landlord and hence these two earlier judgments of this Court are distinguishable on facts also.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">25. In the present case, the landlord has been non-suited only on the ground that he did not disclose the fact that he was in occupation of certain premises on the Mall Road. Under law he was not required to disclose this fact. He was only required to disclose the factum of occupying another residential building owned by him in the urban area concerned. True it may be, that it would have been better if the landlord had disclosed all the facts but non-disclosure of a fact which he was not under law required to disclose could not in my opinion be a ground to dismiss his eviction petition.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">26. However, what are the premises in his occupation even as a tenant can be taken into consideration while deciding the question whether he bona fide requires the demised premises for his personal use or occupation or not.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">27. Lastly comes the question with regard to the bona fide requirement of the landlord. The landlord has no children. According to the landlord as well as his other witnesses i.e. his brother-in-law PW-2 and his wife PW-3, the wife now wants to come back and settle in Shimla. There is no reason to disbelieve their statements. Even according to the evidence led by the tenant the accommodation in possession of the landlord consists of two rooms, kitchen, bath room etc. Admittedly, the landlord is also having his office as an Architect in this building. The landlord belongs to the middle class of the Society. It cannot be expected of a landlord who owns sufficient property to reside in a two room set wherein he also runs his office.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">28. The law by now is well settled that the landlord is the best judge of the suitability of the accommodation required by him. This suitability has however to be judged in the context of reasonable expectations. The landlord and his wife who are both well educated can reasonably be expected to entertain guests and they will have visitors to their house. They would obviously require a drawing room, a bed room and a spare bed room for guests. Even at his residence the landlord may require another room for his professional work. This is the minimum accommodation which they would require. Even if the accommodation possessed by the landlord, though not owned by him, at 31, the Mall, Shimla is taken into consideration such accommodation is not sufficient to meet his requirements since admittedly the landlord is running his profession of Architect from some portion of his these premises.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">29. Keeping in view the entire facts and circumstances, I am of the considered view that the learned Appellate Authority gravely erred in rejecting the eviction petition of the landlord solely on the ground that he had not disclosed the factum of being in possession of the premises at 31, the Mall Shimla. Even though I have held that the said premises are residential premises, in view of the above discussion I hold that the landlord cannot be non-suited only on the ground of his being in possession of such premises since same were not owned by him.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">30. In view of the above discussion, the Revision Petition is allowed, the order of the learned Appellate Authority dated 6.5.2003 is seaside and the order of the Rent Controller dated 22.8.2001 is restored.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">31. Keeping in view the fact that the tenant has been in possession of the premises for a long period he is granted time up to 31st October, 2008 to vacate the premises.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">32. No order as to costs.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '2008(2)ShimLC491',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'Shri S.L. Srivastava',
			'sub' => 'Tenancy',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'shri-arun-bhanwara-vs-s-l-srivastava',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '891084',
		(int) 1 => 'shri-arun-bhanwara-vs-s-l-srivastava'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Shri Arun Bhanwara Vs Shri S L Srivastava - Citation 891084 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '891084',
		'acts' => '',
		'appealno' => '',
		'appellant' => 'Shri Arun Bhanwara',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Shri Arun Bhanwara Vs. Shri S.L. Srivastava',
		'casenote' => ' - CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908.[C.A. No. 5/1908]. Order 14, Rule 2 [As amended by Amending Act of 1976]: [V.K. Gupta, CJ, Deepak Gupta & Surjit Singh, JJ] Preliminary issue of law and fact  Court framing all issues both of law and facts together and also  tried all the issues together, including the issue relating to jurisdiction of Court  Held, Except in situations perceived or warranted under sub-rule (2) of Rule 2 of Order 14 where a  Court in fact frames only issues of law in the first instance and postpones settlement of other issues, clearly and explicitly in situations where the Court has framed all issues together, both of law as well as facts and has also tried all these issues together, it is not open to the Court to adopt the principle of severability and proceed to decide issues of law first, without taking up simultaneously other issues for decision. This course of action is not available to a Court because sub-rule (1) does not permit the  Court to adopt any such principle of severability and to dispose of a suit only on preliminary issues, or what can be termed as issues of law. Sub-rule (1)  clearly mandates that in a situation contemplated under it, where all the issues have been together and have also been taken up for adjudication during the course of the trial, these must be decided together and the judgment in the suit as a whole must be pronounced by the Court covering all the issues framed in the suit.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => 'Ram Narain Arora v. Asha Rani;',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => '',
		'counseldef' => '',
		'court' => 'Himachal Pradesh',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2008-07-31',
		'deposition' => 'Petition allowed',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => ' Deepak Gupta, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>Deepak Gupta, J.</p><p>1. This Revision Petition under Section 25(5) of the H.P. Urban Rent Control Act, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) is directed against the order of the learned Appellate Authority, Shimla in CMA No. 60-S/14 of 2001 whereby the appeal filed by the respondent (hereinafter referred to as the tenant) has been allowed, the order of the Rent Controller has been set-aside and the petition for eviction filed by the present petitioner (hereinafter referred to as the Landlord) on the ground of personal bona fide requirement has been set-aside.</p><p>2. The undisputed facts are that the landlord is owner of the demised premises situated in building known as Tunnel View, Sanjauli, Shimla-6 consisting of two bed rooms with attached bath room and latrine, drawing-cum-dining room, kitchen and balcony. These premises were purchased by the landlord in the year 1986. Thereafter, the landlord had rented out the premises to one Sh. B.K. Chauhan. According to the landlord, when he got married he requested Sh. B.K. Chauhan to vacate the said premises. Sh. Chauhan vacated the said premises but admittedly the landlord did not occupy the same but rented out the same to the tenant in the year 1990.</p><p>3. In the year 1997 the landlord filed a petition for eviction of the tenant on two grounds; firstly that the tenant is in arrears of rent from 1.11.1990 to 31.7.1997 and secondly that the premises are bona fide required by the landlord for the use and occupation of himself and his family.</p><p>4. This petition was contested by the tenant. After trial, the Rent Controller ordered the eviction of the tenant on two grounds; (i) that the tenant was in arrears of rent from November, 1999 till date of order i.e. 22nd August, 2001 and (ii) that the landlord required the premises for his own use and occupation.</p><p>5. The tenant deposited the rent within the time prescribed. He also filed an appeal challenging the finding on the issue of bona fide requirement. The learned Appellate Authority came to the conclusion that the landlord had not made a proper and full disclosure of facts as required under the provisions of the Act and had withheld material facts from the Court viz. that the landlord was in occupation of residential premises on 31, Mall Road in the urban area of Shimla and as such rejected this petition on this short ground.</p><p>6. Aggrieved by the said order, the landlord has filed the present Revision Petition.</p><p>7. I have heard Sh. Ramakant Sharma, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sh. Bhupinder Gupta, learned senior Counsel for the tenant.</p><p>8. It has been urged on behalf of the landlord that the building which is alleged to be in possession of the landlord i.e. 31, the Mall Shimla is not a residential building and secondly that the building is not owned by him.</p><p>9. On the other hand Sh. Bhupinder Gupta, learned Counsel of the tenant has strenuously urged that the landlord in para 18 has not stated anything about any building being owned by him and has only made an averment that he does not own or possess any other such building within the urban area Shimla. It is contended by Sh. Bhupinder Gupta that the landlord of his own volition did not state anything about the ownership of the building and since he has kept silent about the building which he is in occupation he has made a false averment and therefore his petition for eviction has rightly been rejected.</p><p>10. I am not at all in agreement with the contention of the landlord that the premises known as 31, the Mall Shimla which are admittedly in the occupation of the landlord are commercial premises only and not being used by him for his residence. As pointed out above, the landlord purchased the demised premises in 1986. They fell vacant when he got married despite that he did not occupy the same and rented out the same to the tenant in the year 1990. The question that arises is where was the landlord living for this entire period. According to the landlord after the year 1994 he has been living with his brother-in-law Rajan (wife's brother) PW-2, since the year 1994. Prior to 1994 the landlord will have this Court to believe that he was living off and on with one friend or the other. This story is impossible to believe. The landlord was married in the year 1999. He is an Architect by profession. His wife is a law graduate. It is not believable that such a person would have no permanent abode and would continue to live as a guest with his friends for almost 5 years after his marriage. Even the story that he has been living with his brother-in-law after the year 1994 does not inspire confidence. It stands proved on record that the brother-in-law PW-2 Rajan lives with his own family i.e. wife and children. From the evidence it is also clear that the parents of the brother-in-law also reside with him, His flat consists of only two rooms. The flat in possession of the landlord at 31, the Mall Shimla, also consists of two rooms, kitchen and bath room. Even assuming that he was running an office in the part of the flat it cannot be believed that he would not live on his own flat on the Mall Road and reside with his brother-in-law in cramped premises. Even in the electoral list the landlord is shown to be a resident of 31, The Mall, Shimla. Therefore, I am of the considered view that the building 31, the Mall, Shimla was also being used as a residence by the landlord.</p><p>11. Having held so, the question that arises is whether the landlord can be non-suited only on the ground that he has not made any disclosure about the residential accommodation available with him which premises were admittedly not owned by him.</p><p>12. The short question which arises for decision in this petition is whether the landlord was guilty of suppressing and withholding such relevant facts which would disentitle him from seeking eviction of the tenant. To appreciate these contentions it would be necessary to refer to relevant portion of Section 14(3) of the Act:</p><p>Section 14:</p><p>1 and 2 xxxxxxxxxxx</p><p>(3) A landlord may apply to the Controller for an order directing the tenant to put the landlord in possession-</p><p>(a) in case of residential building, if</p><p>(i) he required it for his own occupation:</p><p>Provided that he is not occupying another residential building owned by him, in the urban area concerned:</p><p>Provided further that he has not vacated such a building without sufficient cause within five years of the filing of the application, in the said urban area....</p><p>13. A perusal of the bare provisions of the Act makes it clear that there are certain essential ingredients which the landlord must satisfy before seeking eviction of the tenant under the Act. Not only must he prove that the residential building is bona fide required by him for his own use and occupation but he must also plead and prove that he is not occupying any other residential building owned by him in the urban area concerned and further that he has not vacated such a building without sufficient cause within 5 years of the filing of the application.</p><p>14. Reference may now be made to the relevant allegations made in para 18 of the eviction petition:</p><p>(ii) That the petitioner bona fide requires the premises for his own use and occupation and also for the use and occupation of his family.</p><p>The petitioner does not own or possess any other such building within the urban area of Simla nor the petitioner has vacated any such premises within five years of the filing of this petition.</p><p>The family of the petitioner presently consists of himself and his wife. Due to paucity of accommodation the petitioner has not been able to keep his wife with himself at Simla, where he is working as an Engineer and she has been residing at Chandigarh since 1991 but on account of her ill health she has been brought to Simla by the petitioner. The petitioner at present is seeking temporary shelter, from time to time, with his relations.</p><p>15. The learned Appellate Authority came to the conclusion that the landlord had falsely pleaded that he does not own or possess any other such building within the urban area of Shimla and hence rejected the eviction petition on this ground.</p><p>16. On a close analysis of the proviso to Section 14(3)(a)(i) of the Act it is clear that a landlord is not entitled to seek eviction of a tenant from residential building even in case of bona fide requirement if the landlord is occupying another residential building owned by him in the urban area concerned. One can read three essential ingredients in this proviso i.e. (i) that the landlord is in occupation of another residential building; (ii) that the said residential building is owned by him and (iii) that the said residential building is situated in the concerned urban area.</p><p>17. The question that arises is what is the impact of the landlord not making a disclosure in respect of premises which he is occupying but are not owned by him.</p><p>18. The Apex Court in Onkar Nath v. Ved Vyas ILR 1979 HP 1, held as follows:</p><p>It is common ground that there are three requirements to make out a cause of action for eviction under that provision, and indeed this is apparent from a bare reading of the sub-section. In the present case the finding is to the effect that the landlord requires the residential building for his own occupation. But, the legislation has taken care to insist upon two more conditions, namely; (a) that the landlord is not occupying any other residential building in the area concerned; and (b) that he has not vacated such a building without sufficient cause. There is not a scintilla of evidence nor indeed there is any averment in compliance with these latter conditions. The necessary consequence follows that not merely is there inadequacy of pleadings sufficient to make out a cause of action but total absence of proof of two vital requirements....</p><p>The Supreme Court also said that:.The statute benignly designed to protect tenants from unreasonable evictions has taken case to put restrictions which must be rigorously construed to fulfil the purpose of the statute.</p><p>19. Following the aforesaid judgment and other pronouncements of the Apex Court, a learned Single Judge of this Court in Tara Chand Sharma v. Baij Nath and Ors. 1992 (2) R.C.J. 323, held as follows:</p><p>16. What appears as the legislative intent, in bold relief, is that the landlord, while seeking eviction of a tenant on the ground that he needs a residential building for his own occupation, must come out clearly and honestly with facts relating to the requirement that he is not occupying another residential building owned by him, in the urban area concerned and that he had not vacated such a building without sufficient cause within five years of the filing of the application, in the said urban area. The primal burden of making a clear disclosure would lie upon the landlord, for, the true facts would be in his special knowledge. An order in his favour by the Rent Controller would depend upon the satisfaction of the Rent Controller in regard not only to the claim that the landlord requires the accommodation, from which he wishes to evict a tenant, for his own occupation but also that he was not occupying another residential building owned by him nor had he vacated such building without sufficient cause within five years of the filing of the application in the application in the urban area concerned....</p><p>It was further held as under:</p><p>18. That the landlord should make a full disclosure of the relevant facts, pertaining to the requirements of Sub-section (3)(a)(i) and the two provisos, becomes all the more necessary because the satisfaction of the Rent Controller in regard thereto is the condition precedent for the making of an order in favour of the landlord....</p><p>20. The aforesaid judgment has been followed in a number of other cases including Vijay Kapoor v. Maya Ram 1997 (2) RCR 437, wherein another learned single Judge of this Court following the aforesaid judgment held that the landlord must make complete and proper disclosure of all the material facts.</p><p>21. On the other hand Sh. Ramakant Sharma has relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in Ram Narain Arora v. Asha Rani 1998(2) RCR 268. In that case the Rent Controller came to the conclusion that the landlord had suppressed material information and had not disclosed the fact that he was already in occupation of a house in Subji Mandi. Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act reads as follows:</p><p>Section 14(1)(e). That the premises let for residential purposes are required bona fide by the landlord for occupation as a residence for himself or for any member of his family dependent on him, if he is the owner thereof, or for any person for whose benefit the premises are held and that the landlord or such person has no other reasonably suitable residential accommodation.</p><p>22. The difference between Delhi Act and the present Act is that under the Delhi Act the only requirement is that the landlord has no other reasonably suitable accommodation whereas under the Himachal Act the residential premises are required to be owned by the landlord. The Apex Court in Rama Narain Arora's case (supra) held that the nondisclosure of the fact that the landlord was in occupation of certain premises in Subji Mandi was.not a ground to non-suit the landlord in view of the facts and circumstances of the case. The Apex Court held as follows:</p><p>9. In making a claim that the suit premises is required bona fide for his own occupation as a residence for himself and other members of his family dependent on him and that he has no other reasonably suitable accommodation is a requirement of law before the Court can state whether the landlord requires the premises bona fide for his use and occupation. In doing so, the Court must also find out whether the landlord or such other person for whose benefit the premises is required has no other reasonably suitable residential accommodation. It cannot be said that the requirement of the landlord is not intermixed with the question of finding out whether he has any other reasonably suitable accommodation. If he has other reasonably suitable accommodation, ihen necessarily it would mean that he does not require the suit premises and his requirement may not be bona fide. In such circumstances further inquiry would be whether that premises is more suitable than the suit premises. Therefore, the questions raised before the Court would not necessarily depend upon only the pleadings. It could be a good defence that the landlord has other reasonably suitable residential accommodation and thereby defend the claim of the landlord.</p><p>10. There cannot be a pedantic or a dogmatic approach in the matter of analysis of pleadings or of the evidence adduced thereto. It is no doubt true that if the pleadings are clearly set out, it would be easy for the Court to decide the matters. But if the pleadings are lacking or vague and if both parties have understood what was the case pleaded and put forth with reference to requirement of law and placed such material before the Court, neither party is prejudiced. If we analyse from this angle, we do not think that the High Court was not justified in interfering with the order made by the Rent Controller.</p><p>23. From the perusal of the judgment of the Apex Court it is apparent that the Rent Controller must approach the matter in a practical manner. In case the non-disclosure is such as that it goes to the very root of the case the Rent Controller would be justified in non-suiting the landlord. However, if the non-disclosure is such that it would not prejudice the rights of the respondent then the landlord should not be non-suited only on this ground.</p><p>24. The decisions of this Court cited hereinabove were delivered prior to the judgment delivered by the Apex Court in Ram Nar'ain Arora's case. Further more both in Tara Chand Sharma's case and Vijay Kapoor's case decided by this Court, no averment had been made ixi respect of other residential buildings owned by a landlord. There was complete non-disclosure as to whether any such residential building owned by the landlord was in his possession or not. In the present case, as I have held above, the residential premises at 31, The Mall, Shimla was not owned by the landlord and hence these two earlier judgments of this Court are distinguishable on facts also.</p><p>25. In the present case, the landlord has been non-suited only on the ground that he did not disclose the fact that he was in occupation of certain premises on the Mall Road. Under law he was not required to disclose this fact. He was only required to disclose the factum of occupying another residential building owned by him in the urban area concerned. True it may be, that it would have been better if the landlord had disclosed all the facts but non-disclosure of a fact which he was not under law required to disclose could not in my opinion be a ground to dismiss his eviction petition.</p><p>26. However, what are the premises in his occupation even as a tenant can be taken into consideration while deciding the question whether he bona fide requires the demised premises for his personal use or occupation or not.</p><p>27. Lastly comes the question with regard to the bona fide requirement of the landlord. The landlord has no children. According to the landlord as well as his other witnesses i.e. his brother-in-law PW-2 and his wife PW-3, the wife now wants to come back and settle in Shimla. There is no reason to disbelieve their statements. Even according to the evidence led by the tenant the accommodation in possession of the landlord consists of two rooms, kitchen, bath room etc. Admittedly, the landlord is also having his office as an Architect in this building. The landlord belongs to the middle class of the Society. It cannot be expected of a landlord who owns sufficient property to reside in a two room set wherein he also runs his office.</p><p>28. The law by now is well settled that the landlord is the best judge of the suitability of the accommodation required by him. This suitability has however to be judged in the context of reasonable expectations. The landlord and his wife who are both well educated can reasonably be expected to entertain guests and they will have visitors to their house. They would obviously require a drawing room, a bed room and a spare bed room for guests. Even at his residence the landlord may require another room for his professional work. This is the minimum accommodation which they would require. Even if the accommodation possessed by the landlord, though not owned by him, at 31, the Mall, Shimla is taken into consideration such accommodation is not sufficient to meet his requirements since admittedly the landlord is running his profession of Architect from some portion of his these premises.</p><p>29. Keeping in view the entire facts and circumstances, I am of the considered view that the learned Appellate Authority gravely erred in rejecting the eviction petition of the landlord solely on the ground that he had not disclosed the factum of being in possession of the premises at 31, the Mall Shimla. Even though I have held that the said premises are residential premises, in view of the above discussion I hold that the landlord cannot be non-suited only on the ground of his being in possession of such premises since same were not owned by him.</p><p>30. In view of the above discussion, the Revision Petition is allowed, the order of the learned Appellate Authority dated 6.5.2003 is seaside and the order of the Rent Controller dated 22.8.2001 is restored.</p><p>31. Keeping in view the fact that the tenant has been in possession of the premises for a long period he is granted time up to 31st October, 2008 to vacate the premises.</p><p>32. No order as to costs.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '2008(2)ShimLC491',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'Shri S.L. Srivastava',
		'sub' => 'Tenancy',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'shri-arun-bhanwara-vs-s-l-srivastava'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '891084',
	(int) 1 => 'shri-arun-bhanwara-vs-s-l-srivastava'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/891084/shri-arun-bhanwara-vs-s-l-srivastava'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$caseref = 'Ram Narain Arora v. Asha Rani<br>'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>Deepak Gupta, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. This Revision Petition under Section 25(5) of the H.P. Urban Rent Control Act, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) is directed against the order of the learned Appellate Authority, Shimla in CMA No. 60-S/14 of 2001 whereby the appeal filed by the respondent (hereinafter referred to as the tenant) has been allowed, the order of the Rent Controller has been set-aside and the petition for eviction filed by the present petitioner (hereinafter referred to as the Landlord) on the ground of personal bona fide requirement has been set-aside.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. The undisputed facts are that the landlord is owner of the demised premises situated in building known as Tunnel View, Sanjauli, Shimla-6 consisting of two bed rooms with attached bath room and latrine, drawing-cum-dining room, kitchen and balcony. These premises were purchased by the landlord in the year 1986. Thereafter, the landlord had rented out the premises to one Sh. B.K. Chauhan. According to the landlord, when he got married he requested Sh. B.K. Chauhan to vacate the said premises. Sh. Chauhan vacated the said premises but admittedly the landlord did not occupy the same but rented out the same to the tenant in the year 1990.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. In the year 1997 the landlord filed a petition for eviction of the tenant on two grounds; firstly that the tenant is in arrears of rent from 1.11.1990 to 31.7.1997 and secondly that the premises are bona fide required by the landlord for the use and occupation of himself and his family.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>4. This petition was contested by the tenant. After trial, the Rent Controller ordered the eviction of the tenant on two grounds; (i) that the tenant was in arrears of rent from November, 1999 till date of order i.e. 22nd August, 2001 and (ii) that the landlord required the premises for his own use and occupation.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>5. The tenant deposited the rent within the time prescribed. He also filed an appeal challenging the finding on the issue of bona fide requirement. The learned Appellate Authority came to the conclusion that the landlord had not made a proper and full disclosure of facts as required under the provisions of the Act and had withheld material facts from the Court viz. that the landlord was in occupation of residential premises on 31, Mall Road in the urban area of Shimla and as such rejected this petition on this short ground.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>6. Aggrieved by the said order, the landlord has filed the present Revision Petition.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>7. I have heard Sh. Ramakant Sharma, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sh. Bhupinder Gupta, learned senior Counsel for the tenant.',
	(int) 8 => '<p>8. It has been urged on behalf of the landlord that the building which is alleged to be in possession of the landlord i.e. 31, the Mall Shimla is not a residential building and secondly that the building is not owned by him.',
	(int) 9 => '<p>9. On the other hand Sh. Bhupinder Gupta, learned Counsel of the tenant has strenuously urged that the landlord in para 18 has not stated anything about any building being owned by him and has only made an averment that he does not own or possess any other such building within the urban area Shimla. It is contended by Sh. Bhupinder Gupta that the landlord of his own volition did not state anything about the ownership of the building and since he has kept silent about the building which he is in occupation he has made a false averment and therefore his petition for eviction has rightly been rejected.',
	(int) 10 => '<p>10. I am not at all in agreement with the contention of the landlord that the premises known as 31, the Mall Shimla which are admittedly in the occupation of the landlord are commercial premises only and not being used by him for his residence. As pointed out above, the landlord purchased the demised premises in 1986. They fell vacant when he got married despite that he did not occupy the same and rented out the same to the tenant in the year 1990. The question that arises is where was the landlord living for this entire period. According to the landlord after the year 1994 he has been living with his brother-in-law Rajan (wife's brother) PW-2, since the year 1994. Prior to 1994 the landlord will have this Court to believe that he was living off and on with one friend or the other. This story is impossible to believe. The landlord was married in the year 1999. He is an Architect by profession. His wife is a law graduate. It is not believable that such a person would have no permanent abode and would continue to live as a guest with his friends for almost 5 years after his marriage. Even the story that he has been living with his brother-in-law after the year 1994 does not inspire confidence. It stands proved on record that the brother-in-law PW-2 Rajan lives with his own family i.e. wife and children. From the evidence it is also clear that the parents of the brother-in-law also reside with him, His flat consists of only two rooms. The flat in possession of the landlord at 31, the Mall Shimla, also consists of two rooms, kitchen and bath room. Even assuming that he was running an office in the part of the flat it cannot be believed that he would not live on his own flat on the Mall Road and reside with his brother-in-law in cramped premises. Even in the electoral list the landlord is shown to be a resident of 31, The Mall, Shimla. Therefore, I am of the considered view that the building 31, the Mall, Shimla was also being used as a residence by the landlord.',
	(int) 11 => '<p>11. Having held so, the question that arises is whether the landlord can be non-suited only on the ground that he has not made any disclosure about the residential accommodation available with him which premises were admittedly not owned by him.',
	(int) 12 => '<p>12. The short question which arises for decision in this petition is whether the landlord was guilty of suppressing and withholding such relevant facts which would disentitle him from seeking eviction of the tenant. To appreciate these contentions it would be necessary to refer to relevant portion of Section 14(3) of the Act:',
	(int) 13 => '<p>Section 14:',
	(int) 14 => '<p>1 and 2 xxxxxxxxxxx',
	(int) 15 => '<p>(3) A landlord may apply to the Controller for an order directing the tenant to put the landlord in possession-',
	(int) 16 => '<p>(a) in case of residential building, if',
	(int) 17 => '<p>(i) he required it for his own occupation:',
	(int) 18 => '<p>Provided that he is not occupying another residential building owned by him, in the urban area concerned:',
	(int) 19 => '<p>Provided further that he has not vacated such a building without sufficient cause within five years of the filing of the application, in the said urban area....',
	(int) 20 => '<p>13. A perusal of the bare provisions of the Act makes it clear that there are certain essential ingredients which the landlord must satisfy before seeking eviction of the tenant under the Act. Not only must he prove that the residential building is bona fide required by him for his own use and occupation but he must also plead and prove that he is not occupying any other residential building owned by him in the urban area concerned and further that he has not vacated such a building without sufficient cause within 5 years of the filing of the application.',
	(int) 21 => '<p>14. Reference may now be made to the relevant allegations made in para 18 of the eviction petition:',
	(int) 22 => '<p>(ii) That the petitioner bona fide requires the premises for his own use and occupation and also for the use and occupation of his family.',
	(int) 23 => '<p>The petitioner does not own or possess any other such building within the urban area of Simla nor the petitioner has vacated any such premises within five years of the filing of this petition.',
	(int) 24 => '<p>The family of the petitioner presently consists of himself and his wife. Due to paucity of accommodation the petitioner has not been able to keep his wife with himself at Simla, where he is working as an Engineer and she has been residing at Chandigarh since 1991 but on account of her ill health she has been brought to Simla by the petitioner. The petitioner at present is seeking temporary shelter, from time to time, with his relations.',
	(int) 25 => '<p>15. The learned Appellate Authority came to the conclusion that the landlord had falsely pleaded that he does not own or possess any other such building within the urban area of Shimla and hence rejected the eviction petition on this ground.',
	(int) 26 => '<p>16. On a close analysis of the proviso to Section 14(3)(a)(i) of the Act it is clear that a landlord is not entitled to seek eviction of a tenant from residential building even in case of bona fide requirement if the landlord is occupying another residential building owned by him in the urban area concerned. One can read three essential ingredients in this proviso i.e. (i) that the landlord is in occupation of another residential building; (ii) that the said residential building is owned by him and (iii) that the said residential building is situated in the concerned urban area.',
	(int) 27 => '<p>17. The question that arises is what is the impact of the landlord not making a disclosure in respect of premises which he is occupying but are not owned by him.',
	(int) 28 => '<p>18. The Apex Court in Onkar Nath v. Ved Vyas ILR 1979 HP 1, held as follows:',
	(int) 29 => '<p>It is common ground that there are three requirements to make out a cause of action for eviction under that provision, and indeed this is apparent from a bare reading of the sub-section. In the present case the finding is to the effect that the landlord requires the residential building for his own occupation. But, the legislation has taken care to insist upon two more conditions, namely; (a) that the landlord is not occupying any other residential building in the area concerned; and (b) that he has not vacated such a building without sufficient cause. There is not a scintilla of evidence nor indeed there is any averment in compliance with these latter conditions. The necessary consequence follows that not merely is there inadequacy of pleadings sufficient to make out a cause of action but total absence of proof of two vital requirements....',
	(int) 30 => '<p>The Supreme Court also said that:.The statute benignly designed to protect tenants from unreasonable evictions has taken case to put restrictions which must be rigorously construed to fulfil the purpose of the statute.',
	(int) 31 => '<p>19. Following the aforesaid judgment and other pronouncements of the Apex Court, a learned Single Judge of this Court in Tara Chand Sharma v. Baij Nath and Ors. 1992 (2) R.C.J. 323, held as follows:',
	(int) 32 => '<p>16. What appears as the legislative intent, in bold relief, is that the landlord, while seeking eviction of a tenant on the ground that he needs a residential building for his own occupation, must come out clearly and honestly with facts relating to the requirement that he is not occupying another residential building owned by him, in the urban area concerned and that he had not vacated such a building without sufficient cause within five years of the filing of the application, in the said urban area. The primal burden of making a clear disclosure would lie upon the landlord, for, the true facts would be in his special knowledge. An order in his favour by the Rent Controller would depend upon the satisfaction of the Rent Controller in regard not only to the claim that the landlord requires the accommodation, from which he wishes to evict a tenant, for his own occupation but also that he was not occupying another residential building owned by him nor had he vacated such building without sufficient cause within five years of the filing of the application in the application in the urban area concerned....',
	(int) 33 => '<p>It was further held as under:',
	(int) 34 => '<p>18. That the landlord should make a full disclosure of the relevant facts, pertaining to the requirements of Sub-section (3)(a)(i) and the two provisos, becomes all the more necessary because the satisfaction of the Rent Controller in regard thereto is the condition precedent for the making of an order in favour of the landlord....',
	(int) 35 => '<p>20. The aforesaid judgment has been followed in a number of other cases including Vijay Kapoor v. Maya Ram 1997 (2) RCR 437, wherein another learned single Judge of this Court following the aforesaid judgment held that the landlord must make complete and proper disclosure of all the material facts.',
	(int) 36 => '<p>21. On the other hand Sh. Ramakant Sharma has relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in Ram Narain Arora v. Asha Rani 1998(2) RCR 268. In that case the Rent Controller came to the conclusion that the landlord had suppressed material information and had not disclosed the fact that he was already in occupation of a house in Subji Mandi. Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act reads as follows:',
	(int) 37 => '<p>Section 14(1)(e). That the premises let for residential purposes are required bona fide by the landlord for occupation as a residence for himself or for any member of his family dependent on him, if he is the owner thereof, or for any person for whose benefit the premises are held and that the landlord or such person has no other reasonably suitable residential accommodation.',
	(int) 38 => '<p>22. The difference between Delhi Act and the present Act is that under the Delhi Act the only requirement is that the landlord has no other reasonably suitable accommodation whereas under the Himachal Act the residential premises are required to be owned by the landlord. The Apex Court in Rama Narain Arora's case (supra) held that the nondisclosure of the fact that the landlord was in occupation of certain premises in Subji Mandi was.not a ground to non-suit the landlord in view of the facts and circumstances of the case. The Apex Court held as follows:',
	(int) 39 => '<p>9. In making a claim that the suit premises is required bona fide for his own occupation as a residence for himself and other members of his family dependent on him and that he has no other reasonably suitable accommodation is a requirement of law before the Court can state whether the landlord requires the premises bona fide for his use and occupation. In doing so, the Court must also find out whether the landlord or such other person for whose benefit the premises is required has no other reasonably suitable residential accommodation. It cannot be said that the requirement of the landlord is not intermixed with the question of finding out whether he has any other reasonably suitable accommodation. If he has other reasonably suitable accommodation, ihen necessarily it would mean that he does not require the suit premises and his requirement may not be bona fide. In such circumstances further inquiry would be whether that premises is more suitable than the suit premises. Therefore, the questions raised before the Court would not necessarily depend upon only the pleadings. It could be a good defence that the landlord has other reasonably suitable residential accommodation and thereby defend the claim of the landlord.',
	(int) 40 => '<p>10. There cannot be a pedantic or a dogmatic approach in the matter of analysis of pleadings or of the evidence adduced thereto. It is no doubt true that if the pleadings are clearly set out, it would be easy for the Court to decide the matters. But if the pleadings are lacking or vague and if both parties have understood what was the case pleaded and put forth with reference to requirement of law and placed such material before the Court, neither party is prejudiced. If we analyse from this angle, we do not think that the High Court was not justified in interfering with the order made by the Rent Controller.',
	(int) 41 => '<p>23. From the perusal of the judgment of the Apex Court it is apparent that the Rent Controller must approach the matter in a practical manner. In case the non-disclosure is such as that it goes to the very root of the case the Rent Controller would be justified in non-suiting the landlord. However, if the non-disclosure is such that it would not prejudice the rights of the respondent then the landlord should not be non-suited only on this ground.',
	(int) 42 => '<p>24. The decisions of this Court cited hereinabove were delivered prior to the judgment delivered by the Apex Court in Ram Nar'ain Arora's case. Further more both in Tara Chand Sharma's case and Vijay Kapoor's case decided by this Court, no averment had been made ixi respect of other residential buildings owned by a landlord. There was complete non-disclosure as to whether any such residential building owned by the landlord was in his possession or not. In the present case, as I have held above, the residential premises at 31, The Mall, Shimla was not owned by the landlord and hence these two earlier judgments of this Court are distinguishable on facts also.',
	(int) 43 => '<p>25. In the present case, the landlord has been non-suited only on the ground that he did not disclose the fact that he was in occupation of certain premises on the Mall Road. Under law he was not required to disclose this fact. He was only required to disclose the factum of occupying another residential building owned by him in the urban area concerned. True it may be, that it would have been better if the landlord had disclosed all the facts but non-disclosure of a fact which he was not under law required to disclose could not in my opinion be a ground to dismiss his eviction petition.',
	(int) 44 => '<p>26. However, what are the premises in his occupation even as a tenant can be taken into consideration while deciding the question whether he bona fide requires the demised premises for his personal use or occupation or not.',
	(int) 45 => '<p>27. Lastly comes the question with regard to the bona fide requirement of the landlord. The landlord has no children. According to the landlord as well as his other witnesses i.e. his brother-in-law PW-2 and his wife PW-3, the wife now wants to come back and settle in Shimla. There is no reason to disbelieve their statements. Even according to the evidence led by the tenant the accommodation in possession of the landlord consists of two rooms, kitchen, bath room etc. Admittedly, the landlord is also having his office as an Architect in this building. The landlord belongs to the middle class of the Society. It cannot be expected of a landlord who owns sufficient property to reside in a two room set wherein he also runs his office.',
	(int) 46 => '<p>28. The law by now is well settled that the landlord is the best judge of the suitability of the accommodation required by him. This suitability has however to be judged in the context of reasonable expectations. The landlord and his wife who are both well educated can reasonably be expected to entertain guests and they will have visitors to their house. They would obviously require a drawing room, a bed room and a spare bed room for guests. Even at his residence the landlord may require another room for his professional work. This is the minimum accommodation which they would require. Even if the accommodation possessed by the landlord, though not owned by him, at 31, the Mall, Shimla is taken into consideration such accommodation is not sufficient to meet his requirements since admittedly the landlord is running his profession of Architect from some portion of his these premises.',
	(int) 47 => '<p>29. Keeping in view the entire facts and circumstances, I am of the considered view that the learned Appellate Authority gravely erred in rejecting the eviction petition of the landlord solely on the ground that he had not disclosed the factum of being in possession of the premises at 31, the Mall Shimla. Even though I have held that the said premises are residential premises, in view of the above discussion I hold that the landlord cannot be non-suited only on the ground of his being in possession of such premises since same were not owned by him.',
	(int) 48 => '<p>30. In view of the above discussion, the Revision Petition is allowed, the order of the learned Appellate Authority dated 6.5.2003 is seaside and the order of the Rent Controller dated 22.8.2001 is restored.',
	(int) 49 => '<p>31. Keeping in view the fact that the tenant has been in possession of the premises for a long period he is granted time up to 31st October, 2008 to vacate the premises.',
	(int) 50 => '<p>32. No order as to costs.<p>',
	(int) 51 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 52
$i = (int) 1
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

1. This Revision Petition under Section 25(5) of the H.P. Urban Rent Control Act, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) is directed against the order of the learned Appellate Authority, Shimla in CMA No. 60-S/14 of 2001 whereby the appeal filed by the respondent (hereinafter referred to as the tenant) has been allowed, the order of the Rent Controller has been set-aside and the petition for eviction filed by the present petitioner (hereinafter referred to as the Landlord) on the ground of personal bona fide requirement has been set-aside.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Shri Arun Bhanwara Vs Shri S L Srivastava - Citation 891084 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '891084',
			'acts' => '',
			'appealno' => '',
			'appellant' => 'Shri Arun Bhanwara',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Shri Arun Bhanwara Vs. Shri S.L. Srivastava',
			'casenote' => ' - CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908.[C.A. No. 5/1908]. Order 14, Rule 2 [As amended by Amending Act of 1976]: [V.K. Gupta, CJ, Deepak Gupta & Surjit Singh, JJ] Preliminary issue of law and fact  Court framing all issues both of law and facts together and also  tried all the issues together, including the issue relating to jurisdiction of Court  Held, Except in situations perceived or warranted under sub-rule (2) of Rule 2 of Order 14 where a  Court in fact frames only issues of law in the first instance and postpones settlement of other issues, clearly and explicitly in situations where the Court has framed all issues together, both of law as well as facts and has also tried all these issues together, it is not open to the Court to adopt the principle of severability and proceed to decide issues of law first, without taking up simultaneously other issues for decision. This course of action is not available to a Court because sub-rule (1) does not permit the  Court to adopt any such principle of severability and to dispose of a suit only on preliminary issues, or what can be termed as issues of law. Sub-rule (1)  clearly mandates that in a situation contemplated under it, where all the issues have been together and have also been taken up for adjudication during the course of the trial, these must be decided together and the judgment in the suit as a whole must be pronounced by the Court covering all the issues framed in the suit.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => 'Ram Narain Arora v. Asha Rani;',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => '',
			'counseldef' => '',
			'court' => 'Himachal Pradesh',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2008-07-31',
			'deposition' => 'Petition allowed',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => ' Deepak Gupta, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">Deepak Gupta, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. This Revision Petition under Section 25(5) of the H.P. Urban Rent Control Act, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) is directed against the order of the learned Appellate Authority, Shimla in CMA No. 60-S/14 of 2001 whereby the appeal filed by the respondent (hereinafter referred to as the tenant) has been allowed, the order of the Rent Controller has been set-aside and the petition for eviction filed by the present petitioner (hereinafter referred to as the Landlord) on the ground of personal bona fide requirement has been set-aside.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The undisputed facts are that the landlord is owner of the demised premises situated in building known as Tunnel View, Sanjauli, Shimla-6 consisting of two bed rooms with attached bath room and latrine, drawing-cum-dining room, kitchen and balcony. These premises were purchased by the landlord in the year 1986. Thereafter, the landlord had rented out the premises to one Sh. B.K. Chauhan. According to the landlord, when he got married he requested Sh. B.K. Chauhan to vacate the said premises. Sh. Chauhan vacated the said premises but admittedly the landlord did not occupy the same but rented out the same to the tenant in the year 1990.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. In the year 1997 the landlord filed a petition for eviction of the tenant on two grounds; firstly that the tenant is in arrears of rent from 1.11.1990 to 31.7.1997 and secondly that the premises are bona fide required by the landlord for the use and occupation of himself and his family.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. This petition was contested by the tenant. After trial, the Rent Controller ordered the eviction of the tenant on two grounds; (i) that the tenant was in arrears of rent from November, 1999 till date of order i.e. 22nd August, 2001 and (ii) that the landlord required the premises for his own use and occupation.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. The tenant deposited the rent within the time prescribed. He also filed an appeal challenging the finding on the issue of bona fide requirement. The learned Appellate Authority came to the conclusion that the landlord had not made a proper and full disclosure of facts as required under the provisions of the Act and had withheld material facts from the Court viz. that the landlord was in occupation of residential premises on 31, Mall Road in the urban area of Shimla and as such rejected this petition on this short ground.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. Aggrieved by the said order, the landlord has filed the present Revision Petition.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. I have heard Sh. Ramakant Sharma, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sh. Bhupinder Gupta, learned senior Counsel for the tenant.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. It has been urged on behalf of the landlord that the building which is alleged to be in possession of the landlord i.e. 31, the Mall Shimla is not a residential building and secondly that the building is not owned by him.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. On the other hand Sh. Bhupinder Gupta, learned Counsel of the tenant has strenuously urged that the landlord in para 18 has not stated anything about any building being owned by him and has only made an averment that he does not own or possess any other such building within the urban area Shimla. It is contended by Sh. Bhupinder Gupta that the landlord of his own volition did not state anything about the ownership of the building and since he has kept silent about the building which he is in occupation he has made a false averment and therefore his petition for eviction has rightly been rejected.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. I am not at all in agreement with the contention of the landlord that the premises known as 31, the Mall Shimla which are admittedly in the occupation of the landlord are commercial premises only and not being used by him for his residence. As pointed out above, the landlord purchased the demised premises in 1986. They fell vacant when he got married despite that he did not occupy the same and rented out the same to the tenant in the year 1990. The question that arises is where was the landlord living for this entire period. According to the landlord after the year 1994 he has been living with his brother-in-law Rajan (wife's brother) PW-2, since the year 1994. Prior to 1994 the landlord will have this Court to believe that he was living off and on with one friend or the other. This story is impossible to believe. The landlord was married in the year 1999. He is an Architect by profession. His wife is a law graduate. It is not believable that such a person would have no permanent abode and would continue to live as a guest with his friends for almost 5 years after his marriage. Even the story that he has been living with his brother-in-law after the year 1994 does not inspire confidence. It stands proved on record that the brother-in-law PW-2 Rajan lives with his own family i.e. wife and children. From the evidence it is also clear that the parents of the brother-in-law also reside with him, His flat consists of only two rooms. The flat in possession of the landlord at 31, the Mall Shimla, also consists of two rooms, kitchen and bath room. Even assuming that he was running an office in the part of the flat it cannot be believed that he would not live on his own flat on the Mall Road and reside with his brother-in-law in cramped premises. Even in the electoral list the landlord is shown to be a resident of 31, The Mall, Shimla. Therefore, I am of the considered view that the building 31, the Mall, Shimla was also being used as a residence by the landlord.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. Having held so, the question that arises is whether the landlord can be non-suited only on the ground that he has not made any disclosure about the residential accommodation available with him which premises were admittedly not owned by him.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. The short question which arises for decision in this petition is whether the landlord was guilty of suppressing and withholding such relevant facts which would disentitle him from seeking eviction of the tenant. To appreciate these contentions it would be necessary to refer to relevant portion of Section 14(3) of the Act:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Section 14:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1 and 2 xxxxxxxxxxx</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(3) A landlord may apply to the Controller for an order directing the tenant to put the landlord in possession-</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(a) in case of residential building, if</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(i) he required it for his own occupation:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Provided that he is not occupying another residential building owned by him, in the urban area concerned:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Provided further that he has not vacated such a building without sufficient cause within five years of the filing of the application, in the said urban area....</p><p style="text-align: justify;">13. A perusal of the bare provisions of the Act makes it clear that there are certain essential ingredients which the landlord must satisfy before seeking eviction of the tenant under the Act. Not only must he prove that the residential building is bona fide required by him for his own use and occupation but he must also plead and prove that he is not occupying any other residential building owned by him in the urban area concerned and further that he has not vacated such a building without sufficient cause within 5 years of the filing of the application.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">14. Reference may now be made to the relevant allegations made in para 18 of the eviction petition:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(ii) That the petitioner bona fide requires the premises for his own use and occupation and also for the use and occupation of his family.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The petitioner does not own or possess any other such building within the urban area of Simla nor the petitioner has vacated any such premises within five years of the filing of this petition.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The family of the petitioner presently consists of himself and his wife. Due to paucity of accommodation the petitioner has not been able to keep his wife with himself at Simla, where he is working as an Engineer and she has been residing at Chandigarh since 1991 but on account of her ill health she has been brought to Simla by the petitioner. The petitioner at present is seeking temporary shelter, from time to time, with his relations.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">15. The learned Appellate Authority came to the conclusion that the landlord had falsely pleaded that he does not own or possess any other such building within the urban area of Shimla and hence rejected the eviction petition on this ground.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">16. On a close analysis of the proviso to Section 14(3)(a)(i) of the Act it is clear that a landlord is not entitled to seek eviction of a tenant from residential building even in case of bona fide requirement if the landlord is occupying another residential building owned by him in the urban area concerned. One can read three essential ingredients in this proviso i.e. (i) that the landlord is in occupation of another residential building; (ii) that the said residential building is owned by him and (iii) that the said residential building is situated in the concerned urban area.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">17. The question that arises is what is the impact of the landlord not making a disclosure in respect of premises which he is occupying but are not owned by him.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">18. The Apex Court in Onkar Nath v. Ved Vyas ILR 1979 HP 1, held as follows:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">It is common ground that there are three requirements to make out a cause of action for eviction under that provision, and indeed this is apparent from a bare reading of the sub-section. In the present case the finding is to the effect that the landlord requires the residential building for his own occupation. But, the legislation has taken care to insist upon two more conditions, namely; (a) that the landlord is not occupying any other residential building in the area concerned; and (b) that he has not vacated such a building without sufficient cause. There is not a scintilla of evidence nor indeed there is any averment in compliance with these latter conditions. The necessary consequence follows that not merely is there inadequacy of pleadings sufficient to make out a cause of action but total absence of proof of two vital requirements....</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The Supreme Court also said that:.The statute benignly designed to protect tenants from unreasonable evictions has taken case to put restrictions which must be rigorously construed to fulfil the purpose of the statute.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">19. Following the aforesaid judgment and other pronouncements of the Apex Court, a learned Single Judge of this Court in Tara Chand Sharma v. Baij Nath and Ors. 1992 (2) R.C.J. 323, held as follows:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">16. What appears as the legislative intent, in bold relief, is that the landlord, while seeking eviction of a tenant on the ground that he needs a residential building for his own occupation, must come out clearly and honestly with facts relating to the requirement that he is not occupying another residential building owned by him, in the urban area concerned and that he had not vacated such a building without sufficient cause within five years of the filing of the application, in the said urban area. The primal burden of making a clear disclosure would lie upon the landlord, for, the true facts would be in his special knowledge. An order in his favour by the Rent Controller would depend upon the satisfaction of the Rent Controller in regard not only to the claim that the landlord requires the accommodation, from which he wishes to evict a tenant, for his own occupation but also that he was not occupying another residential building owned by him nor had he vacated such building without sufficient cause within five years of the filing of the application in the application in the urban area concerned....</p><p style="text-align: justify;">It was further held as under:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">18. That the landlord should make a full disclosure of the relevant facts, pertaining to the requirements of Sub-section (3)(a)(i) and the two provisos, becomes all the more necessary because the satisfaction of the Rent Controller in regard thereto is the condition precedent for the making of an order in favour of the landlord....</p><p style="text-align: justify;">20. The aforesaid judgment has been followed in a number of other cases including Vijay Kapoor v. Maya Ram 1997 (2) RCR 437, wherein another learned single Judge of this Court following the aforesaid judgment held that the landlord must make complete and proper disclosure of all the material facts.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">21. On the other hand Sh. Ramakant Sharma has relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in Ram Narain Arora v. Asha Rani 1998(2) RCR 268. In that case the Rent Controller came to the conclusion that the landlord had suppressed material information and had not disclosed the fact that he was already in occupation of a house in Subji Mandi. Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act reads as follows:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Section 14(1)(e). That the premises let for residential purposes are required bona fide by the landlord for occupation as a residence for himself or for any member of his family dependent on him, if he is the owner thereof, or for any person for whose benefit the premises are held and that the landlord or such person has no other reasonably suitable residential accommodation.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">22. The difference between Delhi Act and the present Act is that under the Delhi Act the only requirement is that the landlord has no other reasonably suitable accommodation whereas under the Himachal Act the residential premises are required to be owned by the landlord. The Apex Court in Rama Narain Arora's case (supra) held that the nondisclosure of the fact that the landlord was in occupation of certain premises in Subji Mandi was.not a ground to non-suit the landlord in view of the facts and circumstances of the case. The Apex Court held as follows:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. In making a claim that the suit premises is required bona fide for his own occupation as a residence for himself and other members of his family dependent on him and that he has no other reasonably suitable accommodation is a requirement of law before the Court can state whether the landlord requires the premises bona fide for his use and occupation. In doing so, the Court must also find out whether the landlord or such other person for whose benefit the premises is required has no other reasonably suitable residential accommodation. It cannot be said that the requirement of the landlord is not intermixed with the question of finding out whether he has any other reasonably suitable accommodation. If he has other reasonably suitable accommodation, ihen necessarily it would mean that he does not require the suit premises and his requirement may not be bona fide. In such circumstances further inquiry would be whether that premises is more suitable than the suit premises. Therefore, the questions raised before the Court would not necessarily depend upon only the pleadings. It could be a good defence that the landlord has other reasonably suitable residential accommodation and thereby defend the claim of the landlord.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. There cannot be a pedantic or a dogmatic approach in the matter of analysis of pleadings or of the evidence adduced thereto. It is no doubt true that if the pleadings are clearly set out, it would be easy for the Court to decide the matters. But if the pleadings are lacking or vague and if both parties have understood what was the case pleaded and put forth with reference to requirement of law and placed such material before the Court, neither party is prejudiced. If we analyse from this angle, we do not think that the High Court was not justified in interfering with the order made by the Rent Controller.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">23. From the perusal of the judgment of the Apex Court it is apparent that the Rent Controller must approach the matter in a practical manner. In case the non-disclosure is such as that it goes to the very root of the case the Rent Controller would be justified in non-suiting the landlord. However, if the non-disclosure is such that it would not prejudice the rights of the respondent then the landlord should not be non-suited only on this ground.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">24. The decisions of this Court cited hereinabove were delivered prior to the judgment delivered by the Apex Court in Ram Nar'ain Arora's case. Further more both in Tara Chand Sharma's case and Vijay Kapoor's case decided by this Court, no averment had been made ixi respect of other residential buildings owned by a landlord. There was complete non-disclosure as to whether any such residential building owned by the landlord was in his possession or not. In the present case, as I have held above, the residential premises at 31, The Mall, Shimla was not owned by the landlord and hence these two earlier judgments of this Court are distinguishable on facts also.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">25. In the present case, the landlord has been non-suited only on the ground that he did not disclose the fact that he was in occupation of certain premises on the Mall Road. Under law he was not required to disclose this fact. He was only required to disclose the factum of occupying another residential building owned by him in the urban area concerned. True it may be, that it would have been better if the landlord had disclosed all the facts but non-disclosure of a fact which he was not under law required to disclose could not in my opinion be a ground to dismiss his eviction petition.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">26. However, what are the premises in his occupation even as a tenant can be taken into consideration while deciding the question whether he bona fide requires the demised premises for his personal use or occupation or not.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">27. Lastly comes the question with regard to the bona fide requirement of the landlord. The landlord has no children. According to the landlord as well as his other witnesses i.e. his brother-in-law PW-2 and his wife PW-3, the wife now wants to come back and settle in Shimla. There is no reason to disbelieve their statements. Even according to the evidence led by the tenant the accommodation in possession of the landlord consists of two rooms, kitchen, bath room etc. Admittedly, the landlord is also having his office as an Architect in this building. The landlord belongs to the middle class of the Society. It cannot be expected of a landlord who owns sufficient property to reside in a two room set wherein he also runs his office.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">28. The law by now is well settled that the landlord is the best judge of the suitability of the accommodation required by him. This suitability has however to be judged in the context of reasonable expectations. The landlord and his wife who are both well educated can reasonably be expected to entertain guests and they will have visitors to their house. They would obviously require a drawing room, a bed room and a spare bed room for guests. Even at his residence the landlord may require another room for his professional work. This is the minimum accommodation which they would require. Even if the accommodation possessed by the landlord, though not owned by him, at 31, the Mall, Shimla is taken into consideration such accommodation is not sufficient to meet his requirements since admittedly the landlord is running his profession of Architect from some portion of his these premises.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">29. Keeping in view the entire facts and circumstances, I am of the considered view that the learned Appellate Authority gravely erred in rejecting the eviction petition of the landlord solely on the ground that he had not disclosed the factum of being in possession of the premises at 31, the Mall Shimla. Even though I have held that the said premises are residential premises, in view of the above discussion I hold that the landlord cannot be non-suited only on the ground of his being in possession of such premises since same were not owned by him.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">30. In view of the above discussion, the Revision Petition is allowed, the order of the learned Appellate Authority dated 6.5.2003 is seaside and the order of the Rent Controller dated 22.8.2001 is restored.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">31. Keeping in view the fact that the tenant has been in possession of the premises for a long period he is granted time up to 31st October, 2008 to vacate the premises.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">32. No order as to costs.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '2008(2)ShimLC491',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'Shri S.L. Srivastava',
			'sub' => 'Tenancy',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'shri-arun-bhanwara-vs-s-l-srivastava',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '891084',
		(int) 1 => 'shri-arun-bhanwara-vs-s-l-srivastava'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Shri Arun Bhanwara Vs Shri S L Srivastava - Citation 891084 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '891084',
		'acts' => '',
		'appealno' => '',
		'appellant' => 'Shri Arun Bhanwara',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Shri Arun Bhanwara Vs. Shri S.L. Srivastava',
		'casenote' => ' - CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908.[C.A. No. 5/1908]. Order 14, Rule 2 [As amended by Amending Act of 1976]: [V.K. Gupta, CJ, Deepak Gupta & Surjit Singh, JJ] Preliminary issue of law and fact  Court framing all issues both of law and facts together and also  tried all the issues together, including the issue relating to jurisdiction of Court  Held, Except in situations perceived or warranted under sub-rule (2) of Rule 2 of Order 14 where a  Court in fact frames only issues of law in the first instance and postpones settlement of other issues, clearly and explicitly in situations where the Court has framed all issues together, both of law as well as facts and has also tried all these issues together, it is not open to the Court to adopt the principle of severability and proceed to decide issues of law first, without taking up simultaneously other issues for decision. This course of action is not available to a Court because sub-rule (1) does not permit the  Court to adopt any such principle of severability and to dispose of a suit only on preliminary issues, or what can be termed as issues of law. Sub-rule (1)  clearly mandates that in a situation contemplated under it, where all the issues have been together and have also been taken up for adjudication during the course of the trial, these must be decided together and the judgment in the suit as a whole must be pronounced by the Court covering all the issues framed in the suit.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => 'Ram Narain Arora v. Asha Rani;',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => '',
		'counseldef' => '',
		'court' => 'Himachal Pradesh',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2008-07-31',
		'deposition' => 'Petition allowed',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => ' Deepak Gupta, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>Deepak Gupta, J.</p><p>1. This Revision Petition under Section 25(5) of the H.P. Urban Rent Control Act, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) is directed against the order of the learned Appellate Authority, Shimla in CMA No. 60-S/14 of 2001 whereby the appeal filed by the respondent (hereinafter referred to as the tenant) has been allowed, the order of the Rent Controller has been set-aside and the petition for eviction filed by the present petitioner (hereinafter referred to as the Landlord) on the ground of personal bona fide requirement has been set-aside.</p><p>2. The undisputed facts are that the landlord is owner of the demised premises situated in building known as Tunnel View, Sanjauli, Shimla-6 consisting of two bed rooms with attached bath room and latrine, drawing-cum-dining room, kitchen and balcony. These premises were purchased by the landlord in the year 1986. Thereafter, the landlord had rented out the premises to one Sh. B.K. Chauhan. According to the landlord, when he got married he requested Sh. B.K. Chauhan to vacate the said premises. Sh. Chauhan vacated the said premises but admittedly the landlord did not occupy the same but rented out the same to the tenant in the year 1990.</p><p>3. In the year 1997 the landlord filed a petition for eviction of the tenant on two grounds; firstly that the tenant is in arrears of rent from 1.11.1990 to 31.7.1997 and secondly that the premises are bona fide required by the landlord for the use and occupation of himself and his family.</p><p>4. This petition was contested by the tenant. After trial, the Rent Controller ordered the eviction of the tenant on two grounds; (i) that the tenant was in arrears of rent from November, 1999 till date of order i.e. 22nd August, 2001 and (ii) that the landlord required the premises for his own use and occupation.</p><p>5. The tenant deposited the rent within the time prescribed. He also filed an appeal challenging the finding on the issue of bona fide requirement. The learned Appellate Authority came to the conclusion that the landlord had not made a proper and full disclosure of facts as required under the provisions of the Act and had withheld material facts from the Court viz. that the landlord was in occupation of residential premises on 31, Mall Road in the urban area of Shimla and as such rejected this petition on this short ground.</p><p>6. Aggrieved by the said order, the landlord has filed the present Revision Petition.</p><p>7. I have heard Sh. Ramakant Sharma, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sh. Bhupinder Gupta, learned senior Counsel for the tenant.</p><p>8. It has been urged on behalf of the landlord that the building which is alleged to be in possession of the landlord i.e. 31, the Mall Shimla is not a residential building and secondly that the building is not owned by him.</p><p>9. On the other hand Sh. Bhupinder Gupta, learned Counsel of the tenant has strenuously urged that the landlord in para 18 has not stated anything about any building being owned by him and has only made an averment that he does not own or possess any other such building within the urban area Shimla. It is contended by Sh. Bhupinder Gupta that the landlord of his own volition did not state anything about the ownership of the building and since he has kept silent about the building which he is in occupation he has made a false averment and therefore his petition for eviction has rightly been rejected.</p><p>10. I am not at all in agreement with the contention of the landlord that the premises known as 31, the Mall Shimla which are admittedly in the occupation of the landlord are commercial premises only and not being used by him for his residence. As pointed out above, the landlord purchased the demised premises in 1986. They fell vacant when he got married despite that he did not occupy the same and rented out the same to the tenant in the year 1990. The question that arises is where was the landlord living for this entire period. According to the landlord after the year 1994 he has been living with his brother-in-law Rajan (wife's brother) PW-2, since the year 1994. Prior to 1994 the landlord will have this Court to believe that he was living off and on with one friend or the other. This story is impossible to believe. The landlord was married in the year 1999. He is an Architect by profession. His wife is a law graduate. It is not believable that such a person would have no permanent abode and would continue to live as a guest with his friends for almost 5 years after his marriage. Even the story that he has been living with his brother-in-law after the year 1994 does not inspire confidence. It stands proved on record that the brother-in-law PW-2 Rajan lives with his own family i.e. wife and children. From the evidence it is also clear that the parents of the brother-in-law also reside with him, His flat consists of only two rooms. The flat in possession of the landlord at 31, the Mall Shimla, also consists of two rooms, kitchen and bath room. Even assuming that he was running an office in the part of the flat it cannot be believed that he would not live on his own flat on the Mall Road and reside with his brother-in-law in cramped premises. Even in the electoral list the landlord is shown to be a resident of 31, The Mall, Shimla. Therefore, I am of the considered view that the building 31, the Mall, Shimla was also being used as a residence by the landlord.</p><p>11. Having held so, the question that arises is whether the landlord can be non-suited only on the ground that he has not made any disclosure about the residential accommodation available with him which premises were admittedly not owned by him.</p><p>12. The short question which arises for decision in this petition is whether the landlord was guilty of suppressing and withholding such relevant facts which would disentitle him from seeking eviction of the tenant. To appreciate these contentions it would be necessary to refer to relevant portion of Section 14(3) of the Act:</p><p>Section 14:</p><p>1 and 2 xxxxxxxxxxx</p><p>(3) A landlord may apply to the Controller for an order directing the tenant to put the landlord in possession-</p><p>(a) in case of residential building, if</p><p>(i) he required it for his own occupation:</p><p>Provided that he is not occupying another residential building owned by him, in the urban area concerned:</p><p>Provided further that he has not vacated such a building without sufficient cause within five years of the filing of the application, in the said urban area....</p><p>13. A perusal of the bare provisions of the Act makes it clear that there are certain essential ingredients which the landlord must satisfy before seeking eviction of the tenant under the Act. Not only must he prove that the residential building is bona fide required by him for his own use and occupation but he must also plead and prove that he is not occupying any other residential building owned by him in the urban area concerned and further that he has not vacated such a building without sufficient cause within 5 years of the filing of the application.</p><p>14. Reference may now be made to the relevant allegations made in para 18 of the eviction petition:</p><p>(ii) That the petitioner bona fide requires the premises for his own use and occupation and also for the use and occupation of his family.</p><p>The petitioner does not own or possess any other such building within the urban area of Simla nor the petitioner has vacated any such premises within five years of the filing of this petition.</p><p>The family of the petitioner presently consists of himself and his wife. Due to paucity of accommodation the petitioner has not been able to keep his wife with himself at Simla, where he is working as an Engineer and she has been residing at Chandigarh since 1991 but on account of her ill health she has been brought to Simla by the petitioner. The petitioner at present is seeking temporary shelter, from time to time, with his relations.</p><p>15. The learned Appellate Authority came to the conclusion that the landlord had falsely pleaded that he does not own or possess any other such building within the urban area of Shimla and hence rejected the eviction petition on this ground.</p><p>16. On a close analysis of the proviso to Section 14(3)(a)(i) of the Act it is clear that a landlord is not entitled to seek eviction of a tenant from residential building even in case of bona fide requirement if the landlord is occupying another residential building owned by him in the urban area concerned. One can read three essential ingredients in this proviso i.e. (i) that the landlord is in occupation of another residential building; (ii) that the said residential building is owned by him and (iii) that the said residential building is situated in the concerned urban area.</p><p>17. The question that arises is what is the impact of the landlord not making a disclosure in respect of premises which he is occupying but are not owned by him.</p><p>18. The Apex Court in Onkar Nath v. Ved Vyas ILR 1979 HP 1, held as follows:</p><p>It is common ground that there are three requirements to make out a cause of action for eviction under that provision, and indeed this is apparent from a bare reading of the sub-section. In the present case the finding is to the effect that the landlord requires the residential building for his own occupation. But, the legislation has taken care to insist upon two more conditions, namely; (a) that the landlord is not occupying any other residential building in the area concerned; and (b) that he has not vacated such a building without sufficient cause. There is not a scintilla of evidence nor indeed there is any averment in compliance with these latter conditions. The necessary consequence follows that not merely is there inadequacy of pleadings sufficient to make out a cause of action but total absence of proof of two vital requirements....</p><p>The Supreme Court also said that:.The statute benignly designed to protect tenants from unreasonable evictions has taken case to put restrictions which must be rigorously construed to fulfil the purpose of the statute.</p><p>19. Following the aforesaid judgment and other pronouncements of the Apex Court, a learned Single Judge of this Court in Tara Chand Sharma v. Baij Nath and Ors. 1992 (2) R.C.J. 323, held as follows:</p><p>16. What appears as the legislative intent, in bold relief, is that the landlord, while seeking eviction of a tenant on the ground that he needs a residential building for his own occupation, must come out clearly and honestly with facts relating to the requirement that he is not occupying another residential building owned by him, in the urban area concerned and that he had not vacated such a building without sufficient cause within five years of the filing of the application, in the said urban area. The primal burden of making a clear disclosure would lie upon the landlord, for, the true facts would be in his special knowledge. An order in his favour by the Rent Controller would depend upon the satisfaction of the Rent Controller in regard not only to the claim that the landlord requires the accommodation, from which he wishes to evict a tenant, for his own occupation but also that he was not occupying another residential building owned by him nor had he vacated such building without sufficient cause within five years of the filing of the application in the application in the urban area concerned....</p><p>It was further held as under:</p><p>18. That the landlord should make a full disclosure of the relevant facts, pertaining to the requirements of Sub-section (3)(a)(i) and the two provisos, becomes all the more necessary because the satisfaction of the Rent Controller in regard thereto is the condition precedent for the making of an order in favour of the landlord....</p><p>20. The aforesaid judgment has been followed in a number of other cases including Vijay Kapoor v. Maya Ram 1997 (2) RCR 437, wherein another learned single Judge of this Court following the aforesaid judgment held that the landlord must make complete and proper disclosure of all the material facts.</p><p>21. On the other hand Sh. Ramakant Sharma has relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in Ram Narain Arora v. Asha Rani 1998(2) RCR 268. In that case the Rent Controller came to the conclusion that the landlord had suppressed material information and had not disclosed the fact that he was already in occupation of a house in Subji Mandi. Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act reads as follows:</p><p>Section 14(1)(e). That the premises let for residential purposes are required bona fide by the landlord for occupation as a residence for himself or for any member of his family dependent on him, if he is the owner thereof, or for any person for whose benefit the premises are held and that the landlord or such person has no other reasonably suitable residential accommodation.</p><p>22. The difference between Delhi Act and the present Act is that under the Delhi Act the only requirement is that the landlord has no other reasonably suitable accommodation whereas under the Himachal Act the residential premises are required to be owned by the landlord. The Apex Court in Rama Narain Arora's case (supra) held that the nondisclosure of the fact that the landlord was in occupation of certain premises in Subji Mandi was.not a ground to non-suit the landlord in view of the facts and circumstances of the case. The Apex Court held as follows:</p><p>9. In making a claim that the suit premises is required bona fide for his own occupation as a residence for himself and other members of his family dependent on him and that he has no other reasonably suitable accommodation is a requirement of law before the Court can state whether the landlord requires the premises bona fide for his use and occupation. In doing so, the Court must also find out whether the landlord or such other person for whose benefit the premises is required has no other reasonably suitable residential accommodation. It cannot be said that the requirement of the landlord is not intermixed with the question of finding out whether he has any other reasonably suitable accommodation. If he has other reasonably suitable accommodation, ihen necessarily it would mean that he does not require the suit premises and his requirement may not be bona fide. In such circumstances further inquiry would be whether that premises is more suitable than the suit premises. Therefore, the questions raised before the Court would not necessarily depend upon only the pleadings. It could be a good defence that the landlord has other reasonably suitable residential accommodation and thereby defend the claim of the landlord.</p><p>10. There cannot be a pedantic or a dogmatic approach in the matter of analysis of pleadings or of the evidence adduced thereto. It is no doubt true that if the pleadings are clearly set out, it would be easy for the Court to decide the matters. But if the pleadings are lacking or vague and if both parties have understood what was the case pleaded and put forth with reference to requirement of law and placed such material before the Court, neither party is prejudiced. If we analyse from this angle, we do not think that the High Court was not justified in interfering with the order made by the Rent Controller.</p><p>23. From the perusal of the judgment of the Apex Court it is apparent that the Rent Controller must approach the matter in a practical manner. In case the non-disclosure is such as that it goes to the very root of the case the Rent Controller would be justified in non-suiting the landlord. However, if the non-disclosure is such that it would not prejudice the rights of the respondent then the landlord should not be non-suited only on this ground.</p><p>24. The decisions of this Court cited hereinabove were delivered prior to the judgment delivered by the Apex Court in Ram Nar'ain Arora's case. Further more both in Tara Chand Sharma's case and Vijay Kapoor's case decided by this Court, no averment had been made ixi respect of other residential buildings owned by a landlord. There was complete non-disclosure as to whether any such residential building owned by the landlord was in his possession or not. In the present case, as I have held above, the residential premises at 31, The Mall, Shimla was not owned by the landlord and hence these two earlier judgments of this Court are distinguishable on facts also.</p><p>25. In the present case, the landlord has been non-suited only on the ground that he did not disclose the fact that he was in occupation of certain premises on the Mall Road. Under law he was not required to disclose this fact. He was only required to disclose the factum of occupying another residential building owned by him in the urban area concerned. True it may be, that it would have been better if the landlord had disclosed all the facts but non-disclosure of a fact which he was not under law required to disclose could not in my opinion be a ground to dismiss his eviction petition.</p><p>26. However, what are the premises in his occupation even as a tenant can be taken into consideration while deciding the question whether he bona fide requires the demised premises for his personal use or occupation or not.</p><p>27. Lastly comes the question with regard to the bona fide requirement of the landlord. The landlord has no children. According to the landlord as well as his other witnesses i.e. his brother-in-law PW-2 and his wife PW-3, the wife now wants to come back and settle in Shimla. There is no reason to disbelieve their statements. Even according to the evidence led by the tenant the accommodation in possession of the landlord consists of two rooms, kitchen, bath room etc. Admittedly, the landlord is also having his office as an Architect in this building. The landlord belongs to the middle class of the Society. It cannot be expected of a landlord who owns sufficient property to reside in a two room set wherein he also runs his office.</p><p>28. The law by now is well settled that the landlord is the best judge of the suitability of the accommodation required by him. This suitability has however to be judged in the context of reasonable expectations. The landlord and his wife who are both well educated can reasonably be expected to entertain guests and they will have visitors to their house. They would obviously require a drawing room, a bed room and a spare bed room for guests. Even at his residence the landlord may require another room for his professional work. This is the minimum accommodation which they would require. Even if the accommodation possessed by the landlord, though not owned by him, at 31, the Mall, Shimla is taken into consideration such accommodation is not sufficient to meet his requirements since admittedly the landlord is running his profession of Architect from some portion of his these premises.</p><p>29. Keeping in view the entire facts and circumstances, I am of the considered view that the learned Appellate Authority gravely erred in rejecting the eviction petition of the landlord solely on the ground that he had not disclosed the factum of being in possession of the premises at 31, the Mall Shimla. Even though I have held that the said premises are residential premises, in view of the above discussion I hold that the landlord cannot be non-suited only on the ground of his being in possession of such premises since same were not owned by him.</p><p>30. In view of the above discussion, the Revision Petition is allowed, the order of the learned Appellate Authority dated 6.5.2003 is seaside and the order of the Rent Controller dated 22.8.2001 is restored.</p><p>31. Keeping in view the fact that the tenant has been in possession of the premises for a long period he is granted time up to 31st October, 2008 to vacate the premises.</p><p>32. No order as to costs.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '2008(2)ShimLC491',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'Shri S.L. Srivastava',
		'sub' => 'Tenancy',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'shri-arun-bhanwara-vs-s-l-srivastava'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '891084',
	(int) 1 => 'shri-arun-bhanwara-vs-s-l-srivastava'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/891084/shri-arun-bhanwara-vs-s-l-srivastava'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$caseref = 'Ram Narain Arora v. Asha Rani<br>'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>Deepak Gupta, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. This Revision Petition under Section 25(5) of the H.P. Urban Rent Control Act, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) is directed against the order of the learned Appellate Authority, Shimla in CMA No. 60-S/14 of 2001 whereby the appeal filed by the respondent (hereinafter referred to as the tenant) has been allowed, the order of the Rent Controller has been set-aside and the petition for eviction filed by the present petitioner (hereinafter referred to as the Landlord) on the ground of personal bona fide requirement has been set-aside.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. The undisputed facts are that the landlord is owner of the demised premises situated in building known as Tunnel View, Sanjauli, Shimla-6 consisting of two bed rooms with attached bath room and latrine, drawing-cum-dining room, kitchen and balcony. These premises were purchased by the landlord in the year 1986. Thereafter, the landlord had rented out the premises to one Sh. B.K. Chauhan. According to the landlord, when he got married he requested Sh. B.K. Chauhan to vacate the said premises. Sh. Chauhan vacated the said premises but admittedly the landlord did not occupy the same but rented out the same to the tenant in the year 1990.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. In the year 1997 the landlord filed a petition for eviction of the tenant on two grounds; firstly that the tenant is in arrears of rent from 1.11.1990 to 31.7.1997 and secondly that the premises are bona fide required by the landlord for the use and occupation of himself and his family.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>4. This petition was contested by the tenant. After trial, the Rent Controller ordered the eviction of the tenant on two grounds; (i) that the tenant was in arrears of rent from November, 1999 till date of order i.e. 22nd August, 2001 and (ii) that the landlord required the premises for his own use and occupation.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>5. The tenant deposited the rent within the time prescribed. He also filed an appeal challenging the finding on the issue of bona fide requirement. The learned Appellate Authority came to the conclusion that the landlord had not made a proper and full disclosure of facts as required under the provisions of the Act and had withheld material facts from the Court viz. that the landlord was in occupation of residential premises on 31, Mall Road in the urban area of Shimla and as such rejected this petition on this short ground.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>6. Aggrieved by the said order, the landlord has filed the present Revision Petition.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>7. I have heard Sh. Ramakant Sharma, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sh. Bhupinder Gupta, learned senior Counsel for the tenant.',
	(int) 8 => '<p>8. It has been urged on behalf of the landlord that the building which is alleged to be in possession of the landlord i.e. 31, the Mall Shimla is not a residential building and secondly that the building is not owned by him.',
	(int) 9 => '<p>9. On the other hand Sh. Bhupinder Gupta, learned Counsel of the tenant has strenuously urged that the landlord in para 18 has not stated anything about any building being owned by him and has only made an averment that he does not own or possess any other such building within the urban area Shimla. It is contended by Sh. Bhupinder Gupta that the landlord of his own volition did not state anything about the ownership of the building and since he has kept silent about the building which he is in occupation he has made a false averment and therefore his petition for eviction has rightly been rejected.',
	(int) 10 => '<p>10. I am not at all in agreement with the contention of the landlord that the premises known as 31, the Mall Shimla which are admittedly in the occupation of the landlord are commercial premises only and not being used by him for his residence. As pointed out above, the landlord purchased the demised premises in 1986. They fell vacant when he got married despite that he did not occupy the same and rented out the same to the tenant in the year 1990. The question that arises is where was the landlord living for this entire period. According to the landlord after the year 1994 he has been living with his brother-in-law Rajan (wife's brother) PW-2, since the year 1994. Prior to 1994 the landlord will have this Court to believe that he was living off and on with one friend or the other. This story is impossible to believe. The landlord was married in the year 1999. He is an Architect by profession. His wife is a law graduate. It is not believable that such a person would have no permanent abode and would continue to live as a guest with his friends for almost 5 years after his marriage. Even the story that he has been living with his brother-in-law after the year 1994 does not inspire confidence. It stands proved on record that the brother-in-law PW-2 Rajan lives with his own family i.e. wife and children. From the evidence it is also clear that the parents of the brother-in-law also reside with him, His flat consists of only two rooms. The flat in possession of the landlord at 31, the Mall Shimla, also consists of two rooms, kitchen and bath room. Even assuming that he was running an office in the part of the flat it cannot be believed that he would not live on his own flat on the Mall Road and reside with his brother-in-law in cramped premises. Even in the electoral list the landlord is shown to be a resident of 31, The Mall, Shimla. Therefore, I am of the considered view that the building 31, the Mall, Shimla was also being used as a residence by the landlord.',
	(int) 11 => '<p>11. Having held so, the question that arises is whether the landlord can be non-suited only on the ground that he has not made any disclosure about the residential accommodation available with him which premises were admittedly not owned by him.',
	(int) 12 => '<p>12. The short question which arises for decision in this petition is whether the landlord was guilty of suppressing and withholding such relevant facts which would disentitle him from seeking eviction of the tenant. To appreciate these contentions it would be necessary to refer to relevant portion of Section 14(3) of the Act:',
	(int) 13 => '<p>Section 14:',
	(int) 14 => '<p>1 and 2 xxxxxxxxxxx',
	(int) 15 => '<p>(3) A landlord may apply to the Controller for an order directing the tenant to put the landlord in possession-',
	(int) 16 => '<p>(a) in case of residential building, if',
	(int) 17 => '<p>(i) he required it for his own occupation:',
	(int) 18 => '<p>Provided that he is not occupying another residential building owned by him, in the urban area concerned:',
	(int) 19 => '<p>Provided further that he has not vacated such a building without sufficient cause within five years of the filing of the application, in the said urban area....',
	(int) 20 => '<p>13. A perusal of the bare provisions of the Act makes it clear that there are certain essential ingredients which the landlord must satisfy before seeking eviction of the tenant under the Act. Not only must he prove that the residential building is bona fide required by him for his own use and occupation but he must also plead and prove that he is not occupying any other residential building owned by him in the urban area concerned and further that he has not vacated such a building without sufficient cause within 5 years of the filing of the application.',
	(int) 21 => '<p>14. Reference may now be made to the relevant allegations made in para 18 of the eviction petition:',
	(int) 22 => '<p>(ii) That the petitioner bona fide requires the premises for his own use and occupation and also for the use and occupation of his family.',
	(int) 23 => '<p>The petitioner does not own or possess any other such building within the urban area of Simla nor the petitioner has vacated any such premises within five years of the filing of this petition.',
	(int) 24 => '<p>The family of the petitioner presently consists of himself and his wife. Due to paucity of accommodation the petitioner has not been able to keep his wife with himself at Simla, where he is working as an Engineer and she has been residing at Chandigarh since 1991 but on account of her ill health she has been brought to Simla by the petitioner. The petitioner at present is seeking temporary shelter, from time to time, with his relations.',
	(int) 25 => '<p>15. The learned Appellate Authority came to the conclusion that the landlord had falsely pleaded that he does not own or possess any other such building within the urban area of Shimla and hence rejected the eviction petition on this ground.',
	(int) 26 => '<p>16. On a close analysis of the proviso to Section 14(3)(a)(i) of the Act it is clear that a landlord is not entitled to seek eviction of a tenant from residential building even in case of bona fide requirement if the landlord is occupying another residential building owned by him in the urban area concerned. One can read three essential ingredients in this proviso i.e. (i) that the landlord is in occupation of another residential building; (ii) that the said residential building is owned by him and (iii) that the said residential building is situated in the concerned urban area.',
	(int) 27 => '<p>17. The question that arises is what is the impact of the landlord not making a disclosure in respect of premises which he is occupying but are not owned by him.',
	(int) 28 => '<p>18. The Apex Court in Onkar Nath v. Ved Vyas ILR 1979 HP 1, held as follows:',
	(int) 29 => '<p>It is common ground that there are three requirements to make out a cause of action for eviction under that provision, and indeed this is apparent from a bare reading of the sub-section. In the present case the finding is to the effect that the landlord requires the residential building for his own occupation. But, the legislation has taken care to insist upon two more conditions, namely; (a) that the landlord is not occupying any other residential building in the area concerned; and (b) that he has not vacated such a building without sufficient cause. There is not a scintilla of evidence nor indeed there is any averment in compliance with these latter conditions. The necessary consequence follows that not merely is there inadequacy of pleadings sufficient to make out a cause of action but total absence of proof of two vital requirements....',
	(int) 30 => '<p>The Supreme Court also said that:.The statute benignly designed to protect tenants from unreasonable evictions has taken case to put restrictions which must be rigorously construed to fulfil the purpose of the statute.',
	(int) 31 => '<p>19. Following the aforesaid judgment and other pronouncements of the Apex Court, a learned Single Judge of this Court in Tara Chand Sharma v. Baij Nath and Ors. 1992 (2) R.C.J. 323, held as follows:',
	(int) 32 => '<p>16. What appears as the legislative intent, in bold relief, is that the landlord, while seeking eviction of a tenant on the ground that he needs a residential building for his own occupation, must come out clearly and honestly with facts relating to the requirement that he is not occupying another residential building owned by him, in the urban area concerned and that he had not vacated such a building without sufficient cause within five years of the filing of the application, in the said urban area. The primal burden of making a clear disclosure would lie upon the landlord, for, the true facts would be in his special knowledge. An order in his favour by the Rent Controller would depend upon the satisfaction of the Rent Controller in regard not only to the claim that the landlord requires the accommodation, from which he wishes to evict a tenant, for his own occupation but also that he was not occupying another residential building owned by him nor had he vacated such building without sufficient cause within five years of the filing of the application in the application in the urban area concerned....',
	(int) 33 => '<p>It was further held as under:',
	(int) 34 => '<p>18. That the landlord should make a full disclosure of the relevant facts, pertaining to the requirements of Sub-section (3)(a)(i) and the two provisos, becomes all the more necessary because the satisfaction of the Rent Controller in regard thereto is the condition precedent for the making of an order in favour of the landlord....',
	(int) 35 => '<p>20. The aforesaid judgment has been followed in a number of other cases including Vijay Kapoor v. Maya Ram 1997 (2) RCR 437, wherein another learned single Judge of this Court following the aforesaid judgment held that the landlord must make complete and proper disclosure of all the material facts.',
	(int) 36 => '<p>21. On the other hand Sh. Ramakant Sharma has relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in Ram Narain Arora v. Asha Rani 1998(2) RCR 268. In that case the Rent Controller came to the conclusion that the landlord had suppressed material information and had not disclosed the fact that he was already in occupation of a house in Subji Mandi. Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act reads as follows:',
	(int) 37 => '<p>Section 14(1)(e). That the premises let for residential purposes are required bona fide by the landlord for occupation as a residence for himself or for any member of his family dependent on him, if he is the owner thereof, or for any person for whose benefit the premises are held and that the landlord or such person has no other reasonably suitable residential accommodation.',
	(int) 38 => '<p>22. The difference between Delhi Act and the present Act is that under the Delhi Act the only requirement is that the landlord has no other reasonably suitable accommodation whereas under the Himachal Act the residential premises are required to be owned by the landlord. The Apex Court in Rama Narain Arora's case (supra) held that the nondisclosure of the fact that the landlord was in occupation of certain premises in Subji Mandi was.not a ground to non-suit the landlord in view of the facts and circumstances of the case. The Apex Court held as follows:',
	(int) 39 => '<p>9. In making a claim that the suit premises is required bona fide for his own occupation as a residence for himself and other members of his family dependent on him and that he has no other reasonably suitable accommodation is a requirement of law before the Court can state whether the landlord requires the premises bona fide for his use and occupation. In doing so, the Court must also find out whether the landlord or such other person for whose benefit the premises is required has no other reasonably suitable residential accommodation. It cannot be said that the requirement of the landlord is not intermixed with the question of finding out whether he has any other reasonably suitable accommodation. If he has other reasonably suitable accommodation, ihen necessarily it would mean that he does not require the suit premises and his requirement may not be bona fide. In such circumstances further inquiry would be whether that premises is more suitable than the suit premises. Therefore, the questions raised before the Court would not necessarily depend upon only the pleadings. It could be a good defence that the landlord has other reasonably suitable residential accommodation and thereby defend the claim of the landlord.',
	(int) 40 => '<p>10. There cannot be a pedantic or a dogmatic approach in the matter of analysis of pleadings or of the evidence adduced thereto. It is no doubt true that if the pleadings are clearly set out, it would be easy for the Court to decide the matters. But if the pleadings are lacking or vague and if both parties have understood what was the case pleaded and put forth with reference to requirement of law and placed such material before the Court, neither party is prejudiced. If we analyse from this angle, we do not think that the High Court was not justified in interfering with the order made by the Rent Controller.',
	(int) 41 => '<p>23. From the perusal of the judgment of the Apex Court it is apparent that the Rent Controller must approach the matter in a practical manner. In case the non-disclosure is such as that it goes to the very root of the case the Rent Controller would be justified in non-suiting the landlord. However, if the non-disclosure is such that it would not prejudice the rights of the respondent then the landlord should not be non-suited only on this ground.',
	(int) 42 => '<p>24. The decisions of this Court cited hereinabove were delivered prior to the judgment delivered by the Apex Court in Ram Nar'ain Arora's case. Further more both in Tara Chand Sharma's case and Vijay Kapoor's case decided by this Court, no averment had been made ixi respect of other residential buildings owned by a landlord. There was complete non-disclosure as to whether any such residential building owned by the landlord was in his possession or not. In the present case, as I have held above, the residential premises at 31, The Mall, Shimla was not owned by the landlord and hence these two earlier judgments of this Court are distinguishable on facts also.',
	(int) 43 => '<p>25. In the present case, the landlord has been non-suited only on the ground that he did not disclose the fact that he was in occupation of certain premises on the Mall Road. Under law he was not required to disclose this fact. He was only required to disclose the factum of occupying another residential building owned by him in the urban area concerned. True it may be, that it would have been better if the landlord had disclosed all the facts but non-disclosure of a fact which he was not under law required to disclose could not in my opinion be a ground to dismiss his eviction petition.',
	(int) 44 => '<p>26. However, what are the premises in his occupation even as a tenant can be taken into consideration while deciding the question whether he bona fide requires the demised premises for his personal use or occupation or not.',
	(int) 45 => '<p>27. Lastly comes the question with regard to the bona fide requirement of the landlord. The landlord has no children. According to the landlord as well as his other witnesses i.e. his brother-in-law PW-2 and his wife PW-3, the wife now wants to come back and settle in Shimla. There is no reason to disbelieve their statements. Even according to the evidence led by the tenant the accommodation in possession of the landlord consists of two rooms, kitchen, bath room etc. Admittedly, the landlord is also having his office as an Architect in this building. The landlord belongs to the middle class of the Society. It cannot be expected of a landlord who owns sufficient property to reside in a two room set wherein he also runs his office.',
	(int) 46 => '<p>28. The law by now is well settled that the landlord is the best judge of the suitability of the accommodation required by him. This suitability has however to be judged in the context of reasonable expectations. The landlord and his wife who are both well educated can reasonably be expected to entertain guests and they will have visitors to their house. They would obviously require a drawing room, a bed room and a spare bed room for guests. Even at his residence the landlord may require another room for his professional work. This is the minimum accommodation which they would require. Even if the accommodation possessed by the landlord, though not owned by him, at 31, the Mall, Shimla is taken into consideration such accommodation is not sufficient to meet his requirements since admittedly the landlord is running his profession of Architect from some portion of his these premises.',
	(int) 47 => '<p>29. Keeping in view the entire facts and circumstances, I am of the considered view that the learned Appellate Authority gravely erred in rejecting the eviction petition of the landlord solely on the ground that he had not disclosed the factum of being in possession of the premises at 31, the Mall Shimla. Even though I have held that the said premises are residential premises, in view of the above discussion I hold that the landlord cannot be non-suited only on the ground of his being in possession of such premises since same were not owned by him.',
	(int) 48 => '<p>30. In view of the above discussion, the Revision Petition is allowed, the order of the learned Appellate Authority dated 6.5.2003 is seaside and the order of the Rent Controller dated 22.8.2001 is restored.',
	(int) 49 => '<p>31. Keeping in view the fact that the tenant has been in possession of the premises for a long period he is granted time up to 31st October, 2008 to vacate the premises.',
	(int) 50 => '<p>32. No order as to costs.<p>',
	(int) 51 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 52
$i = (int) 2
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

2. The undisputed facts are that the landlord is owner of the demised premises situated in building known as Tunnel View, Sanjauli, Shimla-6 consisting of two bed rooms with attached bath room and latrine, drawing-cum-dining room, kitchen and balcony. These premises were purchased by the landlord in the year 1986. Thereafter, the landlord had rented out the premises to one Sh. B.K. Chauhan. According to the landlord, when he got married he requested Sh. B.K. Chauhan to vacate the said premises. Sh. Chauhan vacated the said premises but admittedly the landlord did not occupy the same but rented out the same to the tenant in the year 1990.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Shri Arun Bhanwara Vs Shri S L Srivastava - Citation 891084 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '891084',
			'acts' => '',
			'appealno' => '',
			'appellant' => 'Shri Arun Bhanwara',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Shri Arun Bhanwara Vs. Shri S.L. Srivastava',
			'casenote' => ' - CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908.[C.A. No. 5/1908]. Order 14, Rule 2 [As amended by Amending Act of 1976]: [V.K. Gupta, CJ, Deepak Gupta & Surjit Singh, JJ] Preliminary issue of law and fact  Court framing all issues both of law and facts together and also  tried all the issues together, including the issue relating to jurisdiction of Court  Held, Except in situations perceived or warranted under sub-rule (2) of Rule 2 of Order 14 where a  Court in fact frames only issues of law in the first instance and postpones settlement of other issues, clearly and explicitly in situations where the Court has framed all issues together, both of law as well as facts and has also tried all these issues together, it is not open to the Court to adopt the principle of severability and proceed to decide issues of law first, without taking up simultaneously other issues for decision. This course of action is not available to a Court because sub-rule (1) does not permit the  Court to adopt any such principle of severability and to dispose of a suit only on preliminary issues, or what can be termed as issues of law. Sub-rule (1)  clearly mandates that in a situation contemplated under it, where all the issues have been together and have also been taken up for adjudication during the course of the trial, these must be decided together and the judgment in the suit as a whole must be pronounced by the Court covering all the issues framed in the suit.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => 'Ram Narain Arora v. Asha Rani;',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => '',
			'counseldef' => '',
			'court' => 'Himachal Pradesh',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2008-07-31',
			'deposition' => 'Petition allowed',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => ' Deepak Gupta, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">Deepak Gupta, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. This Revision Petition under Section 25(5) of the H.P. Urban Rent Control Act, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) is directed against the order of the learned Appellate Authority, Shimla in CMA No. 60-S/14 of 2001 whereby the appeal filed by the respondent (hereinafter referred to as the tenant) has been allowed, the order of the Rent Controller has been set-aside and the petition for eviction filed by the present petitioner (hereinafter referred to as the Landlord) on the ground of personal bona fide requirement has been set-aside.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The undisputed facts are that the landlord is owner of the demised premises situated in building known as Tunnel View, Sanjauli, Shimla-6 consisting of two bed rooms with attached bath room and latrine, drawing-cum-dining room, kitchen and balcony. These premises were purchased by the landlord in the year 1986. Thereafter, the landlord had rented out the premises to one Sh. B.K. Chauhan. According to the landlord, when he got married he requested Sh. B.K. Chauhan to vacate the said premises. Sh. Chauhan vacated the said premises but admittedly the landlord did not occupy the same but rented out the same to the tenant in the year 1990.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. In the year 1997 the landlord filed a petition for eviction of the tenant on two grounds; firstly that the tenant is in arrears of rent from 1.11.1990 to 31.7.1997 and secondly that the premises are bona fide required by the landlord for the use and occupation of himself and his family.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. This petition was contested by the tenant. After trial, the Rent Controller ordered the eviction of the tenant on two grounds; (i) that the tenant was in arrears of rent from November, 1999 till date of order i.e. 22nd August, 2001 and (ii) that the landlord required the premises for his own use and occupation.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. The tenant deposited the rent within the time prescribed. He also filed an appeal challenging the finding on the issue of bona fide requirement. The learned Appellate Authority came to the conclusion that the landlord had not made a proper and full disclosure of facts as required under the provisions of the Act and had withheld material facts from the Court viz. that the landlord was in occupation of residential premises on 31, Mall Road in the urban area of Shimla and as such rejected this petition on this short ground.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. Aggrieved by the said order, the landlord has filed the present Revision Petition.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. I have heard Sh. Ramakant Sharma, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sh. Bhupinder Gupta, learned senior Counsel for the tenant.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. It has been urged on behalf of the landlord that the building which is alleged to be in possession of the landlord i.e. 31, the Mall Shimla is not a residential building and secondly that the building is not owned by him.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. On the other hand Sh. Bhupinder Gupta, learned Counsel of the tenant has strenuously urged that the landlord in para 18 has not stated anything about any building being owned by him and has only made an averment that he does not own or possess any other such building within the urban area Shimla. It is contended by Sh. Bhupinder Gupta that the landlord of his own volition did not state anything about the ownership of the building and since he has kept silent about the building which he is in occupation he has made a false averment and therefore his petition for eviction has rightly been rejected.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. I am not at all in agreement with the contention of the landlord that the premises known as 31, the Mall Shimla which are admittedly in the occupation of the landlord are commercial premises only and not being used by him for his residence. As pointed out above, the landlord purchased the demised premises in 1986. They fell vacant when he got married despite that he did not occupy the same and rented out the same to the tenant in the year 1990. The question that arises is where was the landlord living for this entire period. According to the landlord after the year 1994 he has been living with his brother-in-law Rajan (wife's brother) PW-2, since the year 1994. Prior to 1994 the landlord will have this Court to believe that he was living off and on with one friend or the other. This story is impossible to believe. The landlord was married in the year 1999. He is an Architect by profession. His wife is a law graduate. It is not believable that such a person would have no permanent abode and would continue to live as a guest with his friends for almost 5 years after his marriage. Even the story that he has been living with his brother-in-law after the year 1994 does not inspire confidence. It stands proved on record that the brother-in-law PW-2 Rajan lives with his own family i.e. wife and children. From the evidence it is also clear that the parents of the brother-in-law also reside with him, His flat consists of only two rooms. The flat in possession of the landlord at 31, the Mall Shimla, also consists of two rooms, kitchen and bath room. Even assuming that he was running an office in the part of the flat it cannot be believed that he would not live on his own flat on the Mall Road and reside with his brother-in-law in cramped premises. Even in the electoral list the landlord is shown to be a resident of 31, The Mall, Shimla. Therefore, I am of the considered view that the building 31, the Mall, Shimla was also being used as a residence by the landlord.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. Having held so, the question that arises is whether the landlord can be non-suited only on the ground that he has not made any disclosure about the residential accommodation available with him which premises were admittedly not owned by him.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. The short question which arises for decision in this petition is whether the landlord was guilty of suppressing and withholding such relevant facts which would disentitle him from seeking eviction of the tenant. To appreciate these contentions it would be necessary to refer to relevant portion of Section 14(3) of the Act:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Section 14:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1 and 2 xxxxxxxxxxx</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(3) A landlord may apply to the Controller for an order directing the tenant to put the landlord in possession-</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(a) in case of residential building, if</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(i) he required it for his own occupation:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Provided that he is not occupying another residential building owned by him, in the urban area concerned:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Provided further that he has not vacated such a building without sufficient cause within five years of the filing of the application, in the said urban area....</p><p style="text-align: justify;">13. A perusal of the bare provisions of the Act makes it clear that there are certain essential ingredients which the landlord must satisfy before seeking eviction of the tenant under the Act. Not only must he prove that the residential building is bona fide required by him for his own use and occupation but he must also plead and prove that he is not occupying any other residential building owned by him in the urban area concerned and further that he has not vacated such a building without sufficient cause within 5 years of the filing of the application.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">14. Reference may now be made to the relevant allegations made in para 18 of the eviction petition:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(ii) That the petitioner bona fide requires the premises for his own use and occupation and also for the use and occupation of his family.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The petitioner does not own or possess any other such building within the urban area of Simla nor the petitioner has vacated any such premises within five years of the filing of this petition.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The family of the petitioner presently consists of himself and his wife. Due to paucity of accommodation the petitioner has not been able to keep his wife with himself at Simla, where he is working as an Engineer and she has been residing at Chandigarh since 1991 but on account of her ill health she has been brought to Simla by the petitioner. The petitioner at present is seeking temporary shelter, from time to time, with his relations.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">15. The learned Appellate Authority came to the conclusion that the landlord had falsely pleaded that he does not own or possess any other such building within the urban area of Shimla and hence rejected the eviction petition on this ground.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">16. On a close analysis of the proviso to Section 14(3)(a)(i) of the Act it is clear that a landlord is not entitled to seek eviction of a tenant from residential building even in case of bona fide requirement if the landlord is occupying another residential building owned by him in the urban area concerned. One can read three essential ingredients in this proviso i.e. (i) that the landlord is in occupation of another residential building; (ii) that the said residential building is owned by him and (iii) that the said residential building is situated in the concerned urban area.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">17. The question that arises is what is the impact of the landlord not making a disclosure in respect of premises which he is occupying but are not owned by him.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">18. The Apex Court in Onkar Nath v. Ved Vyas ILR 1979 HP 1, held as follows:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">It is common ground that there are three requirements to make out a cause of action for eviction under that provision, and indeed this is apparent from a bare reading of the sub-section. In the present case the finding is to the effect that the landlord requires the residential building for his own occupation. But, the legislation has taken care to insist upon two more conditions, namely; (a) that the landlord is not occupying any other residential building in the area concerned; and (b) that he has not vacated such a building without sufficient cause. There is not a scintilla of evidence nor indeed there is any averment in compliance with these latter conditions. The necessary consequence follows that not merely is there inadequacy of pleadings sufficient to make out a cause of action but total absence of proof of two vital requirements....</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The Supreme Court also said that:.The statute benignly designed to protect tenants from unreasonable evictions has taken case to put restrictions which must be rigorously construed to fulfil the purpose of the statute.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">19. Following the aforesaid judgment and other pronouncements of the Apex Court, a learned Single Judge of this Court in Tara Chand Sharma v. Baij Nath and Ors. 1992 (2) R.C.J. 323, held as follows:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">16. What appears as the legislative intent, in bold relief, is that the landlord, while seeking eviction of a tenant on the ground that he needs a residential building for his own occupation, must come out clearly and honestly with facts relating to the requirement that he is not occupying another residential building owned by him, in the urban area concerned and that he had not vacated such a building without sufficient cause within five years of the filing of the application, in the said urban area. The primal burden of making a clear disclosure would lie upon the landlord, for, the true facts would be in his special knowledge. An order in his favour by the Rent Controller would depend upon the satisfaction of the Rent Controller in regard not only to the claim that the landlord requires the accommodation, from which he wishes to evict a tenant, for his own occupation but also that he was not occupying another residential building owned by him nor had he vacated such building without sufficient cause within five years of the filing of the application in the application in the urban area concerned....</p><p style="text-align: justify;">It was further held as under:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">18. That the landlord should make a full disclosure of the relevant facts, pertaining to the requirements of Sub-section (3)(a)(i) and the two provisos, becomes all the more necessary because the satisfaction of the Rent Controller in regard thereto is the condition precedent for the making of an order in favour of the landlord....</p><p style="text-align: justify;">20. The aforesaid judgment has been followed in a number of other cases including Vijay Kapoor v. Maya Ram 1997 (2) RCR 437, wherein another learned single Judge of this Court following the aforesaid judgment held that the landlord must make complete and proper disclosure of all the material facts.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">21. On the other hand Sh. Ramakant Sharma has relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in Ram Narain Arora v. Asha Rani 1998(2) RCR 268. In that case the Rent Controller came to the conclusion that the landlord had suppressed material information and had not disclosed the fact that he was already in occupation of a house in Subji Mandi. Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act reads as follows:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Section 14(1)(e). That the premises let for residential purposes are required bona fide by the landlord for occupation as a residence for himself or for any member of his family dependent on him, if he is the owner thereof, or for any person for whose benefit the premises are held and that the landlord or such person has no other reasonably suitable residential accommodation.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">22. The difference between Delhi Act and the present Act is that under the Delhi Act the only requirement is that the landlord has no other reasonably suitable accommodation whereas under the Himachal Act the residential premises are required to be owned by the landlord. The Apex Court in Rama Narain Arora's case (supra) held that the nondisclosure of the fact that the landlord was in occupation of certain premises in Subji Mandi was.not a ground to non-suit the landlord in view of the facts and circumstances of the case. The Apex Court held as follows:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. In making a claim that the suit premises is required bona fide for his own occupation as a residence for himself and other members of his family dependent on him and that he has no other reasonably suitable accommodation is a requirement of law before the Court can state whether the landlord requires the premises bona fide for his use and occupation. In doing so, the Court must also find out whether the landlord or such other person for whose benefit the premises is required has no other reasonably suitable residential accommodation. It cannot be said that the requirement of the landlord is not intermixed with the question of finding out whether he has any other reasonably suitable accommodation. If he has other reasonably suitable accommodation, ihen necessarily it would mean that he does not require the suit premises and his requirement may not be bona fide. In such circumstances further inquiry would be whether that premises is more suitable than the suit premises. Therefore, the questions raised before the Court would not necessarily depend upon only the pleadings. It could be a good defence that the landlord has other reasonably suitable residential accommodation and thereby defend the claim of the landlord.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. There cannot be a pedantic or a dogmatic approach in the matter of analysis of pleadings or of the evidence adduced thereto. It is no doubt true that if the pleadings are clearly set out, it would be easy for the Court to decide the matters. But if the pleadings are lacking or vague and if both parties have understood what was the case pleaded and put forth with reference to requirement of law and placed such material before the Court, neither party is prejudiced. If we analyse from this angle, we do not think that the High Court was not justified in interfering with the order made by the Rent Controller.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">23. From the perusal of the judgment of the Apex Court it is apparent that the Rent Controller must approach the matter in a practical manner. In case the non-disclosure is such as that it goes to the very root of the case the Rent Controller would be justified in non-suiting the landlord. However, if the non-disclosure is such that it would not prejudice the rights of the respondent then the landlord should not be non-suited only on this ground.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">24. The decisions of this Court cited hereinabove were delivered prior to the judgment delivered by the Apex Court in Ram Nar'ain Arora's case. Further more both in Tara Chand Sharma's case and Vijay Kapoor's case decided by this Court, no averment had been made ixi respect of other residential buildings owned by a landlord. There was complete non-disclosure as to whether any such residential building owned by the landlord was in his possession or not. In the present case, as I have held above, the residential premises at 31, The Mall, Shimla was not owned by the landlord and hence these two earlier judgments of this Court are distinguishable on facts also.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">25. In the present case, the landlord has been non-suited only on the ground that he did not disclose the fact that he was in occupation of certain premises on the Mall Road. Under law he was not required to disclose this fact. He was only required to disclose the factum of occupying another residential building owned by him in the urban area concerned. True it may be, that it would have been better if the landlord had disclosed all the facts but non-disclosure of a fact which he was not under law required to disclose could not in my opinion be a ground to dismiss his eviction petition.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">26. However, what are the premises in his occupation even as a tenant can be taken into consideration while deciding the question whether he bona fide requires the demised premises for his personal use or occupation or not.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">27. Lastly comes the question with regard to the bona fide requirement of the landlord. The landlord has no children. According to the landlord as well as his other witnesses i.e. his brother-in-law PW-2 and his wife PW-3, the wife now wants to come back and settle in Shimla. There is no reason to disbelieve their statements. Even according to the evidence led by the tenant the accommodation in possession of the landlord consists of two rooms, kitchen, bath room etc. Admittedly, the landlord is also having his office as an Architect in this building. The landlord belongs to the middle class of the Society. It cannot be expected of a landlord who owns sufficient property to reside in a two room set wherein he also runs his office.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">28. The law by now is well settled that the landlord is the best judge of the suitability of the accommodation required by him. This suitability has however to be judged in the context of reasonable expectations. The landlord and his wife who are both well educated can reasonably be expected to entertain guests and they will have visitors to their house. They would obviously require a drawing room, a bed room and a spare bed room for guests. Even at his residence the landlord may require another room for his professional work. This is the minimum accommodation which they would require. Even if the accommodation possessed by the landlord, though not owned by him, at 31, the Mall, Shimla is taken into consideration such accommodation is not sufficient to meet his requirements since admittedly the landlord is running his profession of Architect from some portion of his these premises.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">29. Keeping in view the entire facts and circumstances, I am of the considered view that the learned Appellate Authority gravely erred in rejecting the eviction petition of the landlord solely on the ground that he had not disclosed the factum of being in possession of the premises at 31, the Mall Shimla. Even though I have held that the said premises are residential premises, in view of the above discussion I hold that the landlord cannot be non-suited only on the ground of his being in possession of such premises since same were not owned by him.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">30. In view of the above discussion, the Revision Petition is allowed, the order of the learned Appellate Authority dated 6.5.2003 is seaside and the order of the Rent Controller dated 22.8.2001 is restored.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">31. Keeping in view the fact that the tenant has been in possession of the premises for a long period he is granted time up to 31st October, 2008 to vacate the premises.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">32. No order as to costs.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '2008(2)ShimLC491',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'Shri S.L. Srivastava',
			'sub' => 'Tenancy',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'shri-arun-bhanwara-vs-s-l-srivastava',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '891084',
		(int) 1 => 'shri-arun-bhanwara-vs-s-l-srivastava'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Shri Arun Bhanwara Vs Shri S L Srivastava - Citation 891084 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '891084',
		'acts' => '',
		'appealno' => '',
		'appellant' => 'Shri Arun Bhanwara',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Shri Arun Bhanwara Vs. Shri S.L. Srivastava',
		'casenote' => ' - CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908.[C.A. No. 5/1908]. Order 14, Rule 2 [As amended by Amending Act of 1976]: [V.K. Gupta, CJ, Deepak Gupta & Surjit Singh, JJ] Preliminary issue of law and fact  Court framing all issues both of law and facts together and also  tried all the issues together, including the issue relating to jurisdiction of Court  Held, Except in situations perceived or warranted under sub-rule (2) of Rule 2 of Order 14 where a  Court in fact frames only issues of law in the first instance and postpones settlement of other issues, clearly and explicitly in situations where the Court has framed all issues together, both of law as well as facts and has also tried all these issues together, it is not open to the Court to adopt the principle of severability and proceed to decide issues of law first, without taking up simultaneously other issues for decision. This course of action is not available to a Court because sub-rule (1) does not permit the  Court to adopt any such principle of severability and to dispose of a suit only on preliminary issues, or what can be termed as issues of law. Sub-rule (1)  clearly mandates that in a situation contemplated under it, where all the issues have been together and have also been taken up for adjudication during the course of the trial, these must be decided together and the judgment in the suit as a whole must be pronounced by the Court covering all the issues framed in the suit.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => 'Ram Narain Arora v. Asha Rani;',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => '',
		'counseldef' => '',
		'court' => 'Himachal Pradesh',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2008-07-31',
		'deposition' => 'Petition allowed',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => ' Deepak Gupta, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>Deepak Gupta, J.</p><p>1. This Revision Petition under Section 25(5) of the H.P. Urban Rent Control Act, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) is directed against the order of the learned Appellate Authority, Shimla in CMA No. 60-S/14 of 2001 whereby the appeal filed by the respondent (hereinafter referred to as the tenant) has been allowed, the order of the Rent Controller has been set-aside and the petition for eviction filed by the present petitioner (hereinafter referred to as the Landlord) on the ground of personal bona fide requirement has been set-aside.</p><p>2. The undisputed facts are that the landlord is owner of the demised premises situated in building known as Tunnel View, Sanjauli, Shimla-6 consisting of two bed rooms with attached bath room and latrine, drawing-cum-dining room, kitchen and balcony. These premises were purchased by the landlord in the year 1986. Thereafter, the landlord had rented out the premises to one Sh. B.K. Chauhan. According to the landlord, when he got married he requested Sh. B.K. Chauhan to vacate the said premises. Sh. Chauhan vacated the said premises but admittedly the landlord did not occupy the same but rented out the same to the tenant in the year 1990.</p><p>3. In the year 1997 the landlord filed a petition for eviction of the tenant on two grounds; firstly that the tenant is in arrears of rent from 1.11.1990 to 31.7.1997 and secondly that the premises are bona fide required by the landlord for the use and occupation of himself and his family.</p><p>4. This petition was contested by the tenant. After trial, the Rent Controller ordered the eviction of the tenant on two grounds; (i) that the tenant was in arrears of rent from November, 1999 till date of order i.e. 22nd August, 2001 and (ii) that the landlord required the premises for his own use and occupation.</p><p>5. The tenant deposited the rent within the time prescribed. He also filed an appeal challenging the finding on the issue of bona fide requirement. The learned Appellate Authority came to the conclusion that the landlord had not made a proper and full disclosure of facts as required under the provisions of the Act and had withheld material facts from the Court viz. that the landlord was in occupation of residential premises on 31, Mall Road in the urban area of Shimla and as such rejected this petition on this short ground.</p><p>6. Aggrieved by the said order, the landlord has filed the present Revision Petition.</p><p>7. I have heard Sh. Ramakant Sharma, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sh. Bhupinder Gupta, learned senior Counsel for the tenant.</p><p>8. It has been urged on behalf of the landlord that the building which is alleged to be in possession of the landlord i.e. 31, the Mall Shimla is not a residential building and secondly that the building is not owned by him.</p><p>9. On the other hand Sh. Bhupinder Gupta, learned Counsel of the tenant has strenuously urged that the landlord in para 18 has not stated anything about any building being owned by him and has only made an averment that he does not own or possess any other such building within the urban area Shimla. It is contended by Sh. Bhupinder Gupta that the landlord of his own volition did not state anything about the ownership of the building and since he has kept silent about the building which he is in occupation he has made a false averment and therefore his petition for eviction has rightly been rejected.</p><p>10. I am not at all in agreement with the contention of the landlord that the premises known as 31, the Mall Shimla which are admittedly in the occupation of the landlord are commercial premises only and not being used by him for his residence. As pointed out above, the landlord purchased the demised premises in 1986. They fell vacant when he got married despite that he did not occupy the same and rented out the same to the tenant in the year 1990. The question that arises is where was the landlord living for this entire period. According to the landlord after the year 1994 he has been living with his brother-in-law Rajan (wife's brother) PW-2, since the year 1994. Prior to 1994 the landlord will have this Court to believe that he was living off and on with one friend or the other. This story is impossible to believe. The landlord was married in the year 1999. He is an Architect by profession. His wife is a law graduate. It is not believable that such a person would have no permanent abode and would continue to live as a guest with his friends for almost 5 years after his marriage. Even the story that he has been living with his brother-in-law after the year 1994 does not inspire confidence. It stands proved on record that the brother-in-law PW-2 Rajan lives with his own family i.e. wife and children. From the evidence it is also clear that the parents of the brother-in-law also reside with him, His flat consists of only two rooms. The flat in possession of the landlord at 31, the Mall Shimla, also consists of two rooms, kitchen and bath room. Even assuming that he was running an office in the part of the flat it cannot be believed that he would not live on his own flat on the Mall Road and reside with his brother-in-law in cramped premises. Even in the electoral list the landlord is shown to be a resident of 31, The Mall, Shimla. Therefore, I am of the considered view that the building 31, the Mall, Shimla was also being used as a residence by the landlord.</p><p>11. Having held so, the question that arises is whether the landlord can be non-suited only on the ground that he has not made any disclosure about the residential accommodation available with him which premises were admittedly not owned by him.</p><p>12. The short question which arises for decision in this petition is whether the landlord was guilty of suppressing and withholding such relevant facts which would disentitle him from seeking eviction of the tenant. To appreciate these contentions it would be necessary to refer to relevant portion of Section 14(3) of the Act:</p><p>Section 14:</p><p>1 and 2 xxxxxxxxxxx</p><p>(3) A landlord may apply to the Controller for an order directing the tenant to put the landlord in possession-</p><p>(a) in case of residential building, if</p><p>(i) he required it for his own occupation:</p><p>Provided that he is not occupying another residential building owned by him, in the urban area concerned:</p><p>Provided further that he has not vacated such a building without sufficient cause within five years of the filing of the application, in the said urban area....</p><p>13. A perusal of the bare provisions of the Act makes it clear that there are certain essential ingredients which the landlord must satisfy before seeking eviction of the tenant under the Act. Not only must he prove that the residential building is bona fide required by him for his own use and occupation but he must also plead and prove that he is not occupying any other residential building owned by him in the urban area concerned and further that he has not vacated such a building without sufficient cause within 5 years of the filing of the application.</p><p>14. Reference may now be made to the relevant allegations made in para 18 of the eviction petition:</p><p>(ii) That the petitioner bona fide requires the premises for his own use and occupation and also for the use and occupation of his family.</p><p>The petitioner does not own or possess any other such building within the urban area of Simla nor the petitioner has vacated any such premises within five years of the filing of this petition.</p><p>The family of the petitioner presently consists of himself and his wife. Due to paucity of accommodation the petitioner has not been able to keep his wife with himself at Simla, where he is working as an Engineer and she has been residing at Chandigarh since 1991 but on account of her ill health she has been brought to Simla by the petitioner. The petitioner at present is seeking temporary shelter, from time to time, with his relations.</p><p>15. The learned Appellate Authority came to the conclusion that the landlord had falsely pleaded that he does not own or possess any other such building within the urban area of Shimla and hence rejected the eviction petition on this ground.</p><p>16. On a close analysis of the proviso to Section 14(3)(a)(i) of the Act it is clear that a landlord is not entitled to seek eviction of a tenant from residential building even in case of bona fide requirement if the landlord is occupying another residential building owned by him in the urban area concerned. One can read three essential ingredients in this proviso i.e. (i) that the landlord is in occupation of another residential building; (ii) that the said residential building is owned by him and (iii) that the said residential building is situated in the concerned urban area.</p><p>17. The question that arises is what is the impact of the landlord not making a disclosure in respect of premises which he is occupying but are not owned by him.</p><p>18. The Apex Court in Onkar Nath v. Ved Vyas ILR 1979 HP 1, held as follows:</p><p>It is common ground that there are three requirements to make out a cause of action for eviction under that provision, and indeed this is apparent from a bare reading of the sub-section. In the present case the finding is to the effect that the landlord requires the residential building for his own occupation. But, the legislation has taken care to insist upon two more conditions, namely; (a) that the landlord is not occupying any other residential building in the area concerned; and (b) that he has not vacated such a building without sufficient cause. There is not a scintilla of evidence nor indeed there is any averment in compliance with these latter conditions. The necessary consequence follows that not merely is there inadequacy of pleadings sufficient to make out a cause of action but total absence of proof of two vital requirements....</p><p>The Supreme Court also said that:.The statute benignly designed to protect tenants from unreasonable evictions has taken case to put restrictions which must be rigorously construed to fulfil the purpose of the statute.</p><p>19. Following the aforesaid judgment and other pronouncements of the Apex Court, a learned Single Judge of this Court in Tara Chand Sharma v. Baij Nath and Ors. 1992 (2) R.C.J. 323, held as follows:</p><p>16. What appears as the legislative intent, in bold relief, is that the landlord, while seeking eviction of a tenant on the ground that he needs a residential building for his own occupation, must come out clearly and honestly with facts relating to the requirement that he is not occupying another residential building owned by him, in the urban area concerned and that he had not vacated such a building without sufficient cause within five years of the filing of the application, in the said urban area. The primal burden of making a clear disclosure would lie upon the landlord, for, the true facts would be in his special knowledge. An order in his favour by the Rent Controller would depend upon the satisfaction of the Rent Controller in regard not only to the claim that the landlord requires the accommodation, from which he wishes to evict a tenant, for his own occupation but also that he was not occupying another residential building owned by him nor had he vacated such building without sufficient cause within five years of the filing of the application in the application in the urban area concerned....</p><p>It was further held as under:</p><p>18. That the landlord should make a full disclosure of the relevant facts, pertaining to the requirements of Sub-section (3)(a)(i) and the two provisos, becomes all the more necessary because the satisfaction of the Rent Controller in regard thereto is the condition precedent for the making of an order in favour of the landlord....</p><p>20. The aforesaid judgment has been followed in a number of other cases including Vijay Kapoor v. Maya Ram 1997 (2) RCR 437, wherein another learned single Judge of this Court following the aforesaid judgment held that the landlord must make complete and proper disclosure of all the material facts.</p><p>21. On the other hand Sh. Ramakant Sharma has relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in Ram Narain Arora v. Asha Rani 1998(2) RCR 268. In that case the Rent Controller came to the conclusion that the landlord had suppressed material information and had not disclosed the fact that he was already in occupation of a house in Subji Mandi. Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act reads as follows:</p><p>Section 14(1)(e). That the premises let for residential purposes are required bona fide by the landlord for occupation as a residence for himself or for any member of his family dependent on him, if he is the owner thereof, or for any person for whose benefit the premises are held and that the landlord or such person has no other reasonably suitable residential accommodation.</p><p>22. The difference between Delhi Act and the present Act is that under the Delhi Act the only requirement is that the landlord has no other reasonably suitable accommodation whereas under the Himachal Act the residential premises are required to be owned by the landlord. The Apex Court in Rama Narain Arora's case (supra) held that the nondisclosure of the fact that the landlord was in occupation of certain premises in Subji Mandi was.not a ground to non-suit the landlord in view of the facts and circumstances of the case. The Apex Court held as follows:</p><p>9. In making a claim that the suit premises is required bona fide for his own occupation as a residence for himself and other members of his family dependent on him and that he has no other reasonably suitable accommodation is a requirement of law before the Court can state whether the landlord requires the premises bona fide for his use and occupation. In doing so, the Court must also find out whether the landlord or such other person for whose benefit the premises is required has no other reasonably suitable residential accommodation. It cannot be said that the requirement of the landlord is not intermixed with the question of finding out whether he has any other reasonably suitable accommodation. If he has other reasonably suitable accommodation, ihen necessarily it would mean that he does not require the suit premises and his requirement may not be bona fide. In such circumstances further inquiry would be whether that premises is more suitable than the suit premises. Therefore, the questions raised before the Court would not necessarily depend upon only the pleadings. It could be a good defence that the landlord has other reasonably suitable residential accommodation and thereby defend the claim of the landlord.</p><p>10. There cannot be a pedantic or a dogmatic approach in the matter of analysis of pleadings or of the evidence adduced thereto. It is no doubt true that if the pleadings are clearly set out, it would be easy for the Court to decide the matters. But if the pleadings are lacking or vague and if both parties have understood what was the case pleaded and put forth with reference to requirement of law and placed such material before the Court, neither party is prejudiced. If we analyse from this angle, we do not think that the High Court was not justified in interfering with the order made by the Rent Controller.</p><p>23. From the perusal of the judgment of the Apex Court it is apparent that the Rent Controller must approach the matter in a practical manner. In case the non-disclosure is such as that it goes to the very root of the case the Rent Controller would be justified in non-suiting the landlord. However, if the non-disclosure is such that it would not prejudice the rights of the respondent then the landlord should not be non-suited only on this ground.</p><p>24. The decisions of this Court cited hereinabove were delivered prior to the judgment delivered by the Apex Court in Ram Nar'ain Arora's case. Further more both in Tara Chand Sharma's case and Vijay Kapoor's case decided by this Court, no averment had been made ixi respect of other residential buildings owned by a landlord. There was complete non-disclosure as to whether any such residential building owned by the landlord was in his possession or not. In the present case, as I have held above, the residential premises at 31, The Mall, Shimla was not owned by the landlord and hence these two earlier judgments of this Court are distinguishable on facts also.</p><p>25. In the present case, the landlord has been non-suited only on the ground that he did not disclose the fact that he was in occupation of certain premises on the Mall Road. Under law he was not required to disclose this fact. He was only required to disclose the factum of occupying another residential building owned by him in the urban area concerned. True it may be, that it would have been better if the landlord had disclosed all the facts but non-disclosure of a fact which he was not under law required to disclose could not in my opinion be a ground to dismiss his eviction petition.</p><p>26. However, what are the premises in his occupation even as a tenant can be taken into consideration while deciding the question whether he bona fide requires the demised premises for his personal use or occupation or not.</p><p>27. Lastly comes the question with regard to the bona fide requirement of the landlord. The landlord has no children. According to the landlord as well as his other witnesses i.e. his brother-in-law PW-2 and his wife PW-3, the wife now wants to come back and settle in Shimla. There is no reason to disbelieve their statements. Even according to the evidence led by the tenant the accommodation in possession of the landlord consists of two rooms, kitchen, bath room etc. Admittedly, the landlord is also having his office as an Architect in this building. The landlord belongs to the middle class of the Society. It cannot be expected of a landlord who owns sufficient property to reside in a two room set wherein he also runs his office.</p><p>28. The law by now is well settled that the landlord is the best judge of the suitability of the accommodation required by him. This suitability has however to be judged in the context of reasonable expectations. The landlord and his wife who are both well educated can reasonably be expected to entertain guests and they will have visitors to their house. They would obviously require a drawing room, a bed room and a spare bed room for guests. Even at his residence the landlord may require another room for his professional work. This is the minimum accommodation which they would require. Even if the accommodation possessed by the landlord, though not owned by him, at 31, the Mall, Shimla is taken into consideration such accommodation is not sufficient to meet his requirements since admittedly the landlord is running his profession of Architect from some portion of his these premises.</p><p>29. Keeping in view the entire facts and circumstances, I am of the considered view that the learned Appellate Authority gravely erred in rejecting the eviction petition of the landlord solely on the ground that he had not disclosed the factum of being in possession of the premises at 31, the Mall Shimla. Even though I have held that the said premises are residential premises, in view of the above discussion I hold that the landlord cannot be non-suited only on the ground of his being in possession of such premises since same were not owned by him.</p><p>30. In view of the above discussion, the Revision Petition is allowed, the order of the learned Appellate Authority dated 6.5.2003 is seaside and the order of the Rent Controller dated 22.8.2001 is restored.</p><p>31. Keeping in view the fact that the tenant has been in possession of the premises for a long period he is granted time up to 31st October, 2008 to vacate the premises.</p><p>32. No order as to costs.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '2008(2)ShimLC491',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'Shri S.L. Srivastava',
		'sub' => 'Tenancy',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'shri-arun-bhanwara-vs-s-l-srivastava'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '891084',
	(int) 1 => 'shri-arun-bhanwara-vs-s-l-srivastava'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/891084/shri-arun-bhanwara-vs-s-l-srivastava'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$caseref = 'Ram Narain Arora v. Asha Rani<br>'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>Deepak Gupta, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. This Revision Petition under Section 25(5) of the H.P. Urban Rent Control Act, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) is directed against the order of the learned Appellate Authority, Shimla in CMA No. 60-S/14 of 2001 whereby the appeal filed by the respondent (hereinafter referred to as the tenant) has been allowed, the order of the Rent Controller has been set-aside and the petition for eviction filed by the present petitioner (hereinafter referred to as the Landlord) on the ground of personal bona fide requirement has been set-aside.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. The undisputed facts are that the landlord is owner of the demised premises situated in building known as Tunnel View, Sanjauli, Shimla-6 consisting of two bed rooms with attached bath room and latrine, drawing-cum-dining room, kitchen and balcony. These premises were purchased by the landlord in the year 1986. Thereafter, the landlord had rented out the premises to one Sh. B.K. Chauhan. According to the landlord, when he got married he requested Sh. B.K. Chauhan to vacate the said premises. Sh. Chauhan vacated the said premises but admittedly the landlord did not occupy the same but rented out the same to the tenant in the year 1990.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. In the year 1997 the landlord filed a petition for eviction of the tenant on two grounds; firstly that the tenant is in arrears of rent from 1.11.1990 to 31.7.1997 and secondly that the premises are bona fide required by the landlord for the use and occupation of himself and his family.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>4. This petition was contested by the tenant. After trial, the Rent Controller ordered the eviction of the tenant on two grounds; (i) that the tenant was in arrears of rent from November, 1999 till date of order i.e. 22nd August, 2001 and (ii) that the landlord required the premises for his own use and occupation.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>5. The tenant deposited the rent within the time prescribed. He also filed an appeal challenging the finding on the issue of bona fide requirement. The learned Appellate Authority came to the conclusion that the landlord had not made a proper and full disclosure of facts as required under the provisions of the Act and had withheld material facts from the Court viz. that the landlord was in occupation of residential premises on 31, Mall Road in the urban area of Shimla and as such rejected this petition on this short ground.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>6. Aggrieved by the said order, the landlord has filed the present Revision Petition.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>7. I have heard Sh. Ramakant Sharma, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sh. Bhupinder Gupta, learned senior Counsel for the tenant.',
	(int) 8 => '<p>8. It has been urged on behalf of the landlord that the building which is alleged to be in possession of the landlord i.e. 31, the Mall Shimla is not a residential building and secondly that the building is not owned by him.',
	(int) 9 => '<p>9. On the other hand Sh. Bhupinder Gupta, learned Counsel of the tenant has strenuously urged that the landlord in para 18 has not stated anything about any building being owned by him and has only made an averment that he does not own or possess any other such building within the urban area Shimla. It is contended by Sh. Bhupinder Gupta that the landlord of his own volition did not state anything about the ownership of the building and since he has kept silent about the building which he is in occupation he has made a false averment and therefore his petition for eviction has rightly been rejected.',
	(int) 10 => '<p>10. I am not at all in agreement with the contention of the landlord that the premises known as 31, the Mall Shimla which are admittedly in the occupation of the landlord are commercial premises only and not being used by him for his residence. As pointed out above, the landlord purchased the demised premises in 1986. They fell vacant when he got married despite that he did not occupy the same and rented out the same to the tenant in the year 1990. The question that arises is where was the landlord living for this entire period. According to the landlord after the year 1994 he has been living with his brother-in-law Rajan (wife's brother) PW-2, since the year 1994. Prior to 1994 the landlord will have this Court to believe that he was living off and on with one friend or the other. This story is impossible to believe. The landlord was married in the year 1999. He is an Architect by profession. His wife is a law graduate. It is not believable that such a person would have no permanent abode and would continue to live as a guest with his friends for almost 5 years after his marriage. Even the story that he has been living with his brother-in-law after the year 1994 does not inspire confidence. It stands proved on record that the brother-in-law PW-2 Rajan lives with his own family i.e. wife and children. From the evidence it is also clear that the parents of the brother-in-law also reside with him, His flat consists of only two rooms. The flat in possession of the landlord at 31, the Mall Shimla, also consists of two rooms, kitchen and bath room. Even assuming that he was running an office in the part of the flat it cannot be believed that he would not live on his own flat on the Mall Road and reside with his brother-in-law in cramped premises. Even in the electoral list the landlord is shown to be a resident of 31, The Mall, Shimla. Therefore, I am of the considered view that the building 31, the Mall, Shimla was also being used as a residence by the landlord.',
	(int) 11 => '<p>11. Having held so, the question that arises is whether the landlord can be non-suited only on the ground that he has not made any disclosure about the residential accommodation available with him which premises were admittedly not owned by him.',
	(int) 12 => '<p>12. The short question which arises for decision in this petition is whether the landlord was guilty of suppressing and withholding such relevant facts which would disentitle him from seeking eviction of the tenant. To appreciate these contentions it would be necessary to refer to relevant portion of Section 14(3) of the Act:',
	(int) 13 => '<p>Section 14:',
	(int) 14 => '<p>1 and 2 xxxxxxxxxxx',
	(int) 15 => '<p>(3) A landlord may apply to the Controller for an order directing the tenant to put the landlord in possession-',
	(int) 16 => '<p>(a) in case of residential building, if',
	(int) 17 => '<p>(i) he required it for his own occupation:',
	(int) 18 => '<p>Provided that he is not occupying another residential building owned by him, in the urban area concerned:',
	(int) 19 => '<p>Provided further that he has not vacated such a building without sufficient cause within five years of the filing of the application, in the said urban area....',
	(int) 20 => '<p>13. A perusal of the bare provisions of the Act makes it clear that there are certain essential ingredients which the landlord must satisfy before seeking eviction of the tenant under the Act. Not only must he prove that the residential building is bona fide required by him for his own use and occupation but he must also plead and prove that he is not occupying any other residential building owned by him in the urban area concerned and further that he has not vacated such a building without sufficient cause within 5 years of the filing of the application.',
	(int) 21 => '<p>14. Reference may now be made to the relevant allegations made in para 18 of the eviction petition:',
	(int) 22 => '<p>(ii) That the petitioner bona fide requires the premises for his own use and occupation and also for the use and occupation of his family.',
	(int) 23 => '<p>The petitioner does not own or possess any other such building within the urban area of Simla nor the petitioner has vacated any such premises within five years of the filing of this petition.',
	(int) 24 => '<p>The family of the petitioner presently consists of himself and his wife. Due to paucity of accommodation the petitioner has not been able to keep his wife with himself at Simla, where he is working as an Engineer and she has been residing at Chandigarh since 1991 but on account of her ill health she has been brought to Simla by the petitioner. The petitioner at present is seeking temporary shelter, from time to time, with his relations.',
	(int) 25 => '<p>15. The learned Appellate Authority came to the conclusion that the landlord had falsely pleaded that he does not own or possess any other such building within the urban area of Shimla and hence rejected the eviction petition on this ground.',
	(int) 26 => '<p>16. On a close analysis of the proviso to Section 14(3)(a)(i) of the Act it is clear that a landlord is not entitled to seek eviction of a tenant from residential building even in case of bona fide requirement if the landlord is occupying another residential building owned by him in the urban area concerned. One can read three essential ingredients in this proviso i.e. (i) that the landlord is in occupation of another residential building; (ii) that the said residential building is owned by him and (iii) that the said residential building is situated in the concerned urban area.',
	(int) 27 => '<p>17. The question that arises is what is the impact of the landlord not making a disclosure in respect of premises which he is occupying but are not owned by him.',
	(int) 28 => '<p>18. The Apex Court in Onkar Nath v. Ved Vyas ILR 1979 HP 1, held as follows:',
	(int) 29 => '<p>It is common ground that there are three requirements to make out a cause of action for eviction under that provision, and indeed this is apparent from a bare reading of the sub-section. In the present case the finding is to the effect that the landlord requires the residential building for his own occupation. But, the legislation has taken care to insist upon two more conditions, namely; (a) that the landlord is not occupying any other residential building in the area concerned; and (b) that he has not vacated such a building without sufficient cause. There is not a scintilla of evidence nor indeed there is any averment in compliance with these latter conditions. The necessary consequence follows that not merely is there inadequacy of pleadings sufficient to make out a cause of action but total absence of proof of two vital requirements....',
	(int) 30 => '<p>The Supreme Court also said that:.The statute benignly designed to protect tenants from unreasonable evictions has taken case to put restrictions which must be rigorously construed to fulfil the purpose of the statute.',
	(int) 31 => '<p>19. Following the aforesaid judgment and other pronouncements of the Apex Court, a learned Single Judge of this Court in Tara Chand Sharma v. Baij Nath and Ors. 1992 (2) R.C.J. 323, held as follows:',
	(int) 32 => '<p>16. What appears as the legislative intent, in bold relief, is that the landlord, while seeking eviction of a tenant on the ground that he needs a residential building for his own occupation, must come out clearly and honestly with facts relating to the requirement that he is not occupying another residential building owned by him, in the urban area concerned and that he had not vacated such a building without sufficient cause within five years of the filing of the application, in the said urban area. The primal burden of making a clear disclosure would lie upon the landlord, for, the true facts would be in his special knowledge. An order in his favour by the Rent Controller would depend upon the satisfaction of the Rent Controller in regard not only to the claim that the landlord requires the accommodation, from which he wishes to evict a tenant, for his own occupation but also that he was not occupying another residential building owned by him nor had he vacated such building without sufficient cause within five years of the filing of the application in the application in the urban area concerned....',
	(int) 33 => '<p>It was further held as under:',
	(int) 34 => '<p>18. That the landlord should make a full disclosure of the relevant facts, pertaining to the requirements of Sub-section (3)(a)(i) and the two provisos, becomes all the more necessary because the satisfaction of the Rent Controller in regard thereto is the condition precedent for the making of an order in favour of the landlord....',
	(int) 35 => '<p>20. The aforesaid judgment has been followed in a number of other cases including Vijay Kapoor v. Maya Ram 1997 (2) RCR 437, wherein another learned single Judge of this Court following the aforesaid judgment held that the landlord must make complete and proper disclosure of all the material facts.',
	(int) 36 => '<p>21. On the other hand Sh. Ramakant Sharma has relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in Ram Narain Arora v. Asha Rani 1998(2) RCR 268. In that case the Rent Controller came to the conclusion that the landlord had suppressed material information and had not disclosed the fact that he was already in occupation of a house in Subji Mandi. Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act reads as follows:',
	(int) 37 => '<p>Section 14(1)(e). That the premises let for residential purposes are required bona fide by the landlord for occupation as a residence for himself or for any member of his family dependent on him, if he is the owner thereof, or for any person for whose benefit the premises are held and that the landlord or such person has no other reasonably suitable residential accommodation.',
	(int) 38 => '<p>22. The difference between Delhi Act and the present Act is that under the Delhi Act the only requirement is that the landlord has no other reasonably suitable accommodation whereas under the Himachal Act the residential premises are required to be owned by the landlord. The Apex Court in Rama Narain Arora's case (supra) held that the nondisclosure of the fact that the landlord was in occupation of certain premises in Subji Mandi was.not a ground to non-suit the landlord in view of the facts and circumstances of the case. The Apex Court held as follows:',
	(int) 39 => '<p>9. In making a claim that the suit premises is required bona fide for his own occupation as a residence for himself and other members of his family dependent on him and that he has no other reasonably suitable accommodation is a requirement of law before the Court can state whether the landlord requires the premises bona fide for his use and occupation. In doing so, the Court must also find out whether the landlord or such other person for whose benefit the premises is required has no other reasonably suitable residential accommodation. It cannot be said that the requirement of the landlord is not intermixed with the question of finding out whether he has any other reasonably suitable accommodation. If he has other reasonably suitable accommodation, ihen necessarily it would mean that he does not require the suit premises and his requirement may not be bona fide. In such circumstances further inquiry would be whether that premises is more suitable than the suit premises. Therefore, the questions raised before the Court would not necessarily depend upon only the pleadings. It could be a good defence that the landlord has other reasonably suitable residential accommodation and thereby defend the claim of the landlord.',
	(int) 40 => '<p>10. There cannot be a pedantic or a dogmatic approach in the matter of analysis of pleadings or of the evidence adduced thereto. It is no doubt true that if the pleadings are clearly set out, it would be easy for the Court to decide the matters. But if the pleadings are lacking or vague and if both parties have understood what was the case pleaded and put forth with reference to requirement of law and placed such material before the Court, neither party is prejudiced. If we analyse from this angle, we do not think that the High Court was not justified in interfering with the order made by the Rent Controller.',
	(int) 41 => '<p>23. From the perusal of the judgment of the Apex Court it is apparent that the Rent Controller must approach the matter in a practical manner. In case the non-disclosure is such as that it goes to the very root of the case the Rent Controller would be justified in non-suiting the landlord. However, if the non-disclosure is such that it would not prejudice the rights of the respondent then the landlord should not be non-suited only on this ground.',
	(int) 42 => '<p>24. The decisions of this Court cited hereinabove were delivered prior to the judgment delivered by the Apex Court in Ram Nar'ain Arora's case. Further more both in Tara Chand Sharma's case and Vijay Kapoor's case decided by this Court, no averment had been made ixi respect of other residential buildings owned by a landlord. There was complete non-disclosure as to whether any such residential building owned by the landlord was in his possession or not. In the present case, as I have held above, the residential premises at 31, The Mall, Shimla was not owned by the landlord and hence these two earlier judgments of this Court are distinguishable on facts also.',
	(int) 43 => '<p>25. In the present case, the landlord has been non-suited only on the ground that he did not disclose the fact that he was in occupation of certain premises on the Mall Road. Under law he was not required to disclose this fact. He was only required to disclose the factum of occupying another residential building owned by him in the urban area concerned. True it may be, that it would have been better if the landlord had disclosed all the facts but non-disclosure of a fact which he was not under law required to disclose could not in my opinion be a ground to dismiss his eviction petition.',
	(int) 44 => '<p>26. However, what are the premises in his occupation even as a tenant can be taken into consideration while deciding the question whether he bona fide requires the demised premises for his personal use or occupation or not.',
	(int) 45 => '<p>27. Lastly comes the question with regard to the bona fide requirement of the landlord. The landlord has no children. According to the landlord as well as his other witnesses i.e. his brother-in-law PW-2 and his wife PW-3, the wife now wants to come back and settle in Shimla. There is no reason to disbelieve their statements. Even according to the evidence led by the tenant the accommodation in possession of the landlord consists of two rooms, kitchen, bath room etc. Admittedly, the landlord is also having his office as an Architect in this building. The landlord belongs to the middle class of the Society. It cannot be expected of a landlord who owns sufficient property to reside in a two room set wherein he also runs his office.',
	(int) 46 => '<p>28. The law by now is well settled that the landlord is the best judge of the suitability of the accommodation required by him. This suitability has however to be judged in the context of reasonable expectations. The landlord and his wife who are both well educated can reasonably be expected to entertain guests and they will have visitors to their house. They would obviously require a drawing room, a bed room and a spare bed room for guests. Even at his residence the landlord may require another room for his professional work. This is the minimum accommodation which they would require. Even if the accommodation possessed by the landlord, though not owned by him, at 31, the Mall, Shimla is taken into consideration such accommodation is not sufficient to meet his requirements since admittedly the landlord is running his profession of Architect from some portion of his these premises.',
	(int) 47 => '<p>29. Keeping in view the entire facts and circumstances, I am of the considered view that the learned Appellate Authority gravely erred in rejecting the eviction petition of the landlord solely on the ground that he had not disclosed the factum of being in possession of the premises at 31, the Mall Shimla. Even though I have held that the said premises are residential premises, in view of the above discussion I hold that the landlord cannot be non-suited only on the ground of his being in possession of such premises since same were not owned by him.',
	(int) 48 => '<p>30. In view of the above discussion, the Revision Petition is allowed, the order of the learned Appellate Authority dated 6.5.2003 is seaside and the order of the Rent Controller dated 22.8.2001 is restored.',
	(int) 49 => '<p>31. Keeping in view the fact that the tenant has been in possession of the premises for a long period he is granted time up to 31st October, 2008 to vacate the premises.',
	(int) 50 => '<p>32. No order as to costs.<p>',
	(int) 51 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 52
$i = (int) 3
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

3. In the year 1997 the landlord filed a petition for eviction of the tenant on two grounds; firstly that the tenant is in arrears of rent from 1.11.1990 to 31.7.1997 and secondly that the premises are bona fide required by the landlord for the use and occupation of himself and his family.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Shri Arun Bhanwara Vs Shri S L Srivastava - Citation 891084 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '891084',
			'acts' => '',
			'appealno' => '',
			'appellant' => 'Shri Arun Bhanwara',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Shri Arun Bhanwara Vs. Shri S.L. Srivastava',
			'casenote' => ' - CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908.[C.A. No. 5/1908]. Order 14, Rule 2 [As amended by Amending Act of 1976]: [V.K. Gupta, CJ, Deepak Gupta & Surjit Singh, JJ] Preliminary issue of law and fact  Court framing all issues both of law and facts together and also  tried all the issues together, including the issue relating to jurisdiction of Court  Held, Except in situations perceived or warranted under sub-rule (2) of Rule 2 of Order 14 where a  Court in fact frames only issues of law in the first instance and postpones settlement of other issues, clearly and explicitly in situations where the Court has framed all issues together, both of law as well as facts and has also tried all these issues together, it is not open to the Court to adopt the principle of severability and proceed to decide issues of law first, without taking up simultaneously other issues for decision. This course of action is not available to a Court because sub-rule (1) does not permit the  Court to adopt any such principle of severability and to dispose of a suit only on preliminary issues, or what can be termed as issues of law. Sub-rule (1)  clearly mandates that in a situation contemplated under it, where all the issues have been together and have also been taken up for adjudication during the course of the trial, these must be decided together and the judgment in the suit as a whole must be pronounced by the Court covering all the issues framed in the suit.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => 'Ram Narain Arora v. Asha Rani;',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => '',
			'counseldef' => '',
			'court' => 'Himachal Pradesh',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2008-07-31',
			'deposition' => 'Petition allowed',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => ' Deepak Gupta, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">Deepak Gupta, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. This Revision Petition under Section 25(5) of the H.P. Urban Rent Control Act, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) is directed against the order of the learned Appellate Authority, Shimla in CMA No. 60-S/14 of 2001 whereby the appeal filed by the respondent (hereinafter referred to as the tenant) has been allowed, the order of the Rent Controller has been set-aside and the petition for eviction filed by the present petitioner (hereinafter referred to as the Landlord) on the ground of personal bona fide requirement has been set-aside.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The undisputed facts are that the landlord is owner of the demised premises situated in building known as Tunnel View, Sanjauli, Shimla-6 consisting of two bed rooms with attached bath room and latrine, drawing-cum-dining room, kitchen and balcony. These premises were purchased by the landlord in the year 1986. Thereafter, the landlord had rented out the premises to one Sh. B.K. Chauhan. According to the landlord, when he got married he requested Sh. B.K. Chauhan to vacate the said premises. Sh. Chauhan vacated the said premises but admittedly the landlord did not occupy the same but rented out the same to the tenant in the year 1990.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. In the year 1997 the landlord filed a petition for eviction of the tenant on two grounds; firstly that the tenant is in arrears of rent from 1.11.1990 to 31.7.1997 and secondly that the premises are bona fide required by the landlord for the use and occupation of himself and his family.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. This petition was contested by the tenant. After trial, the Rent Controller ordered the eviction of the tenant on two grounds; (i) that the tenant was in arrears of rent from November, 1999 till date of order i.e. 22nd August, 2001 and (ii) that the landlord required the premises for his own use and occupation.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. The tenant deposited the rent within the time prescribed. He also filed an appeal challenging the finding on the issue of bona fide requirement. The learned Appellate Authority came to the conclusion that the landlord had not made a proper and full disclosure of facts as required under the provisions of the Act and had withheld material facts from the Court viz. that the landlord was in occupation of residential premises on 31, Mall Road in the urban area of Shimla and as such rejected this petition on this short ground.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. Aggrieved by the said order, the landlord has filed the present Revision Petition.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. I have heard Sh. Ramakant Sharma, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sh. Bhupinder Gupta, learned senior Counsel for the tenant.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. It has been urged on behalf of the landlord that the building which is alleged to be in possession of the landlord i.e. 31, the Mall Shimla is not a residential building and secondly that the building is not owned by him.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. On the other hand Sh. Bhupinder Gupta, learned Counsel of the tenant has strenuously urged that the landlord in para 18 has not stated anything about any building being owned by him and has only made an averment that he does not own or possess any other such building within the urban area Shimla. It is contended by Sh. Bhupinder Gupta that the landlord of his own volition did not state anything about the ownership of the building and since he has kept silent about the building which he is in occupation he has made a false averment and therefore his petition for eviction has rightly been rejected.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. I am not at all in agreement with the contention of the landlord that the premises known as 31, the Mall Shimla which are admittedly in the occupation of the landlord are commercial premises only and not being used by him for his residence. As pointed out above, the landlord purchased the demised premises in 1986. They fell vacant when he got married despite that he did not occupy the same and rented out the same to the tenant in the year 1990. The question that arises is where was the landlord living for this entire period. According to the landlord after the year 1994 he has been living with his brother-in-law Rajan (wife's brother) PW-2, since the year 1994. Prior to 1994 the landlord will have this Court to believe that he was living off and on with one friend or the other. This story is impossible to believe. The landlord was married in the year 1999. He is an Architect by profession. His wife is a law graduate. It is not believable that such a person would have no permanent abode and would continue to live as a guest with his friends for almost 5 years after his marriage. Even the story that he has been living with his brother-in-law after the year 1994 does not inspire confidence. It stands proved on record that the brother-in-law PW-2 Rajan lives with his own family i.e. wife and children. From the evidence it is also clear that the parents of the brother-in-law also reside with him, His flat consists of only two rooms. The flat in possession of the landlord at 31, the Mall Shimla, also consists of two rooms, kitchen and bath room. Even assuming that he was running an office in the part of the flat it cannot be believed that he would not live on his own flat on the Mall Road and reside with his brother-in-law in cramped premises. Even in the electoral list the landlord is shown to be a resident of 31, The Mall, Shimla. Therefore, I am of the considered view that the building 31, the Mall, Shimla was also being used as a residence by the landlord.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. Having held so, the question that arises is whether the landlord can be non-suited only on the ground that he has not made any disclosure about the residential accommodation available with him which premises were admittedly not owned by him.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. The short question which arises for decision in this petition is whether the landlord was guilty of suppressing and withholding such relevant facts which would disentitle him from seeking eviction of the tenant. To appreciate these contentions it would be necessary to refer to relevant portion of Section 14(3) of the Act:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Section 14:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1 and 2 xxxxxxxxxxx</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(3) A landlord may apply to the Controller for an order directing the tenant to put the landlord in possession-</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(a) in case of residential building, if</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(i) he required it for his own occupation:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Provided that he is not occupying another residential building owned by him, in the urban area concerned:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Provided further that he has not vacated such a building without sufficient cause within five years of the filing of the application, in the said urban area....</p><p style="text-align: justify;">13. A perusal of the bare provisions of the Act makes it clear that there are certain essential ingredients which the landlord must satisfy before seeking eviction of the tenant under the Act. Not only must he prove that the residential building is bona fide required by him for his own use and occupation but he must also plead and prove that he is not occupying any other residential building owned by him in the urban area concerned and further that he has not vacated such a building without sufficient cause within 5 years of the filing of the application.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">14. Reference may now be made to the relevant allegations made in para 18 of the eviction petition:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(ii) That the petitioner bona fide requires the premises for his own use and occupation and also for the use and occupation of his family.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The petitioner does not own or possess any other such building within the urban area of Simla nor the petitioner has vacated any such premises within five years of the filing of this petition.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The family of the petitioner presently consists of himself and his wife. Due to paucity of accommodation the petitioner has not been able to keep his wife with himself at Simla, where he is working as an Engineer and she has been residing at Chandigarh since 1991 but on account of her ill health she has been brought to Simla by the petitioner. The petitioner at present is seeking temporary shelter, from time to time, with his relations.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">15. The learned Appellate Authority came to the conclusion that the landlord had falsely pleaded that he does not own or possess any other such building within the urban area of Shimla and hence rejected the eviction petition on this ground.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">16. On a close analysis of the proviso to Section 14(3)(a)(i) of the Act it is clear that a landlord is not entitled to seek eviction of a tenant from residential building even in case of bona fide requirement if the landlord is occupying another residential building owned by him in the urban area concerned. One can read three essential ingredients in this proviso i.e. (i) that the landlord is in occupation of another residential building; (ii) that the said residential building is owned by him and (iii) that the said residential building is situated in the concerned urban area.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">17. The question that arises is what is the impact of the landlord not making a disclosure in respect of premises which he is occupying but are not owned by him.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">18. The Apex Court in Onkar Nath v. Ved Vyas ILR 1979 HP 1, held as follows:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">It is common ground that there are three requirements to make out a cause of action for eviction under that provision, and indeed this is apparent from a bare reading of the sub-section. In the present case the finding is to the effect that the landlord requires the residential building for his own occupation. But, the legislation has taken care to insist upon two more conditions, namely; (a) that the landlord is not occupying any other residential building in the area concerned; and (b) that he has not vacated such a building without sufficient cause. There is not a scintilla of evidence nor indeed there is any averment in compliance with these latter conditions. The necessary consequence follows that not merely is there inadequacy of pleadings sufficient to make out a cause of action but total absence of proof of two vital requirements....</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The Supreme Court also said that:.The statute benignly designed to protect tenants from unreasonable evictions has taken case to put restrictions which must be rigorously construed to fulfil the purpose of the statute.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">19. Following the aforesaid judgment and other pronouncements of the Apex Court, a learned Single Judge of this Court in Tara Chand Sharma v. Baij Nath and Ors. 1992 (2) R.C.J. 323, held as follows:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">16. What appears as the legislative intent, in bold relief, is that the landlord, while seeking eviction of a tenant on the ground that he needs a residential building for his own occupation, must come out clearly and honestly with facts relating to the requirement that he is not occupying another residential building owned by him, in the urban area concerned and that he had not vacated such a building without sufficient cause within five years of the filing of the application, in the said urban area. The primal burden of making a clear disclosure would lie upon the landlord, for, the true facts would be in his special knowledge. An order in his favour by the Rent Controller would depend upon the satisfaction of the Rent Controller in regard not only to the claim that the landlord requires the accommodation, from which he wishes to evict a tenant, for his own occupation but also that he was not occupying another residential building owned by him nor had he vacated such building without sufficient cause within five years of the filing of the application in the application in the urban area concerned....</p><p style="text-align: justify;">It was further held as under:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">18. That the landlord should make a full disclosure of the relevant facts, pertaining to the requirements of Sub-section (3)(a)(i) and the two provisos, becomes all the more necessary because the satisfaction of the Rent Controller in regard thereto is the condition precedent for the making of an order in favour of the landlord....</p><p style="text-align: justify;">20. The aforesaid judgment has been followed in a number of other cases including Vijay Kapoor v. Maya Ram 1997 (2) RCR 437, wherein another learned single Judge of this Court following the aforesaid judgment held that the landlord must make complete and proper disclosure of all the material facts.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">21. On the other hand Sh. Ramakant Sharma has relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in Ram Narain Arora v. Asha Rani 1998(2) RCR 268. In that case the Rent Controller came to the conclusion that the landlord had suppressed material information and had not disclosed the fact that he was already in occupation of a house in Subji Mandi. Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act reads as follows:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Section 14(1)(e). That the premises let for residential purposes are required bona fide by the landlord for occupation as a residence for himself or for any member of his family dependent on him, if he is the owner thereof, or for any person for whose benefit the premises are held and that the landlord or such person has no other reasonably suitable residential accommodation.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">22. The difference between Delhi Act and the present Act is that under the Delhi Act the only requirement is that the landlord has no other reasonably suitable accommodation whereas under the Himachal Act the residential premises are required to be owned by the landlord. The Apex Court in Rama Narain Arora's case (supra) held that the nondisclosure of the fact that the landlord was in occupation of certain premises in Subji Mandi was.not a ground to non-suit the landlord in view of the facts and circumstances of the case. The Apex Court held as follows:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. In making a claim that the suit premises is required bona fide for his own occupation as a residence for himself and other members of his family dependent on him and that he has no other reasonably suitable accommodation is a requirement of law before the Court can state whether the landlord requires the premises bona fide for his use and occupation. In doing so, the Court must also find out whether the landlord or such other person for whose benefit the premises is required has no other reasonably suitable residential accommodation. It cannot be said that the requirement of the landlord is not intermixed with the question of finding out whether he has any other reasonably suitable accommodation. If he has other reasonably suitable accommodation, ihen necessarily it would mean that he does not require the suit premises and his requirement may not be bona fide. In such circumstances further inquiry would be whether that premises is more suitable than the suit premises. Therefore, the questions raised before the Court would not necessarily depend upon only the pleadings. It could be a good defence that the landlord has other reasonably suitable residential accommodation and thereby defend the claim of the landlord.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. There cannot be a pedantic or a dogmatic approach in the matter of analysis of pleadings or of the evidence adduced thereto. It is no doubt true that if the pleadings are clearly set out, it would be easy for the Court to decide the matters. But if the pleadings are lacking or vague and if both parties have understood what was the case pleaded and put forth with reference to requirement of law and placed such material before the Court, neither party is prejudiced. If we analyse from this angle, we do not think that the High Court was not justified in interfering with the order made by the Rent Controller.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">23. From the perusal of the judgment of the Apex Court it is apparent that the Rent Controller must approach the matter in a practical manner. In case the non-disclosure is such as that it goes to the very root of the case the Rent Controller would be justified in non-suiting the landlord. However, if the non-disclosure is such that it would not prejudice the rights of the respondent then the landlord should not be non-suited only on this ground.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">24. The decisions of this Court cited hereinabove were delivered prior to the judgment delivered by the Apex Court in Ram Nar'ain Arora's case. Further more both in Tara Chand Sharma's case and Vijay Kapoor's case decided by this Court, no averment had been made ixi respect of other residential buildings owned by a landlord. There was complete non-disclosure as to whether any such residential building owned by the landlord was in his possession or not. In the present case, as I have held above, the residential premises at 31, The Mall, Shimla was not owned by the landlord and hence these two earlier judgments of this Court are distinguishable on facts also.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">25. In the present case, the landlord has been non-suited only on the ground that he did not disclose the fact that he was in occupation of certain premises on the Mall Road. Under law he was not required to disclose this fact. He was only required to disclose the factum of occupying another residential building owned by him in the urban area concerned. True it may be, that it would have been better if the landlord had disclosed all the facts but non-disclosure of a fact which he was not under law required to disclose could not in my opinion be a ground to dismiss his eviction petition.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">26. However, what are the premises in his occupation even as a tenant can be taken into consideration while deciding the question whether he bona fide requires the demised premises for his personal use or occupation or not.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">27. Lastly comes the question with regard to the bona fide requirement of the landlord. The landlord has no children. According to the landlord as well as his other witnesses i.e. his brother-in-law PW-2 and his wife PW-3, the wife now wants to come back and settle in Shimla. There is no reason to disbelieve their statements. Even according to the evidence led by the tenant the accommodation in possession of the landlord consists of two rooms, kitchen, bath room etc. Admittedly, the landlord is also having his office as an Architect in this building. The landlord belongs to the middle class of the Society. It cannot be expected of a landlord who owns sufficient property to reside in a two room set wherein he also runs his office.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">28. The law by now is well settled that the landlord is the best judge of the suitability of the accommodation required by him. This suitability has however to be judged in the context of reasonable expectations. The landlord and his wife who are both well educated can reasonably be expected to entertain guests and they will have visitors to their house. They would obviously require a drawing room, a bed room and a spare bed room for guests. Even at his residence the landlord may require another room for his professional work. This is the minimum accommodation which they would require. Even if the accommodation possessed by the landlord, though not owned by him, at 31, the Mall, Shimla is taken into consideration such accommodation is not sufficient to meet his requirements since admittedly the landlord is running his profession of Architect from some portion of his these premises.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">29. Keeping in view the entire facts and circumstances, I am of the considered view that the learned Appellate Authority gravely erred in rejecting the eviction petition of the landlord solely on the ground that he had not disclosed the factum of being in possession of the premises at 31, the Mall Shimla. Even though I have held that the said premises are residential premises, in view of the above discussion I hold that the landlord cannot be non-suited only on the ground of his being in possession of such premises since same were not owned by him.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">30. In view of the above discussion, the Revision Petition is allowed, the order of the learned Appellate Authority dated 6.5.2003 is seaside and the order of the Rent Controller dated 22.8.2001 is restored.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">31. Keeping in view the fact that the tenant has been in possession of the premises for a long period he is granted time up to 31st October, 2008 to vacate the premises.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">32. No order as to costs.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '2008(2)ShimLC491',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'Shri S.L. Srivastava',
			'sub' => 'Tenancy',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'shri-arun-bhanwara-vs-s-l-srivastava',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '891084',
		(int) 1 => 'shri-arun-bhanwara-vs-s-l-srivastava'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Shri Arun Bhanwara Vs Shri S L Srivastava - Citation 891084 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '891084',
		'acts' => '',
		'appealno' => '',
		'appellant' => 'Shri Arun Bhanwara',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Shri Arun Bhanwara Vs. Shri S.L. Srivastava',
		'casenote' => ' - CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908.[C.A. No. 5/1908]. Order 14, Rule 2 [As amended by Amending Act of 1976]: [V.K. Gupta, CJ, Deepak Gupta & Surjit Singh, JJ] Preliminary issue of law and fact  Court framing all issues both of law and facts together and also  tried all the issues together, including the issue relating to jurisdiction of Court  Held, Except in situations perceived or warranted under sub-rule (2) of Rule 2 of Order 14 where a  Court in fact frames only issues of law in the first instance and postpones settlement of other issues, clearly and explicitly in situations where the Court has framed all issues together, both of law as well as facts and has also tried all these issues together, it is not open to the Court to adopt the principle of severability and proceed to decide issues of law first, without taking up simultaneously other issues for decision. This course of action is not available to a Court because sub-rule (1) does not permit the  Court to adopt any such principle of severability and to dispose of a suit only on preliminary issues, or what can be termed as issues of law. Sub-rule (1)  clearly mandates that in a situation contemplated under it, where all the issues have been together and have also been taken up for adjudication during the course of the trial, these must be decided together and the judgment in the suit as a whole must be pronounced by the Court covering all the issues framed in the suit.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => 'Ram Narain Arora v. Asha Rani;',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => '',
		'counseldef' => '',
		'court' => 'Himachal Pradesh',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2008-07-31',
		'deposition' => 'Petition allowed',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => ' Deepak Gupta, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>Deepak Gupta, J.</p><p>1. This Revision Petition under Section 25(5) of the H.P. Urban Rent Control Act, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) is directed against the order of the learned Appellate Authority, Shimla in CMA No. 60-S/14 of 2001 whereby the appeal filed by the respondent (hereinafter referred to as the tenant) has been allowed, the order of the Rent Controller has been set-aside and the petition for eviction filed by the present petitioner (hereinafter referred to as the Landlord) on the ground of personal bona fide requirement has been set-aside.</p><p>2. The undisputed facts are that the landlord is owner of the demised premises situated in building known as Tunnel View, Sanjauli, Shimla-6 consisting of two bed rooms with attached bath room and latrine, drawing-cum-dining room, kitchen and balcony. These premises were purchased by the landlord in the year 1986. Thereafter, the landlord had rented out the premises to one Sh. B.K. Chauhan. According to the landlord, when he got married he requested Sh. B.K. Chauhan to vacate the said premises. Sh. Chauhan vacated the said premises but admittedly the landlord did not occupy the same but rented out the same to the tenant in the year 1990.</p><p>3. In the year 1997 the landlord filed a petition for eviction of the tenant on two grounds; firstly that the tenant is in arrears of rent from 1.11.1990 to 31.7.1997 and secondly that the premises are bona fide required by the landlord for the use and occupation of himself and his family.</p><p>4. This petition was contested by the tenant. After trial, the Rent Controller ordered the eviction of the tenant on two grounds; (i) that the tenant was in arrears of rent from November, 1999 till date of order i.e. 22nd August, 2001 and (ii) that the landlord required the premises for his own use and occupation.</p><p>5. The tenant deposited the rent within the time prescribed. He also filed an appeal challenging the finding on the issue of bona fide requirement. The learned Appellate Authority came to the conclusion that the landlord had not made a proper and full disclosure of facts as required under the provisions of the Act and had withheld material facts from the Court viz. that the landlord was in occupation of residential premises on 31, Mall Road in the urban area of Shimla and as such rejected this petition on this short ground.</p><p>6. Aggrieved by the said order, the landlord has filed the present Revision Petition.</p><p>7. I have heard Sh. Ramakant Sharma, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sh. Bhupinder Gupta, learned senior Counsel for the tenant.</p><p>8. It has been urged on behalf of the landlord that the building which is alleged to be in possession of the landlord i.e. 31, the Mall Shimla is not a residential building and secondly that the building is not owned by him.</p><p>9. On the other hand Sh. Bhupinder Gupta, learned Counsel of the tenant has strenuously urged that the landlord in para 18 has not stated anything about any building being owned by him and has only made an averment that he does not own or possess any other such building within the urban area Shimla. It is contended by Sh. Bhupinder Gupta that the landlord of his own volition did not state anything about the ownership of the building and since he has kept silent about the building which he is in occupation he has made a false averment and therefore his petition for eviction has rightly been rejected.</p><p>10. I am not at all in agreement with the contention of the landlord that the premises known as 31, the Mall Shimla which are admittedly in the occupation of the landlord are commercial premises only and not being used by him for his residence. As pointed out above, the landlord purchased the demised premises in 1986. They fell vacant when he got married despite that he did not occupy the same and rented out the same to the tenant in the year 1990. The question that arises is where was the landlord living for this entire period. According to the landlord after the year 1994 he has been living with his brother-in-law Rajan (wife's brother) PW-2, since the year 1994. Prior to 1994 the landlord will have this Court to believe that he was living off and on with one friend or the other. This story is impossible to believe. The landlord was married in the year 1999. He is an Architect by profession. His wife is a law graduate. It is not believable that such a person would have no permanent abode and would continue to live as a guest with his friends for almost 5 years after his marriage. Even the story that he has been living with his brother-in-law after the year 1994 does not inspire confidence. It stands proved on record that the brother-in-law PW-2 Rajan lives with his own family i.e. wife and children. From the evidence it is also clear that the parents of the brother-in-law also reside with him, His flat consists of only two rooms. The flat in possession of the landlord at 31, the Mall Shimla, also consists of two rooms, kitchen and bath room. Even assuming that he was running an office in the part of the flat it cannot be believed that he would not live on his own flat on the Mall Road and reside with his brother-in-law in cramped premises. Even in the electoral list the landlord is shown to be a resident of 31, The Mall, Shimla. Therefore, I am of the considered view that the building 31, the Mall, Shimla was also being used as a residence by the landlord.</p><p>11. Having held so, the question that arises is whether the landlord can be non-suited only on the ground that he has not made any disclosure about the residential accommodation available with him which premises were admittedly not owned by him.</p><p>12. The short question which arises for decision in this petition is whether the landlord was guilty of suppressing and withholding such relevant facts which would disentitle him from seeking eviction of the tenant. To appreciate these contentions it would be necessary to refer to relevant portion of Section 14(3) of the Act:</p><p>Section 14:</p><p>1 and 2 xxxxxxxxxxx</p><p>(3) A landlord may apply to the Controller for an order directing the tenant to put the landlord in possession-</p><p>(a) in case of residential building, if</p><p>(i) he required it for his own occupation:</p><p>Provided that he is not occupying another residential building owned by him, in the urban area concerned:</p><p>Provided further that he has not vacated such a building without sufficient cause within five years of the filing of the application, in the said urban area....</p><p>13. A perusal of the bare provisions of the Act makes it clear that there are certain essential ingredients which the landlord must satisfy before seeking eviction of the tenant under the Act. Not only must he prove that the residential building is bona fide required by him for his own use and occupation but he must also plead and prove that he is not occupying any other residential building owned by him in the urban area concerned and further that he has not vacated such a building without sufficient cause within 5 years of the filing of the application.</p><p>14. Reference may now be made to the relevant allegations made in para 18 of the eviction petition:</p><p>(ii) That the petitioner bona fide requires the premises for his own use and occupation and also for the use and occupation of his family.</p><p>The petitioner does not own or possess any other such building within the urban area of Simla nor the petitioner has vacated any such premises within five years of the filing of this petition.</p><p>The family of the petitioner presently consists of himself and his wife. Due to paucity of accommodation the petitioner has not been able to keep his wife with himself at Simla, where he is working as an Engineer and she has been residing at Chandigarh since 1991 but on account of her ill health she has been brought to Simla by the petitioner. The petitioner at present is seeking temporary shelter, from time to time, with his relations.</p><p>15. The learned Appellate Authority came to the conclusion that the landlord had falsely pleaded that he does not own or possess any other such building within the urban area of Shimla and hence rejected the eviction petition on this ground.</p><p>16. On a close analysis of the proviso to Section 14(3)(a)(i) of the Act it is clear that a landlord is not entitled to seek eviction of a tenant from residential building even in case of bona fide requirement if the landlord is occupying another residential building owned by him in the urban area concerned. One can read three essential ingredients in this proviso i.e. (i) that the landlord is in occupation of another residential building; (ii) that the said residential building is owned by him and (iii) that the said residential building is situated in the concerned urban area.</p><p>17. The question that arises is what is the impact of the landlord not making a disclosure in respect of premises which he is occupying but are not owned by him.</p><p>18. The Apex Court in Onkar Nath v. Ved Vyas ILR 1979 HP 1, held as follows:</p><p>It is common ground that there are three requirements to make out a cause of action for eviction under that provision, and indeed this is apparent from a bare reading of the sub-section. In the present case the finding is to the effect that the landlord requires the residential building for his own occupation. But, the legislation has taken care to insist upon two more conditions, namely; (a) that the landlord is not occupying any other residential building in the area concerned; and (b) that he has not vacated such a building without sufficient cause. There is not a scintilla of evidence nor indeed there is any averment in compliance with these latter conditions. The necessary consequence follows that not merely is there inadequacy of pleadings sufficient to make out a cause of action but total absence of proof of two vital requirements....</p><p>The Supreme Court also said that:.The statute benignly designed to protect tenants from unreasonable evictions has taken case to put restrictions which must be rigorously construed to fulfil the purpose of the statute.</p><p>19. Following the aforesaid judgment and other pronouncements of the Apex Court, a learned Single Judge of this Court in Tara Chand Sharma v. Baij Nath and Ors. 1992 (2) R.C.J. 323, held as follows:</p><p>16. What appears as the legislative intent, in bold relief, is that the landlord, while seeking eviction of a tenant on the ground that he needs a residential building for his own occupation, must come out clearly and honestly with facts relating to the requirement that he is not occupying another residential building owned by him, in the urban area concerned and that he had not vacated such a building without sufficient cause within five years of the filing of the application, in the said urban area. The primal burden of making a clear disclosure would lie upon the landlord, for, the true facts would be in his special knowledge. An order in his favour by the Rent Controller would depend upon the satisfaction of the Rent Controller in regard not only to the claim that the landlord requires the accommodation, from which he wishes to evict a tenant, for his own occupation but also that he was not occupying another residential building owned by him nor had he vacated such building without sufficient cause within five years of the filing of the application in the application in the urban area concerned....</p><p>It was further held as under:</p><p>18. That the landlord should make a full disclosure of the relevant facts, pertaining to the requirements of Sub-section (3)(a)(i) and the two provisos, becomes all the more necessary because the satisfaction of the Rent Controller in regard thereto is the condition precedent for the making of an order in favour of the landlord....</p><p>20. The aforesaid judgment has been followed in a number of other cases including Vijay Kapoor v. Maya Ram 1997 (2) RCR 437, wherein another learned single Judge of this Court following the aforesaid judgment held that the landlord must make complete and proper disclosure of all the material facts.</p><p>21. On the other hand Sh. Ramakant Sharma has relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in Ram Narain Arora v. Asha Rani 1998(2) RCR 268. In that case the Rent Controller came to the conclusion that the landlord had suppressed material information and had not disclosed the fact that he was already in occupation of a house in Subji Mandi. Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act reads as follows:</p><p>Section 14(1)(e). That the premises let for residential purposes are required bona fide by the landlord for occupation as a residence for himself or for any member of his family dependent on him, if he is the owner thereof, or for any person for whose benefit the premises are held and that the landlord or such person has no other reasonably suitable residential accommodation.</p><p>22. The difference between Delhi Act and the present Act is that under the Delhi Act the only requirement is that the landlord has no other reasonably suitable accommodation whereas under the Himachal Act the residential premises are required to be owned by the landlord. The Apex Court in Rama Narain Arora's case (supra) held that the nondisclosure of the fact that the landlord was in occupation of certain premises in Subji Mandi was.not a ground to non-suit the landlord in view of the facts and circumstances of the case. The Apex Court held as follows:</p><p>9. In making a claim that the suit premises is required bona fide for his own occupation as a residence for himself and other members of his family dependent on him and that he has no other reasonably suitable accommodation is a requirement of law before the Court can state whether the landlord requires the premises bona fide for his use and occupation. In doing so, the Court must also find out whether the landlord or such other person for whose benefit the premises is required has no other reasonably suitable residential accommodation. It cannot be said that the requirement of the landlord is not intermixed with the question of finding out whether he has any other reasonably suitable accommodation. If he has other reasonably suitable accommodation, ihen necessarily it would mean that he does not require the suit premises and his requirement may not be bona fide. In such circumstances further inquiry would be whether that premises is more suitable than the suit premises. Therefore, the questions raised before the Court would not necessarily depend upon only the pleadings. It could be a good defence that the landlord has other reasonably suitable residential accommodation and thereby defend the claim of the landlord.</p><p>10. There cannot be a pedantic or a dogmatic approach in the matter of analysis of pleadings or of the evidence adduced thereto. It is no doubt true that if the pleadings are clearly set out, it would be easy for the Court to decide the matters. But if the pleadings are lacking or vague and if both parties have understood what was the case pleaded and put forth with reference to requirement of law and placed such material before the Court, neither party is prejudiced. If we analyse from this angle, we do not think that the High Court was not justified in interfering with the order made by the Rent Controller.</p><p>23. From the perusal of the judgment of the Apex Court it is apparent that the Rent Controller must approach the matter in a practical manner. In case the non-disclosure is such as that it goes to the very root of the case the Rent Controller would be justified in non-suiting the landlord. However, if the non-disclosure is such that it would not prejudice the rights of the respondent then the landlord should not be non-suited only on this ground.</p><p>24. The decisions of this Court cited hereinabove were delivered prior to the judgment delivered by the Apex Court in Ram Nar'ain Arora's case. Further more both in Tara Chand Sharma's case and Vijay Kapoor's case decided by this Court, no averment had been made ixi respect of other residential buildings owned by a landlord. There was complete non-disclosure as to whether any such residential building owned by the landlord was in his possession or not. In the present case, as I have held above, the residential premises at 31, The Mall, Shimla was not owned by the landlord and hence these two earlier judgments of this Court are distinguishable on facts also.</p><p>25. In the present case, the landlord has been non-suited only on the ground that he did not disclose the fact that he was in occupation of certain premises on the Mall Road. Under law he was not required to disclose this fact. He was only required to disclose the factum of occupying another residential building owned by him in the urban area concerned. True it may be, that it would have been better if the landlord had disclosed all the facts but non-disclosure of a fact which he was not under law required to disclose could not in my opinion be a ground to dismiss his eviction petition.</p><p>26. However, what are the premises in his occupation even as a tenant can be taken into consideration while deciding the question whether he bona fide requires the demised premises for his personal use or occupation or not.</p><p>27. Lastly comes the question with regard to the bona fide requirement of the landlord. The landlord has no children. According to the landlord as well as his other witnesses i.e. his brother-in-law PW-2 and his wife PW-3, the wife now wants to come back and settle in Shimla. There is no reason to disbelieve their statements. Even according to the evidence led by the tenant the accommodation in possession of the landlord consists of two rooms, kitchen, bath room etc. Admittedly, the landlord is also having his office as an Architect in this building. The landlord belongs to the middle class of the Society. It cannot be expected of a landlord who owns sufficient property to reside in a two room set wherein he also runs his office.</p><p>28. The law by now is well settled that the landlord is the best judge of the suitability of the accommodation required by him. This suitability has however to be judged in the context of reasonable expectations. The landlord and his wife who are both well educated can reasonably be expected to entertain guests and they will have visitors to their house. They would obviously require a drawing room, a bed room and a spare bed room for guests. Even at his residence the landlord may require another room for his professional work. This is the minimum accommodation which they would require. Even if the accommodation possessed by the landlord, though not owned by him, at 31, the Mall, Shimla is taken into consideration such accommodation is not sufficient to meet his requirements since admittedly the landlord is running his profession of Architect from some portion of his these premises.</p><p>29. Keeping in view the entire facts and circumstances, I am of the considered view that the learned Appellate Authority gravely erred in rejecting the eviction petition of the landlord solely on the ground that he had not disclosed the factum of being in possession of the premises at 31, the Mall Shimla. Even though I have held that the said premises are residential premises, in view of the above discussion I hold that the landlord cannot be non-suited only on the ground of his being in possession of such premises since same were not owned by him.</p><p>30. In view of the above discussion, the Revision Petition is allowed, the order of the learned Appellate Authority dated 6.5.2003 is seaside and the order of the Rent Controller dated 22.8.2001 is restored.</p><p>31. Keeping in view the fact that the tenant has been in possession of the premises for a long period he is granted time up to 31st October, 2008 to vacate the premises.</p><p>32. No order as to costs.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '2008(2)ShimLC491',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'Shri S.L. Srivastava',
		'sub' => 'Tenancy',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'shri-arun-bhanwara-vs-s-l-srivastava'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '891084',
	(int) 1 => 'shri-arun-bhanwara-vs-s-l-srivastava'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/891084/shri-arun-bhanwara-vs-s-l-srivastava'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$caseref = 'Ram Narain Arora v. Asha Rani<br>'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>Deepak Gupta, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. This Revision Petition under Section 25(5) of the H.P. Urban Rent Control Act, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) is directed against the order of the learned Appellate Authority, Shimla in CMA No. 60-S/14 of 2001 whereby the appeal filed by the respondent (hereinafter referred to as the tenant) has been allowed, the order of the Rent Controller has been set-aside and the petition for eviction filed by the present petitioner (hereinafter referred to as the Landlord) on the ground of personal bona fide requirement has been set-aside.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. The undisputed facts are that the landlord is owner of the demised premises situated in building known as Tunnel View, Sanjauli, Shimla-6 consisting of two bed rooms with attached bath room and latrine, drawing-cum-dining room, kitchen and balcony. These premises were purchased by the landlord in the year 1986. Thereafter, the landlord had rented out the premises to one Sh. B.K. Chauhan. According to the landlord, when he got married he requested Sh. B.K. Chauhan to vacate the said premises. Sh. Chauhan vacated the said premises but admittedly the landlord did not occupy the same but rented out the same to the tenant in the year 1990.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. In the year 1997 the landlord filed a petition for eviction of the tenant on two grounds; firstly that the tenant is in arrears of rent from 1.11.1990 to 31.7.1997 and secondly that the premises are bona fide required by the landlord for the use and occupation of himself and his family.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>4. This petition was contested by the tenant. After trial, the Rent Controller ordered the eviction of the tenant on two grounds; (i) that the tenant was in arrears of rent from November, 1999 till date of order i.e. 22nd August, 2001 and (ii) that the landlord required the premises for his own use and occupation.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>5. The tenant deposited the rent within the time prescribed. He also filed an appeal challenging the finding on the issue of bona fide requirement. The learned Appellate Authority came to the conclusion that the landlord had not made a proper and full disclosure of facts as required under the provisions of the Act and had withheld material facts from the Court viz. that the landlord was in occupation of residential premises on 31, Mall Road in the urban area of Shimla and as such rejected this petition on this short ground.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>6. Aggrieved by the said order, the landlord has filed the present Revision Petition.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>7. I have heard Sh. Ramakant Sharma, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sh. Bhupinder Gupta, learned senior Counsel for the tenant.',
	(int) 8 => '<p>8. It has been urged on behalf of the landlord that the building which is alleged to be in possession of the landlord i.e. 31, the Mall Shimla is not a residential building and secondly that the building is not owned by him.',
	(int) 9 => '<p>9. On the other hand Sh. Bhupinder Gupta, learned Counsel of the tenant has strenuously urged that the landlord in para 18 has not stated anything about any building being owned by him and has only made an averment that he does not own or possess any other such building within the urban area Shimla. It is contended by Sh. Bhupinder Gupta that the landlord of his own volition did not state anything about the ownership of the building and since he has kept silent about the building which he is in occupation he has made a false averment and therefore his petition for eviction has rightly been rejected.',
	(int) 10 => '<p>10. I am not at all in agreement with the contention of the landlord that the premises known as 31, the Mall Shimla which are admittedly in the occupation of the landlord are commercial premises only and not being used by him for his residence. As pointed out above, the landlord purchased the demised premises in 1986. They fell vacant when he got married despite that he did not occupy the same and rented out the same to the tenant in the year 1990. The question that arises is where was the landlord living for this entire period. According to the landlord after the year 1994 he has been living with his brother-in-law Rajan (wife's brother) PW-2, since the year 1994. Prior to 1994 the landlord will have this Court to believe that he was living off and on with one friend or the other. This story is impossible to believe. The landlord was married in the year 1999. He is an Architect by profession. His wife is a law graduate. It is not believable that such a person would have no permanent abode and would continue to live as a guest with his friends for almost 5 years after his marriage. Even the story that he has been living with his brother-in-law after the year 1994 does not inspire confidence. It stands proved on record that the brother-in-law PW-2 Rajan lives with his own family i.e. wife and children. From the evidence it is also clear that the parents of the brother-in-law also reside with him, His flat consists of only two rooms. The flat in possession of the landlord at 31, the Mall Shimla, also consists of two rooms, kitchen and bath room. Even assuming that he was running an office in the part of the flat it cannot be believed that he would not live on his own flat on the Mall Road and reside with his brother-in-law in cramped premises. Even in the electoral list the landlord is shown to be a resident of 31, The Mall, Shimla. Therefore, I am of the considered view that the building 31, the Mall, Shimla was also being used as a residence by the landlord.',
	(int) 11 => '<p>11. Having held so, the question that arises is whether the landlord can be non-suited only on the ground that he has not made any disclosure about the residential accommodation available with him which premises were admittedly not owned by him.',
	(int) 12 => '<p>12. The short question which arises for decision in this petition is whether the landlord was guilty of suppressing and withholding such relevant facts which would disentitle him from seeking eviction of the tenant. To appreciate these contentions it would be necessary to refer to relevant portion of Section 14(3) of the Act:',
	(int) 13 => '<p>Section 14:',
	(int) 14 => '<p>1 and 2 xxxxxxxxxxx',
	(int) 15 => '<p>(3) A landlord may apply to the Controller for an order directing the tenant to put the landlord in possession-',
	(int) 16 => '<p>(a) in case of residential building, if',
	(int) 17 => '<p>(i) he required it for his own occupation:',
	(int) 18 => '<p>Provided that he is not occupying another residential building owned by him, in the urban area concerned:',
	(int) 19 => '<p>Provided further that he has not vacated such a building without sufficient cause within five years of the filing of the application, in the said urban area....',
	(int) 20 => '<p>13. A perusal of the bare provisions of the Act makes it clear that there are certain essential ingredients which the landlord must satisfy before seeking eviction of the tenant under the Act. Not only must he prove that the residential building is bona fide required by him for his own use and occupation but he must also plead and prove that he is not occupying any other residential building owned by him in the urban area concerned and further that he has not vacated such a building without sufficient cause within 5 years of the filing of the application.',
	(int) 21 => '<p>14. Reference may now be made to the relevant allegations made in para 18 of the eviction petition:',
	(int) 22 => '<p>(ii) That the petitioner bona fide requires the premises for his own use and occupation and also for the use and occupation of his family.',
	(int) 23 => '<p>The petitioner does not own or possess any other such building within the urban area of Simla nor the petitioner has vacated any such premises within five years of the filing of this petition.',
	(int) 24 => '<p>The family of the petitioner presently consists of himself and his wife. Due to paucity of accommodation the petitioner has not been able to keep his wife with himself at Simla, where he is working as an Engineer and she has been residing at Chandigarh since 1991 but on account of her ill health she has been brought to Simla by the petitioner. The petitioner at present is seeking temporary shelter, from time to time, with his relations.',
	(int) 25 => '<p>15. The learned Appellate Authority came to the conclusion that the landlord had falsely pleaded that he does not own or possess any other such building within the urban area of Shimla and hence rejected the eviction petition on this ground.',
	(int) 26 => '<p>16. On a close analysis of the proviso to Section 14(3)(a)(i) of the Act it is clear that a landlord is not entitled to seek eviction of a tenant from residential building even in case of bona fide requirement if the landlord is occupying another residential building owned by him in the urban area concerned. One can read three essential ingredients in this proviso i.e. (i) that the landlord is in occupation of another residential building; (ii) that the said residential building is owned by him and (iii) that the said residential building is situated in the concerned urban area.',
	(int) 27 => '<p>17. The question that arises is what is the impact of the landlord not making a disclosure in respect of premises which he is occupying but are not owned by him.',
	(int) 28 => '<p>18. The Apex Court in Onkar Nath v. Ved Vyas ILR 1979 HP 1, held as follows:',
	(int) 29 => '<p>It is common ground that there are three requirements to make out a cause of action for eviction under that provision, and indeed this is apparent from a bare reading of the sub-section. In the present case the finding is to the effect that the landlord requires the residential building for his own occupation. But, the legislation has taken care to insist upon two more conditions, namely; (a) that the landlord is not occupying any other residential building in the area concerned; and (b) that he has not vacated such a building without sufficient cause. There is not a scintilla of evidence nor indeed there is any averment in compliance with these latter conditions. The necessary consequence follows that not merely is there inadequacy of pleadings sufficient to make out a cause of action but total absence of proof of two vital requirements....',
	(int) 30 => '<p>The Supreme Court also said that:.The statute benignly designed to protect tenants from unreasonable evictions has taken case to put restrictions which must be rigorously construed to fulfil the purpose of the statute.',
	(int) 31 => '<p>19. Following the aforesaid judgment and other pronouncements of the Apex Court, a learned Single Judge of this Court in Tara Chand Sharma v. Baij Nath and Ors. 1992 (2) R.C.J. 323, held as follows:',
	(int) 32 => '<p>16. What appears as the legislative intent, in bold relief, is that the landlord, while seeking eviction of a tenant on the ground that he needs a residential building for his own occupation, must come out clearly and honestly with facts relating to the requirement that he is not occupying another residential building owned by him, in the urban area concerned and that he had not vacated such a building without sufficient cause within five years of the filing of the application, in the said urban area. The primal burden of making a clear disclosure would lie upon the landlord, for, the true facts would be in his special knowledge. An order in his favour by the Rent Controller would depend upon the satisfaction of the Rent Controller in regard not only to the claim that the landlord requires the accommodation, from which he wishes to evict a tenant, for his own occupation but also that he was not occupying another residential building owned by him nor had he vacated such building without sufficient cause within five years of the filing of the application in the application in the urban area concerned....',
	(int) 33 => '<p>It was further held as under:',
	(int) 34 => '<p>18. That the landlord should make a full disclosure of the relevant facts, pertaining to the requirements of Sub-section (3)(a)(i) and the two provisos, becomes all the more necessary because the satisfaction of the Rent Controller in regard thereto is the condition precedent for the making of an order in favour of the landlord....',
	(int) 35 => '<p>20. The aforesaid judgment has been followed in a number of other cases including Vijay Kapoor v. Maya Ram 1997 (2) RCR 437, wherein another learned single Judge of this Court following the aforesaid judgment held that the landlord must make complete and proper disclosure of all the material facts.',
	(int) 36 => '<p>21. On the other hand Sh. Ramakant Sharma has relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in Ram Narain Arora v. Asha Rani 1998(2) RCR 268. In that case the Rent Controller came to the conclusion that the landlord had suppressed material information and had not disclosed the fact that he was already in occupation of a house in Subji Mandi. Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act reads as follows:',
	(int) 37 => '<p>Section 14(1)(e). That the premises let for residential purposes are required bona fide by the landlord for occupation as a residence for himself or for any member of his family dependent on him, if he is the owner thereof, or for any person for whose benefit the premises are held and that the landlord or such person has no other reasonably suitable residential accommodation.',
	(int) 38 => '<p>22. The difference between Delhi Act and the present Act is that under the Delhi Act the only requirement is that the landlord has no other reasonably suitable accommodation whereas under the Himachal Act the residential premises are required to be owned by the landlord. The Apex Court in Rama Narain Arora's case (supra) held that the nondisclosure of the fact that the landlord was in occupation of certain premises in Subji Mandi was.not a ground to non-suit the landlord in view of the facts and circumstances of the case. The Apex Court held as follows:',
	(int) 39 => '<p>9. In making a claim that the suit premises is required bona fide for his own occupation as a residence for himself and other members of his family dependent on him and that he has no other reasonably suitable accommodation is a requirement of law before the Court can state whether the landlord requires the premises bona fide for his use and occupation. In doing so, the Court must also find out whether the landlord or such other person for whose benefit the premises is required has no other reasonably suitable residential accommodation. It cannot be said that the requirement of the landlord is not intermixed with the question of finding out whether he has any other reasonably suitable accommodation. If he has other reasonably suitable accommodation, ihen necessarily it would mean that he does not require the suit premises and his requirement may not be bona fide. In such circumstances further inquiry would be whether that premises is more suitable than the suit premises. Therefore, the questions raised before the Court would not necessarily depend upon only the pleadings. It could be a good defence that the landlord has other reasonably suitable residential accommodation and thereby defend the claim of the landlord.',
	(int) 40 => '<p>10. There cannot be a pedantic or a dogmatic approach in the matter of analysis of pleadings or of the evidence adduced thereto. It is no doubt true that if the pleadings are clearly set out, it would be easy for the Court to decide the matters. But if the pleadings are lacking or vague and if both parties have understood what was the case pleaded and put forth with reference to requirement of law and placed such material before the Court, neither party is prejudiced. If we analyse from this angle, we do not think that the High Court was not justified in interfering with the order made by the Rent Controller.',
	(int) 41 => '<p>23. From the perusal of the judgment of the Apex Court it is apparent that the Rent Controller must approach the matter in a practical manner. In case the non-disclosure is such as that it goes to the very root of the case the Rent Controller would be justified in non-suiting the landlord. However, if the non-disclosure is such that it would not prejudice the rights of the respondent then the landlord should not be non-suited only on this ground.',
	(int) 42 => '<p>24. The decisions of this Court cited hereinabove were delivered prior to the judgment delivered by the Apex Court in Ram Nar'ain Arora's case. Further more both in Tara Chand Sharma's case and Vijay Kapoor's case decided by this Court, no averment had been made ixi respect of other residential buildings owned by a landlord. There was complete non-disclosure as to whether any such residential building owned by the landlord was in his possession or not. In the present case, as I have held above, the residential premises at 31, The Mall, Shimla was not owned by the landlord and hence these two earlier judgments of this Court are distinguishable on facts also.',
	(int) 43 => '<p>25. In the present case, the landlord has been non-suited only on the ground that he did not disclose the fact that he was in occupation of certain premises on the Mall Road. Under law he was not required to disclose this fact. He was only required to disclose the factum of occupying another residential building owned by him in the urban area concerned. True it may be, that it would have been better if the landlord had disclosed all the facts but non-disclosure of a fact which he was not under law required to disclose could not in my opinion be a ground to dismiss his eviction petition.',
	(int) 44 => '<p>26. However, what are the premises in his occupation even as a tenant can be taken into consideration while deciding the question whether he bona fide requires the demised premises for his personal use or occupation or not.',
	(int) 45 => '<p>27. Lastly comes the question with regard to the bona fide requirement of the landlord. The landlord has no children. According to the landlord as well as his other witnesses i.e. his brother-in-law PW-2 and his wife PW-3, the wife now wants to come back and settle in Shimla. There is no reason to disbelieve their statements. Even according to the evidence led by the tenant the accommodation in possession of the landlord consists of two rooms, kitchen, bath room etc. Admittedly, the landlord is also having his office as an Architect in this building. The landlord belongs to the middle class of the Society. It cannot be expected of a landlord who owns sufficient property to reside in a two room set wherein he also runs his office.',
	(int) 46 => '<p>28. The law by now is well settled that the landlord is the best judge of the suitability of the accommodation required by him. This suitability has however to be judged in the context of reasonable expectations. The landlord and his wife who are both well educated can reasonably be expected to entertain guests and they will have visitors to their house. They would obviously require a drawing room, a bed room and a spare bed room for guests. Even at his residence the landlord may require another room for his professional work. This is the minimum accommodation which they would require. Even if the accommodation possessed by the landlord, though not owned by him, at 31, the Mall, Shimla is taken into consideration such accommodation is not sufficient to meet his requirements since admittedly the landlord is running his profession of Architect from some portion of his these premises.',
	(int) 47 => '<p>29. Keeping in view the entire facts and circumstances, I am of the considered view that the learned Appellate Authority gravely erred in rejecting the eviction petition of the landlord solely on the ground that he had not disclosed the factum of being in possession of the premises at 31, the Mall Shimla. Even though I have held that the said premises are residential premises, in view of the above discussion I hold that the landlord cannot be non-suited only on the ground of his being in possession of such premises since same were not owned by him.',
	(int) 48 => '<p>30. In view of the above discussion, the Revision Petition is allowed, the order of the learned Appellate Authority dated 6.5.2003 is seaside and the order of the Rent Controller dated 22.8.2001 is restored.',
	(int) 49 => '<p>31. Keeping in view the fact that the tenant has been in possession of the premises for a long period he is granted time up to 31st October, 2008 to vacate the premises.',
	(int) 50 => '<p>32. No order as to costs.<p>',
	(int) 51 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 52
$i = (int) 4
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

4. This petition was contested by the tenant. After trial, the Rent Controller ordered the eviction of the tenant on two grounds; (i) that the tenant was in arrears of rent from November, 1999 till date of order i.e. 22nd August, 2001 and (ii) that the landlord required the premises for his own use and occupation.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Shri Arun Bhanwara Vs Shri S L Srivastava - Citation 891084 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '891084',
			'acts' => '',
			'appealno' => '',
			'appellant' => 'Shri Arun Bhanwara',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Shri Arun Bhanwara Vs. Shri S.L. Srivastava',
			'casenote' => ' - CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908.[C.A. No. 5/1908]. Order 14, Rule 2 [As amended by Amending Act of 1976]: [V.K. Gupta, CJ, Deepak Gupta & Surjit Singh, JJ] Preliminary issue of law and fact  Court framing all issues both of law and facts together and also  tried all the issues together, including the issue relating to jurisdiction of Court  Held, Except in situations perceived or warranted under sub-rule (2) of Rule 2 of Order 14 where a  Court in fact frames only issues of law in the first instance and postpones settlement of other issues, clearly and explicitly in situations where the Court has framed all issues together, both of law as well as facts and has also tried all these issues together, it is not open to the Court to adopt the principle of severability and proceed to decide issues of law first, without taking up simultaneously other issues for decision. This course of action is not available to a Court because sub-rule (1) does not permit the  Court to adopt any such principle of severability and to dispose of a suit only on preliminary issues, or what can be termed as issues of law. Sub-rule (1)  clearly mandates that in a situation contemplated under it, where all the issues have been together and have also been taken up for adjudication during the course of the trial, these must be decided together and the judgment in the suit as a whole must be pronounced by the Court covering all the issues framed in the suit.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => 'Ram Narain Arora v. Asha Rani;',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => '',
			'counseldef' => '',
			'court' => 'Himachal Pradesh',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2008-07-31',
			'deposition' => 'Petition allowed',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => ' Deepak Gupta, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">Deepak Gupta, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. This Revision Petition under Section 25(5) of the H.P. Urban Rent Control Act, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) is directed against the order of the learned Appellate Authority, Shimla in CMA No. 60-S/14 of 2001 whereby the appeal filed by the respondent (hereinafter referred to as the tenant) has been allowed, the order of the Rent Controller has been set-aside and the petition for eviction filed by the present petitioner (hereinafter referred to as the Landlord) on the ground of personal bona fide requirement has been set-aside.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The undisputed facts are that the landlord is owner of the demised premises situated in building known as Tunnel View, Sanjauli, Shimla-6 consisting of two bed rooms with attached bath room and latrine, drawing-cum-dining room, kitchen and balcony. These premises were purchased by the landlord in the year 1986. Thereafter, the landlord had rented out the premises to one Sh. B.K. Chauhan. According to the landlord, when he got married he requested Sh. B.K. Chauhan to vacate the said premises. Sh. Chauhan vacated the said premises but admittedly the landlord did not occupy the same but rented out the same to the tenant in the year 1990.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. In the year 1997 the landlord filed a petition for eviction of the tenant on two grounds; firstly that the tenant is in arrears of rent from 1.11.1990 to 31.7.1997 and secondly that the premises are bona fide required by the landlord for the use and occupation of himself and his family.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. This petition was contested by the tenant. After trial, the Rent Controller ordered the eviction of the tenant on two grounds; (i) that the tenant was in arrears of rent from November, 1999 till date of order i.e. 22nd August, 2001 and (ii) that the landlord required the premises for his own use and occupation.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. The tenant deposited the rent within the time prescribed. He also filed an appeal challenging the finding on the issue of bona fide requirement. The learned Appellate Authority came to the conclusion that the landlord had not made a proper and full disclosure of facts as required under the provisions of the Act and had withheld material facts from the Court viz. that the landlord was in occupation of residential premises on 31, Mall Road in the urban area of Shimla and as such rejected this petition on this short ground.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. Aggrieved by the said order, the landlord has filed the present Revision Petition.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. I have heard Sh. Ramakant Sharma, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sh. Bhupinder Gupta, learned senior Counsel for the tenant.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. It has been urged on behalf of the landlord that the building which is alleged to be in possession of the landlord i.e. 31, the Mall Shimla is not a residential building and secondly that the building is not owned by him.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. On the other hand Sh. Bhupinder Gupta, learned Counsel of the tenant has strenuously urged that the landlord in para 18 has not stated anything about any building being owned by him and has only made an averment that he does not own or possess any other such building within the urban area Shimla. It is contended by Sh. Bhupinder Gupta that the landlord of his own volition did not state anything about the ownership of the building and since he has kept silent about the building which he is in occupation he has made a false averment and therefore his petition for eviction has rightly been rejected.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. I am not at all in agreement with the contention of the landlord that the premises known as 31, the Mall Shimla which are admittedly in the occupation of the landlord are commercial premises only and not being used by him for his residence. As pointed out above, the landlord purchased the demised premises in 1986. They fell vacant when he got married despite that he did not occupy the same and rented out the same to the tenant in the year 1990. The question that arises is where was the landlord living for this entire period. According to the landlord after the year 1994 he has been living with his brother-in-law Rajan (wife's brother) PW-2, since the year 1994. Prior to 1994 the landlord will have this Court to believe that he was living off and on with one friend or the other. This story is impossible to believe. The landlord was married in the year 1999. He is an Architect by profession. His wife is a law graduate. It is not believable that such a person would have no permanent abode and would continue to live as a guest with his friends for almost 5 years after his marriage. Even the story that he has been living with his brother-in-law after the year 1994 does not inspire confidence. It stands proved on record that the brother-in-law PW-2 Rajan lives with his own family i.e. wife and children. From the evidence it is also clear that the parents of the brother-in-law also reside with him, His flat consists of only two rooms. The flat in possession of the landlord at 31, the Mall Shimla, also consists of two rooms, kitchen and bath room. Even assuming that he was running an office in the part of the flat it cannot be believed that he would not live on his own flat on the Mall Road and reside with his brother-in-law in cramped premises. Even in the electoral list the landlord is shown to be a resident of 31, The Mall, Shimla. Therefore, I am of the considered view that the building 31, the Mall, Shimla was also being used as a residence by the landlord.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. Having held so, the question that arises is whether the landlord can be non-suited only on the ground that he has not made any disclosure about the residential accommodation available with him which premises were admittedly not owned by him.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. The short question which arises for decision in this petition is whether the landlord was guilty of suppressing and withholding such relevant facts which would disentitle him from seeking eviction of the tenant. To appreciate these contentions it would be necessary to refer to relevant portion of Section 14(3) of the Act:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Section 14:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1 and 2 xxxxxxxxxxx</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(3) A landlord may apply to the Controller for an order directing the tenant to put the landlord in possession-</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(a) in case of residential building, if</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(i) he required it for his own occupation:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Provided that he is not occupying another residential building owned by him, in the urban area concerned:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Provided further that he has not vacated such a building without sufficient cause within five years of the filing of the application, in the said urban area....</p><p style="text-align: justify;">13. A perusal of the bare provisions of the Act makes it clear that there are certain essential ingredients which the landlord must satisfy before seeking eviction of the tenant under the Act. Not only must he prove that the residential building is bona fide required by him for his own use and occupation but he must also plead and prove that he is not occupying any other residential building owned by him in the urban area concerned and further that he has not vacated such a building without sufficient cause within 5 years of the filing of the application.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">14. Reference may now be made to the relevant allegations made in para 18 of the eviction petition:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(ii) That the petitioner bona fide requires the premises for his own use and occupation and also for the use and occupation of his family.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The petitioner does not own or possess any other such building within the urban area of Simla nor the petitioner has vacated any such premises within five years of the filing of this petition.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The family of the petitioner presently consists of himself and his wife. Due to paucity of accommodation the petitioner has not been able to keep his wife with himself at Simla, where he is working as an Engineer and she has been residing at Chandigarh since 1991 but on account of her ill health she has been brought to Simla by the petitioner. The petitioner at present is seeking temporary shelter, from time to time, with his relations.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">15. The learned Appellate Authority came to the conclusion that the landlord had falsely pleaded that he does not own or possess any other such building within the urban area of Shimla and hence rejected the eviction petition on this ground.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">16. On a close analysis of the proviso to Section 14(3)(a)(i) of the Act it is clear that a landlord is not entitled to seek eviction of a tenant from residential building even in case of bona fide requirement if the landlord is occupying another residential building owned by him in the urban area concerned. One can read three essential ingredients in this proviso i.e. (i) that the landlord is in occupation of another residential building; (ii) that the said residential building is owned by him and (iii) that the said residential building is situated in the concerned urban area.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">17. The question that arises is what is the impact of the landlord not making a disclosure in respect of premises which he is occupying but are not owned by him.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">18. The Apex Court in Onkar Nath v. Ved Vyas ILR 1979 HP 1, held as follows:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">It is common ground that there are three requirements to make out a cause of action for eviction under that provision, and indeed this is apparent from a bare reading of the sub-section. In the present case the finding is to the effect that the landlord requires the residential building for his own occupation. But, the legislation has taken care to insist upon two more conditions, namely; (a) that the landlord is not occupying any other residential building in the area concerned; and (b) that he has not vacated such a building without sufficient cause. There is not a scintilla of evidence nor indeed there is any averment in compliance with these latter conditions. The necessary consequence follows that not merely is there inadequacy of pleadings sufficient to make out a cause of action but total absence of proof of two vital requirements....</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The Supreme Court also said that:.The statute benignly designed to protect tenants from unreasonable evictions has taken case to put restrictions which must be rigorously construed to fulfil the purpose of the statute.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">19. Following the aforesaid judgment and other pronouncements of the Apex Court, a learned Single Judge of this Court in Tara Chand Sharma v. Baij Nath and Ors. 1992 (2) R.C.J. 323, held as follows:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">16. What appears as the legislative intent, in bold relief, is that the landlord, while seeking eviction of a tenant on the ground that he needs a residential building for his own occupation, must come out clearly and honestly with facts relating to the requirement that he is not occupying another residential building owned by him, in the urban area concerned and that he had not vacated such a building without sufficient cause within five years of the filing of the application, in the said urban area. The primal burden of making a clear disclosure would lie upon the landlord, for, the true facts would be in his special knowledge. An order in his favour by the Rent Controller would depend upon the satisfaction of the Rent Controller in regard not only to the claim that the landlord requires the accommodation, from which he wishes to evict a tenant, for his own occupation but also that he was not occupying another residential building owned by him nor had he vacated such building without sufficient cause within five years of the filing of the application in the application in the urban area concerned....</p><p style="text-align: justify;">It was further held as under:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">18. That the landlord should make a full disclosure of the relevant facts, pertaining to the requirements of Sub-section (3)(a)(i) and the two provisos, becomes all the more necessary because the satisfaction of the Rent Controller in regard thereto is the condition precedent for the making of an order in favour of the landlord....</p><p style="text-align: justify;">20. The aforesaid judgment has been followed in a number of other cases including Vijay Kapoor v. Maya Ram 1997 (2) RCR 437, wherein another learned single Judge of this Court following the aforesaid judgment held that the landlord must make complete and proper disclosure of all the material facts.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">21. On the other hand Sh. Ramakant Sharma has relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in Ram Narain Arora v. Asha Rani 1998(2) RCR 268. In that case the Rent Controller came to the conclusion that the landlord had suppressed material information and had not disclosed the fact that he was already in occupation of a house in Subji Mandi. Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act reads as follows:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Section 14(1)(e). That the premises let for residential purposes are required bona fide by the landlord for occupation as a residence for himself or for any member of his family dependent on him, if he is the owner thereof, or for any person for whose benefit the premises are held and that the landlord or such person has no other reasonably suitable residential accommodation.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">22. The difference between Delhi Act and the present Act is that under the Delhi Act the only requirement is that the landlord has no other reasonably suitable accommodation whereas under the Himachal Act the residential premises are required to be owned by the landlord. The Apex Court in Rama Narain Arora's case (supra) held that the nondisclosure of the fact that the landlord was in occupation of certain premises in Subji Mandi was.not a ground to non-suit the landlord in view of the facts and circumstances of the case. The Apex Court held as follows:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. In making a claim that the suit premises is required bona fide for his own occupation as a residence for himself and other members of his family dependent on him and that he has no other reasonably suitable accommodation is a requirement of law before the Court can state whether the landlord requires the premises bona fide for his use and occupation. In doing so, the Court must also find out whether the landlord or such other person for whose benefit the premises is required has no other reasonably suitable residential accommodation. It cannot be said that the requirement of the landlord is not intermixed with the question of finding out whether he has any other reasonably suitable accommodation. If he has other reasonably suitable accommodation, ihen necessarily it would mean that he does not require the suit premises and his requirement may not be bona fide. In such circumstances further inquiry would be whether that premises is more suitable than the suit premises. Therefore, the questions raised before the Court would not necessarily depend upon only the pleadings. It could be a good defence that the landlord has other reasonably suitable residential accommodation and thereby defend the claim of the landlord.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. There cannot be a pedantic or a dogmatic approach in the matter of analysis of pleadings or of the evidence adduced thereto. It is no doubt true that if the pleadings are clearly set out, it would be easy for the Court to decide the matters. But if the pleadings are lacking or vague and if both parties have understood what was the case pleaded and put forth with reference to requirement of law and placed such material before the Court, neither party is prejudiced. If we analyse from this angle, we do not think that the High Court was not justified in interfering with the order made by the Rent Controller.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">23. From the perusal of the judgment of the Apex Court it is apparent that the Rent Controller must approach the matter in a practical manner. In case the non-disclosure is such as that it goes to the very root of the case the Rent Controller would be justified in non-suiting the landlord. However, if the non-disclosure is such that it would not prejudice the rights of the respondent then the landlord should not be non-suited only on this ground.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">24. The decisions of this Court cited hereinabove were delivered prior to the judgment delivered by the Apex Court in Ram Nar'ain Arora's case. Further more both in Tara Chand Sharma's case and Vijay Kapoor's case decided by this Court, no averment had been made ixi respect of other residential buildings owned by a landlord. There was complete non-disclosure as to whether any such residential building owned by the landlord was in his possession or not. In the present case, as I have held above, the residential premises at 31, The Mall, Shimla was not owned by the landlord and hence these two earlier judgments of this Court are distinguishable on facts also.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">25. In the present case, the landlord has been non-suited only on the ground that he did not disclose the fact that he was in occupation of certain premises on the Mall Road. Under law he was not required to disclose this fact. He was only required to disclose the factum of occupying another residential building owned by him in the urban area concerned. True it may be, that it would have been better if the landlord had disclosed all the facts but non-disclosure of a fact which he was not under law required to disclose could not in my opinion be a ground to dismiss his eviction petition.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">26. However, what are the premises in his occupation even as a tenant can be taken into consideration while deciding the question whether he bona fide requires the demised premises for his personal use or occupation or not.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">27. Lastly comes the question with regard to the bona fide requirement of the landlord. The landlord has no children. According to the landlord as well as his other witnesses i.e. his brother-in-law PW-2 and his wife PW-3, the wife now wants to come back and settle in Shimla. There is no reason to disbelieve their statements. Even according to the evidence led by the tenant the accommodation in possession of the landlord consists of two rooms, kitchen, bath room etc. Admittedly, the landlord is also having his office as an Architect in this building. The landlord belongs to the middle class of the Society. It cannot be expected of a landlord who owns sufficient property to reside in a two room set wherein he also runs his office.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">28. The law by now is well settled that the landlord is the best judge of the suitability of the accommodation required by him. This suitability has however to be judged in the context of reasonable expectations. The landlord and his wife who are both well educated can reasonably be expected to entertain guests and they will have visitors to their house. They would obviously require a drawing room, a bed room and a spare bed room for guests. Even at his residence the landlord may require another room for his professional work. This is the minimum accommodation which they would require. Even if the accommodation possessed by the landlord, though not owned by him, at 31, the Mall, Shimla is taken into consideration such accommodation is not sufficient to meet his requirements since admittedly the landlord is running his profession of Architect from some portion of his these premises.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">29. Keeping in view the entire facts and circumstances, I am of the considered view that the learned Appellate Authority gravely erred in rejecting the eviction petition of the landlord solely on the ground that he had not disclosed the factum of being in possession of the premises at 31, the Mall Shimla. Even though I have held that the said premises are residential premises, in view of the above discussion I hold that the landlord cannot be non-suited only on the ground of his being in possession of such premises since same were not owned by him.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">30. In view of the above discussion, the Revision Petition is allowed, the order of the learned Appellate Authority dated 6.5.2003 is seaside and the order of the Rent Controller dated 22.8.2001 is restored.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">31. Keeping in view the fact that the tenant has been in possession of the premises for a long period he is granted time up to 31st October, 2008 to vacate the premises.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">32. No order as to costs.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '2008(2)ShimLC491',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'Shri S.L. Srivastava',
			'sub' => 'Tenancy',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'shri-arun-bhanwara-vs-s-l-srivastava',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '891084',
		(int) 1 => 'shri-arun-bhanwara-vs-s-l-srivastava'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Shri Arun Bhanwara Vs Shri S L Srivastava - Citation 891084 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '891084',
		'acts' => '',
		'appealno' => '',
		'appellant' => 'Shri Arun Bhanwara',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Shri Arun Bhanwara Vs. Shri S.L. Srivastava',
		'casenote' => ' - CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908.[C.A. No. 5/1908]. Order 14, Rule 2 [As amended by Amending Act of 1976]: [V.K. Gupta, CJ, Deepak Gupta & Surjit Singh, JJ] Preliminary issue of law and fact  Court framing all issues both of law and facts together and also  tried all the issues together, including the issue relating to jurisdiction of Court  Held, Except in situations perceived or warranted under sub-rule (2) of Rule 2 of Order 14 where a  Court in fact frames only issues of law in the first instance and postpones settlement of other issues, clearly and explicitly in situations where the Court has framed all issues together, both of law as well as facts and has also tried all these issues together, it is not open to the Court to adopt the principle of severability and proceed to decide issues of law first, without taking up simultaneously other issues for decision. This course of action is not available to a Court because sub-rule (1) does not permit the  Court to adopt any such principle of severability and to dispose of a suit only on preliminary issues, or what can be termed as issues of law. Sub-rule (1)  clearly mandates that in a situation contemplated under it, where all the issues have been together and have also been taken up for adjudication during the course of the trial, these must be decided together and the judgment in the suit as a whole must be pronounced by the Court covering all the issues framed in the suit.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => 'Ram Narain Arora v. Asha Rani;',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => '',
		'counseldef' => '',
		'court' => 'Himachal Pradesh',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2008-07-31',
		'deposition' => 'Petition allowed',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => ' Deepak Gupta, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>Deepak Gupta, J.</p><p>1. This Revision Petition under Section 25(5) of the H.P. Urban Rent Control Act, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) is directed against the order of the learned Appellate Authority, Shimla in CMA No. 60-S/14 of 2001 whereby the appeal filed by the respondent (hereinafter referred to as the tenant) has been allowed, the order of the Rent Controller has been set-aside and the petition for eviction filed by the present petitioner (hereinafter referred to as the Landlord) on the ground of personal bona fide requirement has been set-aside.</p><p>2. The undisputed facts are that the landlord is owner of the demised premises situated in building known as Tunnel View, Sanjauli, Shimla-6 consisting of two bed rooms with attached bath room and latrine, drawing-cum-dining room, kitchen and balcony. These premises were purchased by the landlord in the year 1986. Thereafter, the landlord had rented out the premises to one Sh. B.K. Chauhan. According to the landlord, when he got married he requested Sh. B.K. Chauhan to vacate the said premises. Sh. Chauhan vacated the said premises but admittedly the landlord did not occupy the same but rented out the same to the tenant in the year 1990.</p><p>3. In the year 1997 the landlord filed a petition for eviction of the tenant on two grounds; firstly that the tenant is in arrears of rent from 1.11.1990 to 31.7.1997 and secondly that the premises are bona fide required by the landlord for the use and occupation of himself and his family.</p><p>4. This petition was contested by the tenant. After trial, the Rent Controller ordered the eviction of the tenant on two grounds; (i) that the tenant was in arrears of rent from November, 1999 till date of order i.e. 22nd August, 2001 and (ii) that the landlord required the premises for his own use and occupation.</p><p>5. The tenant deposited the rent within the time prescribed. He also filed an appeal challenging the finding on the issue of bona fide requirement. The learned Appellate Authority came to the conclusion that the landlord had not made a proper and full disclosure of facts as required under the provisions of the Act and had withheld material facts from the Court viz. that the landlord was in occupation of residential premises on 31, Mall Road in the urban area of Shimla and as such rejected this petition on this short ground.</p><p>6. Aggrieved by the said order, the landlord has filed the present Revision Petition.</p><p>7. I have heard Sh. Ramakant Sharma, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sh. Bhupinder Gupta, learned senior Counsel for the tenant.</p><p>8. It has been urged on behalf of the landlord that the building which is alleged to be in possession of the landlord i.e. 31, the Mall Shimla is not a residential building and secondly that the building is not owned by him.</p><p>9. On the other hand Sh. Bhupinder Gupta, learned Counsel of the tenant has strenuously urged that the landlord in para 18 has not stated anything about any building being owned by him and has only made an averment that he does not own or possess any other such building within the urban area Shimla. It is contended by Sh. Bhupinder Gupta that the landlord of his own volition did not state anything about the ownership of the building and since he has kept silent about the building which he is in occupation he has made a false averment and therefore his petition for eviction has rightly been rejected.</p><p>10. I am not at all in agreement with the contention of the landlord that the premises known as 31, the Mall Shimla which are admittedly in the occupation of the landlord are commercial premises only and not being used by him for his residence. As pointed out above, the landlord purchased the demised premises in 1986. They fell vacant when he got married despite that he did not occupy the same and rented out the same to the tenant in the year 1990. The question that arises is where was the landlord living for this entire period. According to the landlord after the year 1994 he has been living with his brother-in-law Rajan (wife's brother) PW-2, since the year 1994. Prior to 1994 the landlord will have this Court to believe that he was living off and on with one friend or the other. This story is impossible to believe. The landlord was married in the year 1999. He is an Architect by profession. His wife is a law graduate. It is not believable that such a person would have no permanent abode and would continue to live as a guest with his friends for almost 5 years after his marriage. Even the story that he has been living with his brother-in-law after the year 1994 does not inspire confidence. It stands proved on record that the brother-in-law PW-2 Rajan lives with his own family i.e. wife and children. From the evidence it is also clear that the parents of the brother-in-law also reside with him, His flat consists of only two rooms. The flat in possession of the landlord at 31, the Mall Shimla, also consists of two rooms, kitchen and bath room. Even assuming that he was running an office in the part of the flat it cannot be believed that he would not live on his own flat on the Mall Road and reside with his brother-in-law in cramped premises. Even in the electoral list the landlord is shown to be a resident of 31, The Mall, Shimla. Therefore, I am of the considered view that the building 31, the Mall, Shimla was also being used as a residence by the landlord.</p><p>11. Having held so, the question that arises is whether the landlord can be non-suited only on the ground that he has not made any disclosure about the residential accommodation available with him which premises were admittedly not owned by him.</p><p>12. The short question which arises for decision in this petition is whether the landlord was guilty of suppressing and withholding such relevant facts which would disentitle him from seeking eviction of the tenant. To appreciate these contentions it would be necessary to refer to relevant portion of Section 14(3) of the Act:</p><p>Section 14:</p><p>1 and 2 xxxxxxxxxxx</p><p>(3) A landlord may apply to the Controller for an order directing the tenant to put the landlord in possession-</p><p>(a) in case of residential building, if</p><p>(i) he required it for his own occupation:</p><p>Provided that he is not occupying another residential building owned by him, in the urban area concerned:</p><p>Provided further that he has not vacated such a building without sufficient cause within five years of the filing of the application, in the said urban area....</p><p>13. A perusal of the bare provisions of the Act makes it clear that there are certain essential ingredients which the landlord must satisfy before seeking eviction of the tenant under the Act. Not only must he prove that the residential building is bona fide required by him for his own use and occupation but he must also plead and prove that he is not occupying any other residential building owned by him in the urban area concerned and further that he has not vacated such a building without sufficient cause within 5 years of the filing of the application.</p><p>14. Reference may now be made to the relevant allegations made in para 18 of the eviction petition:</p><p>(ii) That the petitioner bona fide requires the premises for his own use and occupation and also for the use and occupation of his family.</p><p>The petitioner does not own or possess any other such building within the urban area of Simla nor the petitioner has vacated any such premises within five years of the filing of this petition.</p><p>The family of the petitioner presently consists of himself and his wife. Due to paucity of accommodation the petitioner has not been able to keep his wife with himself at Simla, where he is working as an Engineer and she has been residing at Chandigarh since 1991 but on account of her ill health she has been brought to Simla by the petitioner. The petitioner at present is seeking temporary shelter, from time to time, with his relations.</p><p>15. The learned Appellate Authority came to the conclusion that the landlord had falsely pleaded that he does not own or possess any other such building within the urban area of Shimla and hence rejected the eviction petition on this ground.</p><p>16. On a close analysis of the proviso to Section 14(3)(a)(i) of the Act it is clear that a landlord is not entitled to seek eviction of a tenant from residential building even in case of bona fide requirement if the landlord is occupying another residential building owned by him in the urban area concerned. One can read three essential ingredients in this proviso i.e. (i) that the landlord is in occupation of another residential building; (ii) that the said residential building is owned by him and (iii) that the said residential building is situated in the concerned urban area.</p><p>17. The question that arises is what is the impact of the landlord not making a disclosure in respect of premises which he is occupying but are not owned by him.</p><p>18. The Apex Court in Onkar Nath v. Ved Vyas ILR 1979 HP 1, held as follows:</p><p>It is common ground that there are three requirements to make out a cause of action for eviction under that provision, and indeed this is apparent from a bare reading of the sub-section. In the present case the finding is to the effect that the landlord requires the residential building for his own occupation. But, the legislation has taken care to insist upon two more conditions, namely; (a) that the landlord is not occupying any other residential building in the area concerned; and (b) that he has not vacated such a building without sufficient cause. There is not a scintilla of evidence nor indeed there is any averment in compliance with these latter conditions. The necessary consequence follows that not merely is there inadequacy of pleadings sufficient to make out a cause of action but total absence of proof of two vital requirements....</p><p>The Supreme Court also said that:.The statute benignly designed to protect tenants from unreasonable evictions has taken case to put restrictions which must be rigorously construed to fulfil the purpose of the statute.</p><p>19. Following the aforesaid judgment and other pronouncements of the Apex Court, a learned Single Judge of this Court in Tara Chand Sharma v. Baij Nath and Ors. 1992 (2) R.C.J. 323, held as follows:</p><p>16. What appears as the legislative intent, in bold relief, is that the landlord, while seeking eviction of a tenant on the ground that he needs a residential building for his own occupation, must come out clearly and honestly with facts relating to the requirement that he is not occupying another residential building owned by him, in the urban area concerned and that he had not vacated such a building without sufficient cause within five years of the filing of the application, in the said urban area. The primal burden of making a clear disclosure would lie upon the landlord, for, the true facts would be in his special knowledge. An order in his favour by the Rent Controller would depend upon the satisfaction of the Rent Controller in regard not only to the claim that the landlord requires the accommodation, from which he wishes to evict a tenant, for his own occupation but also that he was not occupying another residential building owned by him nor had he vacated such building without sufficient cause within five years of the filing of the application in the application in the urban area concerned....</p><p>It was further held as under:</p><p>18. That the landlord should make a full disclosure of the relevant facts, pertaining to the requirements of Sub-section (3)(a)(i) and the two provisos, becomes all the more necessary because the satisfaction of the Rent Controller in regard thereto is the condition precedent for the making of an order in favour of the landlord....</p><p>20. The aforesaid judgment has been followed in a number of other cases including Vijay Kapoor v. Maya Ram 1997 (2) RCR 437, wherein another learned single Judge of this Court following the aforesaid judgment held that the landlord must make complete and proper disclosure of all the material facts.</p><p>21. On the other hand Sh. Ramakant Sharma has relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in Ram Narain Arora v. Asha Rani 1998(2) RCR 268. In that case the Rent Controller came to the conclusion that the landlord had suppressed material information and had not disclosed the fact that he was already in occupation of a house in Subji Mandi. Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act reads as follows:</p><p>Section 14(1)(e). That the premises let for residential purposes are required bona fide by the landlord for occupation as a residence for himself or for any member of his family dependent on him, if he is the owner thereof, or for any person for whose benefit the premises are held and that the landlord or such person has no other reasonably suitable residential accommodation.</p><p>22. The difference between Delhi Act and the present Act is that under the Delhi Act the only requirement is that the landlord has no other reasonably suitable accommodation whereas under the Himachal Act the residential premises are required to be owned by the landlord. The Apex Court in Rama Narain Arora's case (supra) held that the nondisclosure of the fact that the landlord was in occupation of certain premises in Subji Mandi was.not a ground to non-suit the landlord in view of the facts and circumstances of the case. The Apex Court held as follows:</p><p>9. In making a claim that the suit premises is required bona fide for his own occupation as a residence for himself and other members of his family dependent on him and that he has no other reasonably suitable accommodation is a requirement of law before the Court can state whether the landlord requires the premises bona fide for his use and occupation. In doing so, the Court must also find out whether the landlord or such other person for whose benefit the premises is required has no other reasonably suitable residential accommodation. It cannot be said that the requirement of the landlord is not intermixed with the question of finding out whether he has any other reasonably suitable accommodation. If he has other reasonably suitable accommodation, ihen necessarily it would mean that he does not require the suit premises and his requirement may not be bona fide. In such circumstances further inquiry would be whether that premises is more suitable than the suit premises. Therefore, the questions raised before the Court would not necessarily depend upon only the pleadings. It could be a good defence that the landlord has other reasonably suitable residential accommodation and thereby defend the claim of the landlord.</p><p>10. There cannot be a pedantic or a dogmatic approach in the matter of analysis of pleadings or of the evidence adduced thereto. It is no doubt true that if the pleadings are clearly set out, it would be easy for the Court to decide the matters. But if the pleadings are lacking or vague and if both parties have understood what was the case pleaded and put forth with reference to requirement of law and placed such material before the Court, neither party is prejudiced. If we analyse from this angle, we do not think that the High Court was not justified in interfering with the order made by the Rent Controller.</p><p>23. From the perusal of the judgment of the Apex Court it is apparent that the Rent Controller must approach the matter in a practical manner. In case the non-disclosure is such as that it goes to the very root of the case the Rent Controller would be justified in non-suiting the landlord. However, if the non-disclosure is such that it would not prejudice the rights of the respondent then the landlord should not be non-suited only on this ground.</p><p>24. The decisions of this Court cited hereinabove were delivered prior to the judgment delivered by the Apex Court in Ram Nar'ain Arora's case. Further more both in Tara Chand Sharma's case and Vijay Kapoor's case decided by this Court, no averment had been made ixi respect of other residential buildings owned by a landlord. There was complete non-disclosure as to whether any such residential building owned by the landlord was in his possession or not. In the present case, as I have held above, the residential premises at 31, The Mall, Shimla was not owned by the landlord and hence these two earlier judgments of this Court are distinguishable on facts also.</p><p>25. In the present case, the landlord has been non-suited only on the ground that he did not disclose the fact that he was in occupation of certain premises on the Mall Road. Under law he was not required to disclose this fact. He was only required to disclose the factum of occupying another residential building owned by him in the urban area concerned. True it may be, that it would have been better if the landlord had disclosed all the facts but non-disclosure of a fact which he was not under law required to disclose could not in my opinion be a ground to dismiss his eviction petition.</p><p>26. However, what are the premises in his occupation even as a tenant can be taken into consideration while deciding the question whether he bona fide requires the demised premises for his personal use or occupation or not.</p><p>27. Lastly comes the question with regard to the bona fide requirement of the landlord. The landlord has no children. According to the landlord as well as his other witnesses i.e. his brother-in-law PW-2 and his wife PW-3, the wife now wants to come back and settle in Shimla. There is no reason to disbelieve their statements. Even according to the evidence led by the tenant the accommodation in possession of the landlord consists of two rooms, kitchen, bath room etc. Admittedly, the landlord is also having his office as an Architect in this building. The landlord belongs to the middle class of the Society. It cannot be expected of a landlord who owns sufficient property to reside in a two room set wherein he also runs his office.</p><p>28. The law by now is well settled that the landlord is the best judge of the suitability of the accommodation required by him. This suitability has however to be judged in the context of reasonable expectations. The landlord and his wife who are both well educated can reasonably be expected to entertain guests and they will have visitors to their house. They would obviously require a drawing room, a bed room and a spare bed room for guests. Even at his residence the landlord may require another room for his professional work. This is the minimum accommodation which they would require. Even if the accommodation possessed by the landlord, though not owned by him, at 31, the Mall, Shimla is taken into consideration such accommodation is not sufficient to meet his requirements since admittedly the landlord is running his profession of Architect from some portion of his these premises.</p><p>29. Keeping in view the entire facts and circumstances, I am of the considered view that the learned Appellate Authority gravely erred in rejecting the eviction petition of the landlord solely on the ground that he had not disclosed the factum of being in possession of the premises at 31, the Mall Shimla. Even though I have held that the said premises are residential premises, in view of the above discussion I hold that the landlord cannot be non-suited only on the ground of his being in possession of such premises since same were not owned by him.</p><p>30. In view of the above discussion, the Revision Petition is allowed, the order of the learned Appellate Authority dated 6.5.2003 is seaside and the order of the Rent Controller dated 22.8.2001 is restored.</p><p>31. Keeping in view the fact that the tenant has been in possession of the premises for a long period he is granted time up to 31st October, 2008 to vacate the premises.</p><p>32. No order as to costs.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '2008(2)ShimLC491',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'Shri S.L. Srivastava',
		'sub' => 'Tenancy',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'shri-arun-bhanwara-vs-s-l-srivastava'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '891084',
	(int) 1 => 'shri-arun-bhanwara-vs-s-l-srivastava'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/891084/shri-arun-bhanwara-vs-s-l-srivastava'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$caseref = 'Ram Narain Arora v. Asha Rani<br>'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>Deepak Gupta, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. This Revision Petition under Section 25(5) of the H.P. Urban Rent Control Act, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) is directed against the order of the learned Appellate Authority, Shimla in CMA No. 60-S/14 of 2001 whereby the appeal filed by the respondent (hereinafter referred to as the tenant) has been allowed, the order of the Rent Controller has been set-aside and the petition for eviction filed by the present petitioner (hereinafter referred to as the Landlord) on the ground of personal bona fide requirement has been set-aside.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. The undisputed facts are that the landlord is owner of the demised premises situated in building known as Tunnel View, Sanjauli, Shimla-6 consisting of two bed rooms with attached bath room and latrine, drawing-cum-dining room, kitchen and balcony. These premises were purchased by the landlord in the year 1986. Thereafter, the landlord had rented out the premises to one Sh. B.K. Chauhan. According to the landlord, when he got married he requested Sh. B.K. Chauhan to vacate the said premises. Sh. Chauhan vacated the said premises but admittedly the landlord did not occupy the same but rented out the same to the tenant in the year 1990.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. In the year 1997 the landlord filed a petition for eviction of the tenant on two grounds; firstly that the tenant is in arrears of rent from 1.11.1990 to 31.7.1997 and secondly that the premises are bona fide required by the landlord for the use and occupation of himself and his family.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>4. This petition was contested by the tenant. After trial, the Rent Controller ordered the eviction of the tenant on two grounds; (i) that the tenant was in arrears of rent from November, 1999 till date of order i.e. 22nd August, 2001 and (ii) that the landlord required the premises for his own use and occupation.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>5. The tenant deposited the rent within the time prescribed. He also filed an appeal challenging the finding on the issue of bona fide requirement. The learned Appellate Authority came to the conclusion that the landlord had not made a proper and full disclosure of facts as required under the provisions of the Act and had withheld material facts from the Court viz. that the landlord was in occupation of residential premises on 31, Mall Road in the urban area of Shimla and as such rejected this petition on this short ground.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>6. Aggrieved by the said order, the landlord has filed the present Revision Petition.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>7. I have heard Sh. Ramakant Sharma, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sh. Bhupinder Gupta, learned senior Counsel for the tenant.',
	(int) 8 => '<p>8. It has been urged on behalf of the landlord that the building which is alleged to be in possession of the landlord i.e. 31, the Mall Shimla is not a residential building and secondly that the building is not owned by him.',
	(int) 9 => '<p>9. On the other hand Sh. Bhupinder Gupta, learned Counsel of the tenant has strenuously urged that the landlord in para 18 has not stated anything about any building being owned by him and has only made an averment that he does not own or possess any other such building within the urban area Shimla. It is contended by Sh. Bhupinder Gupta that the landlord of his own volition did not state anything about the ownership of the building and since he has kept silent about the building which he is in occupation he has made a false averment and therefore his petition for eviction has rightly been rejected.',
	(int) 10 => '<p>10. I am not at all in agreement with the contention of the landlord that the premises known as 31, the Mall Shimla which are admittedly in the occupation of the landlord are commercial premises only and not being used by him for his residence. As pointed out above, the landlord purchased the demised premises in 1986. They fell vacant when he got married despite that he did not occupy the same and rented out the same to the tenant in the year 1990. The question that arises is where was the landlord living for this entire period. According to the landlord after the year 1994 he has been living with his brother-in-law Rajan (wife's brother) PW-2, since the year 1994. Prior to 1994 the landlord will have this Court to believe that he was living off and on with one friend or the other. This story is impossible to believe. The landlord was married in the year 1999. He is an Architect by profession. His wife is a law graduate. It is not believable that such a person would have no permanent abode and would continue to live as a guest with his friends for almost 5 years after his marriage. Even the story that he has been living with his brother-in-law after the year 1994 does not inspire confidence. It stands proved on record that the brother-in-law PW-2 Rajan lives with his own family i.e. wife and children. From the evidence it is also clear that the parents of the brother-in-law also reside with him, His flat consists of only two rooms. The flat in possession of the landlord at 31, the Mall Shimla, also consists of two rooms, kitchen and bath room. Even assuming that he was running an office in the part of the flat it cannot be believed that he would not live on his own flat on the Mall Road and reside with his brother-in-law in cramped premises. Even in the electoral list the landlord is shown to be a resident of 31, The Mall, Shimla. Therefore, I am of the considered view that the building 31, the Mall, Shimla was also being used as a residence by the landlord.',
	(int) 11 => '<p>11. Having held so, the question that arises is whether the landlord can be non-suited only on the ground that he has not made any disclosure about the residential accommodation available with him which premises were admittedly not owned by him.',
	(int) 12 => '<p>12. The short question which arises for decision in this petition is whether the landlord was guilty of suppressing and withholding such relevant facts which would disentitle him from seeking eviction of the tenant. To appreciate these contentions it would be necessary to refer to relevant portion of Section 14(3) of the Act:',
	(int) 13 => '<p>Section 14:',
	(int) 14 => '<p>1 and 2 xxxxxxxxxxx',
	(int) 15 => '<p>(3) A landlord may apply to the Controller for an order directing the tenant to put the landlord in possession-',
	(int) 16 => '<p>(a) in case of residential building, if',
	(int) 17 => '<p>(i) he required it for his own occupation:',
	(int) 18 => '<p>Provided that he is not occupying another residential building owned by him, in the urban area concerned:',
	(int) 19 => '<p>Provided further that he has not vacated such a building without sufficient cause within five years of the filing of the application, in the said urban area....',
	(int) 20 => '<p>13. A perusal of the bare provisions of the Act makes it clear that there are certain essential ingredients which the landlord must satisfy before seeking eviction of the tenant under the Act. Not only must he prove that the residential building is bona fide required by him for his own use and occupation but he must also plead and prove that he is not occupying any other residential building owned by him in the urban area concerned and further that he has not vacated such a building without sufficient cause within 5 years of the filing of the application.',
	(int) 21 => '<p>14. Reference may now be made to the relevant allegations made in para 18 of the eviction petition:',
	(int) 22 => '<p>(ii) That the petitioner bona fide requires the premises for his own use and occupation and also for the use and occupation of his family.',
	(int) 23 => '<p>The petitioner does not own or possess any other such building within the urban area of Simla nor the petitioner has vacated any such premises within five years of the filing of this petition.',
	(int) 24 => '<p>The family of the petitioner presently consists of himself and his wife. Due to paucity of accommodation the petitioner has not been able to keep his wife with himself at Simla, where he is working as an Engineer and she has been residing at Chandigarh since 1991 but on account of her ill health she has been brought to Simla by the petitioner. The petitioner at present is seeking temporary shelter, from time to time, with his relations.',
	(int) 25 => '<p>15. The learned Appellate Authority came to the conclusion that the landlord had falsely pleaded that he does not own or possess any other such building within the urban area of Shimla and hence rejected the eviction petition on this ground.',
	(int) 26 => '<p>16. On a close analysis of the proviso to Section 14(3)(a)(i) of the Act it is clear that a landlord is not entitled to seek eviction of a tenant from residential building even in case of bona fide requirement if the landlord is occupying another residential building owned by him in the urban area concerned. One can read three essential ingredients in this proviso i.e. (i) that the landlord is in occupation of another residential building; (ii) that the said residential building is owned by him and (iii) that the said residential building is situated in the concerned urban area.',
	(int) 27 => '<p>17. The question that arises is what is the impact of the landlord not making a disclosure in respect of premises which he is occupying but are not owned by him.',
	(int) 28 => '<p>18. The Apex Court in Onkar Nath v. Ved Vyas ILR 1979 HP 1, held as follows:',
	(int) 29 => '<p>It is common ground that there are three requirements to make out a cause of action for eviction under that provision, and indeed this is apparent from a bare reading of the sub-section. In the present case the finding is to the effect that the landlord requires the residential building for his own occupation. But, the legislation has taken care to insist upon two more conditions, namely; (a) that the landlord is not occupying any other residential building in the area concerned; and (b) that he has not vacated such a building without sufficient cause. There is not a scintilla of evidence nor indeed there is any averment in compliance with these latter conditions. The necessary consequence follows that not merely is there inadequacy of pleadings sufficient to make out a cause of action but total absence of proof of two vital requirements....',
	(int) 30 => '<p>The Supreme Court also said that:.The statute benignly designed to protect tenants from unreasonable evictions has taken case to put restrictions which must be rigorously construed to fulfil the purpose of the statute.',
	(int) 31 => '<p>19. Following the aforesaid judgment and other pronouncements of the Apex Court, a learned Single Judge of this Court in Tara Chand Sharma v. Baij Nath and Ors. 1992 (2) R.C.J. 323, held as follows:',
	(int) 32 => '<p>16. What appears as the legislative intent, in bold relief, is that the landlord, while seeking eviction of a tenant on the ground that he needs a residential building for his own occupation, must come out clearly and honestly with facts relating to the requirement that he is not occupying another residential building owned by him, in the urban area concerned and that he had not vacated such a building without sufficient cause within five years of the filing of the application, in the said urban area. The primal burden of making a clear disclosure would lie upon the landlord, for, the true facts would be in his special knowledge. An order in his favour by the Rent Controller would depend upon the satisfaction of the Rent Controller in regard not only to the claim that the landlord requires the accommodation, from which he wishes to evict a tenant, for his own occupation but also that he was not occupying another residential building owned by him nor had he vacated such building without sufficient cause within five years of the filing of the application in the application in the urban area concerned....',
	(int) 33 => '<p>It was further held as under:',
	(int) 34 => '<p>18. That the landlord should make a full disclosure of the relevant facts, pertaining to the requirements of Sub-section (3)(a)(i) and the two provisos, becomes all the more necessary because the satisfaction of the Rent Controller in regard thereto is the condition precedent for the making of an order in favour of the landlord....',
	(int) 35 => '<p>20. The aforesaid judgment has been followed in a number of other cases including Vijay Kapoor v. Maya Ram 1997 (2) RCR 437, wherein another learned single Judge of this Court following the aforesaid judgment held that the landlord must make complete and proper disclosure of all the material facts.',
	(int) 36 => '<p>21. On the other hand Sh. Ramakant Sharma has relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in Ram Narain Arora v. Asha Rani 1998(2) RCR 268. In that case the Rent Controller came to the conclusion that the landlord had suppressed material information and had not disclosed the fact that he was already in occupation of a house in Subji Mandi. Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act reads as follows:',
	(int) 37 => '<p>Section 14(1)(e). That the premises let for residential purposes are required bona fide by the landlord for occupation as a residence for himself or for any member of his family dependent on him, if he is the owner thereof, or for any person for whose benefit the premises are held and that the landlord or such person has no other reasonably suitable residential accommodation.',
	(int) 38 => '<p>22. The difference between Delhi Act and the present Act is that under the Delhi Act the only requirement is that the landlord has no other reasonably suitable accommodation whereas under the Himachal Act the residential premises are required to be owned by the landlord. The Apex Court in Rama Narain Arora's case (supra) held that the nondisclosure of the fact that the landlord was in occupation of certain premises in Subji Mandi was.not a ground to non-suit the landlord in view of the facts and circumstances of the case. The Apex Court held as follows:',
	(int) 39 => '<p>9. In making a claim that the suit premises is required bona fide for his own occupation as a residence for himself and other members of his family dependent on him and that he has no other reasonably suitable accommodation is a requirement of law before the Court can state whether the landlord requires the premises bona fide for his use and occupation. In doing so, the Court must also find out whether the landlord or such other person for whose benefit the premises is required has no other reasonably suitable residential accommodation. It cannot be said that the requirement of the landlord is not intermixed with the question of finding out whether he has any other reasonably suitable accommodation. If he has other reasonably suitable accommodation, ihen necessarily it would mean that he does not require the suit premises and his requirement may not be bona fide. In such circumstances further inquiry would be whether that premises is more suitable than the suit premises. Therefore, the questions raised before the Court would not necessarily depend upon only the pleadings. It could be a good defence that the landlord has other reasonably suitable residential accommodation and thereby defend the claim of the landlord.',
	(int) 40 => '<p>10. There cannot be a pedantic or a dogmatic approach in the matter of analysis of pleadings or of the evidence adduced thereto. It is no doubt true that if the pleadings are clearly set out, it would be easy for the Court to decide the matters. But if the pleadings are lacking or vague and if both parties have understood what was the case pleaded and put forth with reference to requirement of law and placed such material before the Court, neither party is prejudiced. If we analyse from this angle, we do not think that the High Court was not justified in interfering with the order made by the Rent Controller.',
	(int) 41 => '<p>23. From the perusal of the judgment of the Apex Court it is apparent that the Rent Controller must approach the matter in a practical manner. In case the non-disclosure is such as that it goes to the very root of the case the Rent Controller would be justified in non-suiting the landlord. However, if the non-disclosure is such that it would not prejudice the rights of the respondent then the landlord should not be non-suited only on this ground.',
	(int) 42 => '<p>24. The decisions of this Court cited hereinabove were delivered prior to the judgment delivered by the Apex Court in Ram Nar'ain Arora's case. Further more both in Tara Chand Sharma's case and Vijay Kapoor's case decided by this Court, no averment had been made ixi respect of other residential buildings owned by a landlord. There was complete non-disclosure as to whether any such residential building owned by the landlord was in his possession or not. In the present case, as I have held above, the residential premises at 31, The Mall, Shimla was not owned by the landlord and hence these two earlier judgments of this Court are distinguishable on facts also.',
	(int) 43 => '<p>25. In the present case, the landlord has been non-suited only on the ground that he did not disclose the fact that he was in occupation of certain premises on the Mall Road. Under law he was not required to disclose this fact. He was only required to disclose the factum of occupying another residential building owned by him in the urban area concerned. True it may be, that it would have been better if the landlord had disclosed all the facts but non-disclosure of a fact which he was not under law required to disclose could not in my opinion be a ground to dismiss his eviction petition.',
	(int) 44 => '<p>26. However, what are the premises in his occupation even as a tenant can be taken into consideration while deciding the question whether he bona fide requires the demised premises for his personal use or occupation or not.',
	(int) 45 => '<p>27. Lastly comes the question with regard to the bona fide requirement of the landlord. The landlord has no children. According to the landlord as well as his other witnesses i.e. his brother-in-law PW-2 and his wife PW-3, the wife now wants to come back and settle in Shimla. There is no reason to disbelieve their statements. Even according to the evidence led by the tenant the accommodation in possession of the landlord consists of two rooms, kitchen, bath room etc. Admittedly, the landlord is also having his office as an Architect in this building. The landlord belongs to the middle class of the Society. It cannot be expected of a landlord who owns sufficient property to reside in a two room set wherein he also runs his office.',
	(int) 46 => '<p>28. The law by now is well settled that the landlord is the best judge of the suitability of the accommodation required by him. This suitability has however to be judged in the context of reasonable expectations. The landlord and his wife who are both well educated can reasonably be expected to entertain guests and they will have visitors to their house. They would obviously require a drawing room, a bed room and a spare bed room for guests. Even at his residence the landlord may require another room for his professional work. This is the minimum accommodation which they would require. Even if the accommodation possessed by the landlord, though not owned by him, at 31, the Mall, Shimla is taken into consideration such accommodation is not sufficient to meet his requirements since admittedly the landlord is running his profession of Architect from some portion of his these premises.',
	(int) 47 => '<p>29. Keeping in view the entire facts and circumstances, I am of the considered view that the learned Appellate Authority gravely erred in rejecting the eviction petition of the landlord solely on the ground that he had not disclosed the factum of being in possession of the premises at 31, the Mall Shimla. Even though I have held that the said premises are residential premises, in view of the above discussion I hold that the landlord cannot be non-suited only on the ground of his being in possession of such premises since same were not owned by him.',
	(int) 48 => '<p>30. In view of the above discussion, the Revision Petition is allowed, the order of the learned Appellate Authority dated 6.5.2003 is seaside and the order of the Rent Controller dated 22.8.2001 is restored.',
	(int) 49 => '<p>31. Keeping in view the fact that the tenant has been in possession of the premises for a long period he is granted time up to 31st October, 2008 to vacate the premises.',
	(int) 50 => '<p>32. No order as to costs.<p>',
	(int) 51 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 52
$i = (int) 5
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

5. The tenant deposited the rent within the time prescribed. He also filed an appeal challenging the finding on the issue of bona fide requirement. The learned Appellate Authority came to the conclusion that the landlord had not made a proper and full disclosure of facts as required under the provisions of the Act and had withheld material facts from the Court viz. that the landlord was in occupation of residential premises on 31, Mall Road in the urban area of Shimla and as such rejected this petition on this short ground.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Shri Arun Bhanwara Vs Shri S L Srivastava - Citation 891084 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '891084',
			'acts' => '',
			'appealno' => '',
			'appellant' => 'Shri Arun Bhanwara',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Shri Arun Bhanwara Vs. Shri S.L. Srivastava',
			'casenote' => ' - CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908.[C.A. No. 5/1908]. Order 14, Rule 2 [As amended by Amending Act of 1976]: [V.K. Gupta, CJ, Deepak Gupta & Surjit Singh, JJ] Preliminary issue of law and fact  Court framing all issues both of law and facts together and also  tried all the issues together, including the issue relating to jurisdiction of Court  Held, Except in situations perceived or warranted under sub-rule (2) of Rule 2 of Order 14 where a  Court in fact frames only issues of law in the first instance and postpones settlement of other issues, clearly and explicitly in situations where the Court has framed all issues together, both of law as well as facts and has also tried all these issues together, it is not open to the Court to adopt the principle of severability and proceed to decide issues of law first, without taking up simultaneously other issues for decision. This course of action is not available to a Court because sub-rule (1) does not permit the  Court to adopt any such principle of severability and to dispose of a suit only on preliminary issues, or what can be termed as issues of law. Sub-rule (1)  clearly mandates that in a situation contemplated under it, where all the issues have been together and have also been taken up for adjudication during the course of the trial, these must be decided together and the judgment in the suit as a whole must be pronounced by the Court covering all the issues framed in the suit.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => 'Ram Narain Arora v. Asha Rani;',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => '',
			'counseldef' => '',
			'court' => 'Himachal Pradesh',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2008-07-31',
			'deposition' => 'Petition allowed',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => ' Deepak Gupta, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">Deepak Gupta, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. This Revision Petition under Section 25(5) of the H.P. Urban Rent Control Act, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) is directed against the order of the learned Appellate Authority, Shimla in CMA No. 60-S/14 of 2001 whereby the appeal filed by the respondent (hereinafter referred to as the tenant) has been allowed, the order of the Rent Controller has been set-aside and the petition for eviction filed by the present petitioner (hereinafter referred to as the Landlord) on the ground of personal bona fide requirement has been set-aside.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The undisputed facts are that the landlord is owner of the demised premises situated in building known as Tunnel View, Sanjauli, Shimla-6 consisting of two bed rooms with attached bath room and latrine, drawing-cum-dining room, kitchen and balcony. These premises were purchased by the landlord in the year 1986. Thereafter, the landlord had rented out the premises to one Sh. B.K. Chauhan. According to the landlord, when he got married he requested Sh. B.K. Chauhan to vacate the said premises. Sh. Chauhan vacated the said premises but admittedly the landlord did not occupy the same but rented out the same to the tenant in the year 1990.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. In the year 1997 the landlord filed a petition for eviction of the tenant on two grounds; firstly that the tenant is in arrears of rent from 1.11.1990 to 31.7.1997 and secondly that the premises are bona fide required by the landlord for the use and occupation of himself and his family.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. This petition was contested by the tenant. After trial, the Rent Controller ordered the eviction of the tenant on two grounds; (i) that the tenant was in arrears of rent from November, 1999 till date of order i.e. 22nd August, 2001 and (ii) that the landlord required the premises for his own use and occupation.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. The tenant deposited the rent within the time prescribed. He also filed an appeal challenging the finding on the issue of bona fide requirement. The learned Appellate Authority came to the conclusion that the landlord had not made a proper and full disclosure of facts as required under the provisions of the Act and had withheld material facts from the Court viz. that the landlord was in occupation of residential premises on 31, Mall Road in the urban area of Shimla and as such rejected this petition on this short ground.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. Aggrieved by the said order, the landlord has filed the present Revision Petition.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. I have heard Sh. Ramakant Sharma, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sh. Bhupinder Gupta, learned senior Counsel for the tenant.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. It has been urged on behalf of the landlord that the building which is alleged to be in possession of the landlord i.e. 31, the Mall Shimla is not a residential building and secondly that the building is not owned by him.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. On the other hand Sh. Bhupinder Gupta, learned Counsel of the tenant has strenuously urged that the landlord in para 18 has not stated anything about any building being owned by him and has only made an averment that he does not own or possess any other such building within the urban area Shimla. It is contended by Sh. Bhupinder Gupta that the landlord of his own volition did not state anything about the ownership of the building and since he has kept silent about the building which he is in occupation he has made a false averment and therefore his petition for eviction has rightly been rejected.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. I am not at all in agreement with the contention of the landlord that the premises known as 31, the Mall Shimla which are admittedly in the occupation of the landlord are commercial premises only and not being used by him for his residence. As pointed out above, the landlord purchased the demised premises in 1986. They fell vacant when he got married despite that he did not occupy the same and rented out the same to the tenant in the year 1990. The question that arises is where was the landlord living for this entire period. According to the landlord after the year 1994 he has been living with his brother-in-law Rajan (wife's brother) PW-2, since the year 1994. Prior to 1994 the landlord will have this Court to believe that he was living off and on with one friend or the other. This story is impossible to believe. The landlord was married in the year 1999. He is an Architect by profession. His wife is a law graduate. It is not believable that such a person would have no permanent abode and would continue to live as a guest with his friends for almost 5 years after his marriage. Even the story that he has been living with his brother-in-law after the year 1994 does not inspire confidence. It stands proved on record that the brother-in-law PW-2 Rajan lives with his own family i.e. wife and children. From the evidence it is also clear that the parents of the brother-in-law also reside with him, His flat consists of only two rooms. The flat in possession of the landlord at 31, the Mall Shimla, also consists of two rooms, kitchen and bath room. Even assuming that he was running an office in the part of the flat it cannot be believed that he would not live on his own flat on the Mall Road and reside with his brother-in-law in cramped premises. Even in the electoral list the landlord is shown to be a resident of 31, The Mall, Shimla. Therefore, I am of the considered view that the building 31, the Mall, Shimla was also being used as a residence by the landlord.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. Having held so, the question that arises is whether the landlord can be non-suited only on the ground that he has not made any disclosure about the residential accommodation available with him which premises were admittedly not owned by him.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. The short question which arises for decision in this petition is whether the landlord was guilty of suppressing and withholding such relevant facts which would disentitle him from seeking eviction of the tenant. To appreciate these contentions it would be necessary to refer to relevant portion of Section 14(3) of the Act:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Section 14:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1 and 2 xxxxxxxxxxx</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(3) A landlord may apply to the Controller for an order directing the tenant to put the landlord in possession-</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(a) in case of residential building, if</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(i) he required it for his own occupation:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Provided that he is not occupying another residential building owned by him, in the urban area concerned:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Provided further that he has not vacated such a building without sufficient cause within five years of the filing of the application, in the said urban area....</p><p style="text-align: justify;">13. A perusal of the bare provisions of the Act makes it clear that there are certain essential ingredients which the landlord must satisfy before seeking eviction of the tenant under the Act. Not only must he prove that the residential building is bona fide required by him for his own use and occupation but he must also plead and prove that he is not occupying any other residential building owned by him in the urban area concerned and further that he has not vacated such a building without sufficient cause within 5 years of the filing of the application.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">14. Reference may now be made to the relevant allegations made in para 18 of the eviction petition:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(ii) That the petitioner bona fide requires the premises for his own use and occupation and also for the use and occupation of his family.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The petitioner does not own or possess any other such building within the urban area of Simla nor the petitioner has vacated any such premises within five years of the filing of this petition.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The family of the petitioner presently consists of himself and his wife. Due to paucity of accommodation the petitioner has not been able to keep his wife with himself at Simla, where he is working as an Engineer and she has been residing at Chandigarh since 1991 but on account of her ill health she has been brought to Simla by the petitioner. The petitioner at present is seeking temporary shelter, from time to time, with his relations.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">15. The learned Appellate Authority came to the conclusion that the landlord had falsely pleaded that he does not own or possess any other such building within the urban area of Shimla and hence rejected the eviction petition on this ground.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">16. On a close analysis of the proviso to Section 14(3)(a)(i) of the Act it is clear that a landlord is not entitled to seek eviction of a tenant from residential building even in case of bona fide requirement if the landlord is occupying another residential building owned by him in the urban area concerned. One can read three essential ingredients in this proviso i.e. (i) that the landlord is in occupation of another residential building; (ii) that the said residential building is owned by him and (iii) that the said residential building is situated in the concerned urban area.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">17. The question that arises is what is the impact of the landlord not making a disclosure in respect of premises which he is occupying but are not owned by him.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">18. The Apex Court in Onkar Nath v. Ved Vyas ILR 1979 HP 1, held as follows:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">It is common ground that there are three requirements to make out a cause of action for eviction under that provision, and indeed this is apparent from a bare reading of the sub-section. In the present case the finding is to the effect that the landlord requires the residential building for his own occupation. But, the legislation has taken care to insist upon two more conditions, namely; (a) that the landlord is not occupying any other residential building in the area concerned; and (b) that he has not vacated such a building without sufficient cause. There is not a scintilla of evidence nor indeed there is any averment in compliance with these latter conditions. The necessary consequence follows that not merely is there inadequacy of pleadings sufficient to make out a cause of action but total absence of proof of two vital requirements....</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The Supreme Court also said that:.The statute benignly designed to protect tenants from unreasonable evictions has taken case to put restrictions which must be rigorously construed to fulfil the purpose of the statute.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">19. Following the aforesaid judgment and other pronouncements of the Apex Court, a learned Single Judge of this Court in Tara Chand Sharma v. Baij Nath and Ors. 1992 (2) R.C.J. 323, held as follows:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">16. What appears as the legislative intent, in bold relief, is that the landlord, while seeking eviction of a tenant on the ground that he needs a residential building for his own occupation, must come out clearly and honestly with facts relating to the requirement that he is not occupying another residential building owned by him, in the urban area concerned and that he had not vacated such a building without sufficient cause within five years of the filing of the application, in the said urban area. The primal burden of making a clear disclosure would lie upon the landlord, for, the true facts would be in his special knowledge. An order in his favour by the Rent Controller would depend upon the satisfaction of the Rent Controller in regard not only to the claim that the landlord requires the accommodation, from which he wishes to evict a tenant, for his own occupation but also that he was not occupying another residential building owned by him nor had he vacated such building without sufficient cause within five years of the filing of the application in the application in the urban area concerned....</p><p style="text-align: justify;">It was further held as under:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">18. That the landlord should make a full disclosure of the relevant facts, pertaining to the requirements of Sub-section (3)(a)(i) and the two provisos, becomes all the more necessary because the satisfaction of the Rent Controller in regard thereto is the condition precedent for the making of an order in favour of the landlord....</p><p style="text-align: justify;">20. The aforesaid judgment has been followed in a number of other cases including Vijay Kapoor v. Maya Ram 1997 (2) RCR 437, wherein another learned single Judge of this Court following the aforesaid judgment held that the landlord must make complete and proper disclosure of all the material facts.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">21. On the other hand Sh. Ramakant Sharma has relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in Ram Narain Arora v. Asha Rani 1998(2) RCR 268. In that case the Rent Controller came to the conclusion that the landlord had suppressed material information and had not disclosed the fact that he was already in occupation of a house in Subji Mandi. Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act reads as follows:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Section 14(1)(e). That the premises let for residential purposes are required bona fide by the landlord for occupation as a residence for himself or for any member of his family dependent on him, if he is the owner thereof, or for any person for whose benefit the premises are held and that the landlord or such person has no other reasonably suitable residential accommodation.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">22. The difference between Delhi Act and the present Act is that under the Delhi Act the only requirement is that the landlord has no other reasonably suitable accommodation whereas under the Himachal Act the residential premises are required to be owned by the landlord. The Apex Court in Rama Narain Arora's case (supra) held that the nondisclosure of the fact that the landlord was in occupation of certain premises in Subji Mandi was.not a ground to non-suit the landlord in view of the facts and circumstances of the case. The Apex Court held as follows:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. In making a claim that the suit premises is required bona fide for his own occupation as a residence for himself and other members of his family dependent on him and that he has no other reasonably suitable accommodation is a requirement of law before the Court can state whether the landlord requires the premises bona fide for his use and occupation. In doing so, the Court must also find out whether the landlord or such other person for whose benefit the premises is required has no other reasonably suitable residential accommodation. It cannot be said that the requirement of the landlord is not intermixed with the question of finding out whether he has any other reasonably suitable accommodation. If he has other reasonably suitable accommodation, ihen necessarily it would mean that he does not require the suit premises and his requirement may not be bona fide. In such circumstances further inquiry would be whether that premises is more suitable than the suit premises. Therefore, the questions raised before the Court would not necessarily depend upon only the pleadings. It could be a good defence that the landlord has other reasonably suitable residential accommodation and thereby defend the claim of the landlord.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. There cannot be a pedantic or a dogmatic approach in the matter of analysis of pleadings or of the evidence adduced thereto. It is no doubt true that if the pleadings are clearly set out, it would be easy for the Court to decide the matters. But if the pleadings are lacking or vague and if both parties have understood what was the case pleaded and put forth with reference to requirement of law and placed such material before the Court, neither party is prejudiced. If we analyse from this angle, we do not think that the High Court was not justified in interfering with the order made by the Rent Controller.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">23. From the perusal of the judgment of the Apex Court it is apparent that the Rent Controller must approach the matter in a practical manner. In case the non-disclosure is such as that it goes to the very root of the case the Rent Controller would be justified in non-suiting the landlord. However, if the non-disclosure is such that it would not prejudice the rights of the respondent then the landlord should not be non-suited only on this ground.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">24. The decisions of this Court cited hereinabove were delivered prior to the judgment delivered by the Apex Court in Ram Nar'ain Arora's case. Further more both in Tara Chand Sharma's case and Vijay Kapoor's case decided by this Court, no averment had been made ixi respect of other residential buildings owned by a landlord. There was complete non-disclosure as to whether any such residential building owned by the landlord was in his possession or not. In the present case, as I have held above, the residential premises at 31, The Mall, Shimla was not owned by the landlord and hence these two earlier judgments of this Court are distinguishable on facts also.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">25. In the present case, the landlord has been non-suited only on the ground that he did not disclose the fact that he was in occupation of certain premises on the Mall Road. Under law he was not required to disclose this fact. He was only required to disclose the factum of occupying another residential building owned by him in the urban area concerned. True it may be, that it would have been better if the landlord had disclosed all the facts but non-disclosure of a fact which he was not under law required to disclose could not in my opinion be a ground to dismiss his eviction petition.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">26. However, what are the premises in his occupation even as a tenant can be taken into consideration while deciding the question whether he bona fide requires the demised premises for his personal use or occupation or not.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">27. Lastly comes the question with regard to the bona fide requirement of the landlord. The landlord has no children. According to the landlord as well as his other witnesses i.e. his brother-in-law PW-2 and his wife PW-3, the wife now wants to come back and settle in Shimla. There is no reason to disbelieve their statements. Even according to the evidence led by the tenant the accommodation in possession of the landlord consists of two rooms, kitchen, bath room etc. Admittedly, the landlord is also having his office as an Architect in this building. The landlord belongs to the middle class of the Society. It cannot be expected of a landlord who owns sufficient property to reside in a two room set wherein he also runs his office.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">28. The law by now is well settled that the landlord is the best judge of the suitability of the accommodation required by him. This suitability has however to be judged in the context of reasonable expectations. The landlord and his wife who are both well educated can reasonably be expected to entertain guests and they will have visitors to their house. They would obviously require a drawing room, a bed room and a spare bed room for guests. Even at his residence the landlord may require another room for his professional work. This is the minimum accommodation which they would require. Even if the accommodation possessed by the landlord, though not owned by him, at 31, the Mall, Shimla is taken into consideration such accommodation is not sufficient to meet his requirements since admittedly the landlord is running his profession of Architect from some portion of his these premises.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">29. Keeping in view the entire facts and circumstances, I am of the considered view that the learned Appellate Authority gravely erred in rejecting the eviction petition of the landlord solely on the ground that he had not disclosed the factum of being in possession of the premises at 31, the Mall Shimla. Even though I have held that the said premises are residential premises, in view of the above discussion I hold that the landlord cannot be non-suited only on the ground of his being in possession of such premises since same were not owned by him.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">30. In view of the above discussion, the Revision Petition is allowed, the order of the learned Appellate Authority dated 6.5.2003 is seaside and the order of the Rent Controller dated 22.8.2001 is restored.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">31. Keeping in view the fact that the tenant has been in possession of the premises for a long period he is granted time up to 31st October, 2008 to vacate the premises.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">32. No order as to costs.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '2008(2)ShimLC491',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'Shri S.L. Srivastava',
			'sub' => 'Tenancy',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'shri-arun-bhanwara-vs-s-l-srivastava',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '891084',
		(int) 1 => 'shri-arun-bhanwara-vs-s-l-srivastava'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Shri Arun Bhanwara Vs Shri S L Srivastava - Citation 891084 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '891084',
		'acts' => '',
		'appealno' => '',
		'appellant' => 'Shri Arun Bhanwara',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Shri Arun Bhanwara Vs. Shri S.L. Srivastava',
		'casenote' => ' - CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908.[C.A. No. 5/1908]. Order 14, Rule 2 [As amended by Amending Act of 1976]: [V.K. Gupta, CJ, Deepak Gupta & Surjit Singh, JJ] Preliminary issue of law and fact  Court framing all issues both of law and facts together and also  tried all the issues together, including the issue relating to jurisdiction of Court  Held, Except in situations perceived or warranted under sub-rule (2) of Rule 2 of Order 14 where a  Court in fact frames only issues of law in the first instance and postpones settlement of other issues, clearly and explicitly in situations where the Court has framed all issues together, both of law as well as facts and has also tried all these issues together, it is not open to the Court to adopt the principle of severability and proceed to decide issues of law first, without taking up simultaneously other issues for decision. This course of action is not available to a Court because sub-rule (1) does not permit the  Court to adopt any such principle of severability and to dispose of a suit only on preliminary issues, or what can be termed as issues of law. Sub-rule (1)  clearly mandates that in a situation contemplated under it, where all the issues have been together and have also been taken up for adjudication during the course of the trial, these must be decided together and the judgment in the suit as a whole must be pronounced by the Court covering all the issues framed in the suit.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => 'Ram Narain Arora v. Asha Rani;',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => '',
		'counseldef' => '',
		'court' => 'Himachal Pradesh',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2008-07-31',
		'deposition' => 'Petition allowed',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => ' Deepak Gupta, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>Deepak Gupta, J.</p><p>1. This Revision Petition under Section 25(5) of the H.P. Urban Rent Control Act, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) is directed against the order of the learned Appellate Authority, Shimla in CMA No. 60-S/14 of 2001 whereby the appeal filed by the respondent (hereinafter referred to as the tenant) has been allowed, the order of the Rent Controller has been set-aside and the petition for eviction filed by the present petitioner (hereinafter referred to as the Landlord) on the ground of personal bona fide requirement has been set-aside.</p><p>2. The undisputed facts are that the landlord is owner of the demised premises situated in building known as Tunnel View, Sanjauli, Shimla-6 consisting of two bed rooms with attached bath room and latrine, drawing-cum-dining room, kitchen and balcony. These premises were purchased by the landlord in the year 1986. Thereafter, the landlord had rented out the premises to one Sh. B.K. Chauhan. According to the landlord, when he got married he requested Sh. B.K. Chauhan to vacate the said premises. Sh. Chauhan vacated the said premises but admittedly the landlord did not occupy the same but rented out the same to the tenant in the year 1990.</p><p>3. In the year 1997 the landlord filed a petition for eviction of the tenant on two grounds; firstly that the tenant is in arrears of rent from 1.11.1990 to 31.7.1997 and secondly that the premises are bona fide required by the landlord for the use and occupation of himself and his family.</p><p>4. This petition was contested by the tenant. After trial, the Rent Controller ordered the eviction of the tenant on two grounds; (i) that the tenant was in arrears of rent from November, 1999 till date of order i.e. 22nd August, 2001 and (ii) that the landlord required the premises for his own use and occupation.</p><p>5. The tenant deposited the rent within the time prescribed. He also filed an appeal challenging the finding on the issue of bona fide requirement. The learned Appellate Authority came to the conclusion that the landlord had not made a proper and full disclosure of facts as required under the provisions of the Act and had withheld material facts from the Court viz. that the landlord was in occupation of residential premises on 31, Mall Road in the urban area of Shimla and as such rejected this petition on this short ground.</p><p>6. Aggrieved by the said order, the landlord has filed the present Revision Petition.</p><p>7. I have heard Sh. Ramakant Sharma, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sh. Bhupinder Gupta, learned senior Counsel for the tenant.</p><p>8. It has been urged on behalf of the landlord that the building which is alleged to be in possession of the landlord i.e. 31, the Mall Shimla is not a residential building and secondly that the building is not owned by him.</p><p>9. On the other hand Sh. Bhupinder Gupta, learned Counsel of the tenant has strenuously urged that the landlord in para 18 has not stated anything about any building being owned by him and has only made an averment that he does not own or possess any other such building within the urban area Shimla. It is contended by Sh. Bhupinder Gupta that the landlord of his own volition did not state anything about the ownership of the building and since he has kept silent about the building which he is in occupation he has made a false averment and therefore his petition for eviction has rightly been rejected.</p><p>10. I am not at all in agreement with the contention of the landlord that the premises known as 31, the Mall Shimla which are admittedly in the occupation of the landlord are commercial premises only and not being used by him for his residence. As pointed out above, the landlord purchased the demised premises in 1986. They fell vacant when he got married despite that he did not occupy the same and rented out the same to the tenant in the year 1990. The question that arises is where was the landlord living for this entire period. According to the landlord after the year 1994 he has been living with his brother-in-law Rajan (wife's brother) PW-2, since the year 1994. Prior to 1994 the landlord will have this Court to believe that he was living off and on with one friend or the other. This story is impossible to believe. The landlord was married in the year 1999. He is an Architect by profession. His wife is a law graduate. It is not believable that such a person would have no permanent abode and would continue to live as a guest with his friends for almost 5 years after his marriage. Even the story that he has been living with his brother-in-law after the year 1994 does not inspire confidence. It stands proved on record that the brother-in-law PW-2 Rajan lives with his own family i.e. wife and children. From the evidence it is also clear that the parents of the brother-in-law also reside with him, His flat consists of only two rooms. The flat in possession of the landlord at 31, the Mall Shimla, also consists of two rooms, kitchen and bath room. Even assuming that he was running an office in the part of the flat it cannot be believed that he would not live on his own flat on the Mall Road and reside with his brother-in-law in cramped premises. Even in the electoral list the landlord is shown to be a resident of 31, The Mall, Shimla. Therefore, I am of the considered view that the building 31, the Mall, Shimla was also being used as a residence by the landlord.</p><p>11. Having held so, the question that arises is whether the landlord can be non-suited only on the ground that he has not made any disclosure about the residential accommodation available with him which premises were admittedly not owned by him.</p><p>12. The short question which arises for decision in this petition is whether the landlord was guilty of suppressing and withholding such relevant facts which would disentitle him from seeking eviction of the tenant. To appreciate these contentions it would be necessary to refer to relevant portion of Section 14(3) of the Act:</p><p>Section 14:</p><p>1 and 2 xxxxxxxxxxx</p><p>(3) A landlord may apply to the Controller for an order directing the tenant to put the landlord in possession-</p><p>(a) in case of residential building, if</p><p>(i) he required it for his own occupation:</p><p>Provided that he is not occupying another residential building owned by him, in the urban area concerned:</p><p>Provided further that he has not vacated such a building without sufficient cause within five years of the filing of the application, in the said urban area....</p><p>13. A perusal of the bare provisions of the Act makes it clear that there are certain essential ingredients which the landlord must satisfy before seeking eviction of the tenant under the Act. Not only must he prove that the residential building is bona fide required by him for his own use and occupation but he must also plead and prove that he is not occupying any other residential building owned by him in the urban area concerned and further that he has not vacated such a building without sufficient cause within 5 years of the filing of the application.</p><p>14. Reference may now be made to the relevant allegations made in para 18 of the eviction petition:</p><p>(ii) That the petitioner bona fide requires the premises for his own use and occupation and also for the use and occupation of his family.</p><p>The petitioner does not own or possess any other such building within the urban area of Simla nor the petitioner has vacated any such premises within five years of the filing of this petition.</p><p>The family of the petitioner presently consists of himself and his wife. Due to paucity of accommodation the petitioner has not been able to keep his wife with himself at Simla, where he is working as an Engineer and she has been residing at Chandigarh since 1991 but on account of her ill health she has been brought to Simla by the petitioner. The petitioner at present is seeking temporary shelter, from time to time, with his relations.</p><p>15. The learned Appellate Authority came to the conclusion that the landlord had falsely pleaded that he does not own or possess any other such building within the urban area of Shimla and hence rejected the eviction petition on this ground.</p><p>16. On a close analysis of the proviso to Section 14(3)(a)(i) of the Act it is clear that a landlord is not entitled to seek eviction of a tenant from residential building even in case of bona fide requirement if the landlord is occupying another residential building owned by him in the urban area concerned. One can read three essential ingredients in this proviso i.e. (i) that the landlord is in occupation of another residential building; (ii) that the said residential building is owned by him and (iii) that the said residential building is situated in the concerned urban area.</p><p>17. The question that arises is what is the impact of the landlord not making a disclosure in respect of premises which he is occupying but are not owned by him.</p><p>18. The Apex Court in Onkar Nath v. Ved Vyas ILR 1979 HP 1, held as follows:</p><p>It is common ground that there are three requirements to make out a cause of action for eviction under that provision, and indeed this is apparent from a bare reading of the sub-section. In the present case the finding is to the effect that the landlord requires the residential building for his own occupation. But, the legislation has taken care to insist upon two more conditions, namely; (a) that the landlord is not occupying any other residential building in the area concerned; and (b) that he has not vacated such a building without sufficient cause. There is not a scintilla of evidence nor indeed there is any averment in compliance with these latter conditions. The necessary consequence follows that not merely is there inadequacy of pleadings sufficient to make out a cause of action but total absence of proof of two vital requirements....</p><p>The Supreme Court also said that:.The statute benignly designed to protect tenants from unreasonable evictions has taken case to put restrictions which must be rigorously construed to fulfil the purpose of the statute.</p><p>19. Following the aforesaid judgment and other pronouncements of the Apex Court, a learned Single Judge of this Court in Tara Chand Sharma v. Baij Nath and Ors. 1992 (2) R.C.J. 323, held as follows:</p><p>16. What appears as the legislative intent, in bold relief, is that the landlord, while seeking eviction of a tenant on the ground that he needs a residential building for his own occupation, must come out clearly and honestly with facts relating to the requirement that he is not occupying another residential building owned by him, in the urban area concerned and that he had not vacated such a building without sufficient cause within five years of the filing of the application, in the said urban area. The primal burden of making a clear disclosure would lie upon the landlord, for, the true facts would be in his special knowledge. An order in his favour by the Rent Controller would depend upon the satisfaction of the Rent Controller in regard not only to the claim that the landlord requires the accommodation, from which he wishes to evict a tenant, for his own occupation but also that he was not occupying another residential building owned by him nor had he vacated such building without sufficient cause within five years of the filing of the application in the application in the urban area concerned....</p><p>It was further held as under:</p><p>18. That the landlord should make a full disclosure of the relevant facts, pertaining to the requirements of Sub-section (3)(a)(i) and the two provisos, becomes all the more necessary because the satisfaction of the Rent Controller in regard thereto is the condition precedent for the making of an order in favour of the landlord....</p><p>20. The aforesaid judgment has been followed in a number of other cases including Vijay Kapoor v. Maya Ram 1997 (2) RCR 437, wherein another learned single Judge of this Court following the aforesaid judgment held that the landlord must make complete and proper disclosure of all the material facts.</p><p>21. On the other hand Sh. Ramakant Sharma has relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in Ram Narain Arora v. Asha Rani 1998(2) RCR 268. In that case the Rent Controller came to the conclusion that the landlord had suppressed material information and had not disclosed the fact that he was already in occupation of a house in Subji Mandi. Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act reads as follows:</p><p>Section 14(1)(e). That the premises let for residential purposes are required bona fide by the landlord for occupation as a residence for himself or for any member of his family dependent on him, if he is the owner thereof, or for any person for whose benefit the premises are held and that the landlord or such person has no other reasonably suitable residential accommodation.</p><p>22. The difference between Delhi Act and the present Act is that under the Delhi Act the only requirement is that the landlord has no other reasonably suitable accommodation whereas under the Himachal Act the residential premises are required to be owned by the landlord. The Apex Court in Rama Narain Arora's case (supra) held that the nondisclosure of the fact that the landlord was in occupation of certain premises in Subji Mandi was.not a ground to non-suit the landlord in view of the facts and circumstances of the case. The Apex Court held as follows:</p><p>9. In making a claim that the suit premises is required bona fide for his own occupation as a residence for himself and other members of his family dependent on him and that he has no other reasonably suitable accommodation is a requirement of law before the Court can state whether the landlord requires the premises bona fide for his use and occupation. In doing so, the Court must also find out whether the landlord or such other person for whose benefit the premises is required has no other reasonably suitable residential accommodation. It cannot be said that the requirement of the landlord is not intermixed with the question of finding out whether he has any other reasonably suitable accommodation. If he has other reasonably suitable accommodation, ihen necessarily it would mean that he does not require the suit premises and his requirement may not be bona fide. In such circumstances further inquiry would be whether that premises is more suitable than the suit premises. Therefore, the questions raised before the Court would not necessarily depend upon only the pleadings. It could be a good defence that the landlord has other reasonably suitable residential accommodation and thereby defend the claim of the landlord.</p><p>10. There cannot be a pedantic or a dogmatic approach in the matter of analysis of pleadings or of the evidence adduced thereto. It is no doubt true that if the pleadings are clearly set out, it would be easy for the Court to decide the matters. But if the pleadings are lacking or vague and if both parties have understood what was the case pleaded and put forth with reference to requirement of law and placed such material before the Court, neither party is prejudiced. If we analyse from this angle, we do not think that the High Court was not justified in interfering with the order made by the Rent Controller.</p><p>23. From the perusal of the judgment of the Apex Court it is apparent that the Rent Controller must approach the matter in a practical manner. In case the non-disclosure is such as that it goes to the very root of the case the Rent Controller would be justified in non-suiting the landlord. However, if the non-disclosure is such that it would not prejudice the rights of the respondent then the landlord should not be non-suited only on this ground.</p><p>24. The decisions of this Court cited hereinabove were delivered prior to the judgment delivered by the Apex Court in Ram Nar'ain Arora's case. Further more both in Tara Chand Sharma's case and Vijay Kapoor's case decided by this Court, no averment had been made ixi respect of other residential buildings owned by a landlord. There was complete non-disclosure as to whether any such residential building owned by the landlord was in his possession or not. In the present case, as I have held above, the residential premises at 31, The Mall, Shimla was not owned by the landlord and hence these two earlier judgments of this Court are distinguishable on facts also.</p><p>25. In the present case, the landlord has been non-suited only on the ground that he did not disclose the fact that he was in occupation of certain premises on the Mall Road. Under law he was not required to disclose this fact. He was only required to disclose the factum of occupying another residential building owned by him in the urban area concerned. True it may be, that it would have been better if the landlord had disclosed all the facts but non-disclosure of a fact which he was not under law required to disclose could not in my opinion be a ground to dismiss his eviction petition.</p><p>26. However, what are the premises in his occupation even as a tenant can be taken into consideration while deciding the question whether he bona fide requires the demised premises for his personal use or occupation or not.</p><p>27. Lastly comes the question with regard to the bona fide requirement of the landlord. The landlord has no children. According to the landlord as well as his other witnesses i.e. his brother-in-law PW-2 and his wife PW-3, the wife now wants to come back and settle in Shimla. There is no reason to disbelieve their statements. Even according to the evidence led by the tenant the accommodation in possession of the landlord consists of two rooms, kitchen, bath room etc. Admittedly, the landlord is also having his office as an Architect in this building. The landlord belongs to the middle class of the Society. It cannot be expected of a landlord who owns sufficient property to reside in a two room set wherein he also runs his office.</p><p>28. The law by now is well settled that the landlord is the best judge of the suitability of the accommodation required by him. This suitability has however to be judged in the context of reasonable expectations. The landlord and his wife who are both well educated can reasonably be expected to entertain guests and they will have visitors to their house. They would obviously require a drawing room, a bed room and a spare bed room for guests. Even at his residence the landlord may require another room for his professional work. This is the minimum accommodation which they would require. Even if the accommodation possessed by the landlord, though not owned by him, at 31, the Mall, Shimla is taken into consideration such accommodation is not sufficient to meet his requirements since admittedly the landlord is running his profession of Architect from some portion of his these premises.</p><p>29. Keeping in view the entire facts and circumstances, I am of the considered view that the learned Appellate Authority gravely erred in rejecting the eviction petition of the landlord solely on the ground that he had not disclosed the factum of being in possession of the premises at 31, the Mall Shimla. Even though I have held that the said premises are residential premises, in view of the above discussion I hold that the landlord cannot be non-suited only on the ground of his being in possession of such premises since same were not owned by him.</p><p>30. In view of the above discussion, the Revision Petition is allowed, the order of the learned Appellate Authority dated 6.5.2003 is seaside and the order of the Rent Controller dated 22.8.2001 is restored.</p><p>31. Keeping in view the fact that the tenant has been in possession of the premises for a long period he is granted time up to 31st October, 2008 to vacate the premises.</p><p>32. No order as to costs.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '2008(2)ShimLC491',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'Shri S.L. Srivastava',
		'sub' => 'Tenancy',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'shri-arun-bhanwara-vs-s-l-srivastava'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '891084',
	(int) 1 => 'shri-arun-bhanwara-vs-s-l-srivastava'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/891084/shri-arun-bhanwara-vs-s-l-srivastava'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$caseref = 'Ram Narain Arora v. Asha Rani<br>'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>Deepak Gupta, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. This Revision Petition under Section 25(5) of the H.P. Urban Rent Control Act, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) is directed against the order of the learned Appellate Authority, Shimla in CMA No. 60-S/14 of 2001 whereby the appeal filed by the respondent (hereinafter referred to as the tenant) has been allowed, the order of the Rent Controller has been set-aside and the petition for eviction filed by the present petitioner (hereinafter referred to as the Landlord) on the ground of personal bona fide requirement has been set-aside.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. The undisputed facts are that the landlord is owner of the demised premises situated in building known as Tunnel View, Sanjauli, Shimla-6 consisting of two bed rooms with attached bath room and latrine, drawing-cum-dining room, kitchen and balcony. These premises were purchased by the landlord in the year 1986. Thereafter, the landlord had rented out the premises to one Sh. B.K. Chauhan. According to the landlord, when he got married he requested Sh. B.K. Chauhan to vacate the said premises. Sh. Chauhan vacated the said premises but admittedly the landlord did not occupy the same but rented out the same to the tenant in the year 1990.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. In the year 1997 the landlord filed a petition for eviction of the tenant on two grounds; firstly that the tenant is in arrears of rent from 1.11.1990 to 31.7.1997 and secondly that the premises are bona fide required by the landlord for the use and occupation of himself and his family.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>4. This petition was contested by the tenant. After trial, the Rent Controller ordered the eviction of the tenant on two grounds; (i) that the tenant was in arrears of rent from November, 1999 till date of order i.e. 22nd August, 2001 and (ii) that the landlord required the premises for his own use and occupation.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>5. The tenant deposited the rent within the time prescribed. He also filed an appeal challenging the finding on the issue of bona fide requirement. The learned Appellate Authority came to the conclusion that the landlord had not made a proper and full disclosure of facts as required under the provisions of the Act and had withheld material facts from the Court viz. that the landlord was in occupation of residential premises on 31, Mall Road in the urban area of Shimla and as such rejected this petition on this short ground.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>6. Aggrieved by the said order, the landlord has filed the present Revision Petition.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>7. I have heard Sh. Ramakant Sharma, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sh. Bhupinder Gupta, learned senior Counsel for the tenant.',
	(int) 8 => '<p>8. It has been urged on behalf of the landlord that the building which is alleged to be in possession of the landlord i.e. 31, the Mall Shimla is not a residential building and secondly that the building is not owned by him.',
	(int) 9 => '<p>9. On the other hand Sh. Bhupinder Gupta, learned Counsel of the tenant has strenuously urged that the landlord in para 18 has not stated anything about any building being owned by him and has only made an averment that he does not own or possess any other such building within the urban area Shimla. It is contended by Sh. Bhupinder Gupta that the landlord of his own volition did not state anything about the ownership of the building and since he has kept silent about the building which he is in occupation he has made a false averment and therefore his petition for eviction has rightly been rejected.',
	(int) 10 => '<p>10. I am not at all in agreement with the contention of the landlord that the premises known as 31, the Mall Shimla which are admittedly in the occupation of the landlord are commercial premises only and not being used by him for his residence. As pointed out above, the landlord purchased the demised premises in 1986. They fell vacant when he got married despite that he did not occupy the same and rented out the same to the tenant in the year 1990. The question that arises is where was the landlord living for this entire period. According to the landlord after the year 1994 he has been living with his brother-in-law Rajan (wife's brother) PW-2, since the year 1994. Prior to 1994 the landlord will have this Court to believe that he was living off and on with one friend or the other. This story is impossible to believe. The landlord was married in the year 1999. He is an Architect by profession. His wife is a law graduate. It is not believable that such a person would have no permanent abode and would continue to live as a guest with his friends for almost 5 years after his marriage. Even the story that he has been living with his brother-in-law after the year 1994 does not inspire confidence. It stands proved on record that the brother-in-law PW-2 Rajan lives with his own family i.e. wife and children. From the evidence it is also clear that the parents of the brother-in-law also reside with him, His flat consists of only two rooms. The flat in possession of the landlord at 31, the Mall Shimla, also consists of two rooms, kitchen and bath room. Even assuming that he was running an office in the part of the flat it cannot be believed that he would not live on his own flat on the Mall Road and reside with his brother-in-law in cramped premises. Even in the electoral list the landlord is shown to be a resident of 31, The Mall, Shimla. Therefore, I am of the considered view that the building 31, the Mall, Shimla was also being used as a residence by the landlord.',
	(int) 11 => '<p>11. Having held so, the question that arises is whether the landlord can be non-suited only on the ground that he has not made any disclosure about the residential accommodation available with him which premises were admittedly not owned by him.',
	(int) 12 => '<p>12. The short question which arises for decision in this petition is whether the landlord was guilty of suppressing and withholding such relevant facts which would disentitle him from seeking eviction of the tenant. To appreciate these contentions it would be necessary to refer to relevant portion of Section 14(3) of the Act:',
	(int) 13 => '<p>Section 14:',
	(int) 14 => '<p>1 and 2 xxxxxxxxxxx',
	(int) 15 => '<p>(3) A landlord may apply to the Controller for an order directing the tenant to put the landlord in possession-',
	(int) 16 => '<p>(a) in case of residential building, if',
	(int) 17 => '<p>(i) he required it for his own occupation:',
	(int) 18 => '<p>Provided that he is not occupying another residential building owned by him, in the urban area concerned:',
	(int) 19 => '<p>Provided further that he has not vacated such a building without sufficient cause within five years of the filing of the application, in the said urban area....',
	(int) 20 => '<p>13. A perusal of the bare provisions of the Act makes it clear that there are certain essential ingredients which the landlord must satisfy before seeking eviction of the tenant under the Act. Not only must he prove that the residential building is bona fide required by him for his own use and occupation but he must also plead and prove that he is not occupying any other residential building owned by him in the urban area concerned and further that he has not vacated such a building without sufficient cause within 5 years of the filing of the application.',
	(int) 21 => '<p>14. Reference may now be made to the relevant allegations made in para 18 of the eviction petition:',
	(int) 22 => '<p>(ii) That the petitioner bona fide requires the premises for his own use and occupation and also for the use and occupation of his family.',
	(int) 23 => '<p>The petitioner does not own or possess any other such building within the urban area of Simla nor the petitioner has vacated any such premises within five years of the filing of this petition.',
	(int) 24 => '<p>The family of the petitioner presently consists of himself and his wife. Due to paucity of accommodation the petitioner has not been able to keep his wife with himself at Simla, where he is working as an Engineer and she has been residing at Chandigarh since 1991 but on account of her ill health she has been brought to Simla by the petitioner. The petitioner at present is seeking temporary shelter, from time to time, with his relations.',
	(int) 25 => '<p>15. The learned Appellate Authority came to the conclusion that the landlord had falsely pleaded that he does not own or possess any other such building within the urban area of Shimla and hence rejected the eviction petition on this ground.',
	(int) 26 => '<p>16. On a close analysis of the proviso to Section 14(3)(a)(i) of the Act it is clear that a landlord is not entitled to seek eviction of a tenant from residential building even in case of bona fide requirement if the landlord is occupying another residential building owned by him in the urban area concerned. One can read three essential ingredients in this proviso i.e. (i) that the landlord is in occupation of another residential building; (ii) that the said residential building is owned by him and (iii) that the said residential building is situated in the concerned urban area.',
	(int) 27 => '<p>17. The question that arises is what is the impact of the landlord not making a disclosure in respect of premises which he is occupying but are not owned by him.',
	(int) 28 => '<p>18. The Apex Court in Onkar Nath v. Ved Vyas ILR 1979 HP 1, held as follows:',
	(int) 29 => '<p>It is common ground that there are three requirements to make out a cause of action for eviction under that provision, and indeed this is apparent from a bare reading of the sub-section. In the present case the finding is to the effect that the landlord requires the residential building for his own occupation. But, the legislation has taken care to insist upon two more conditions, namely; (a) that the landlord is not occupying any other residential building in the area concerned; and (b) that he has not vacated such a building without sufficient cause. There is not a scintilla of evidence nor indeed there is any averment in compliance with these latter conditions. The necessary consequence follows that not merely is there inadequacy of pleadings sufficient to make out a cause of action but total absence of proof of two vital requirements....',
	(int) 30 => '<p>The Supreme Court also said that:.The statute benignly designed to protect tenants from unreasonable evictions has taken case to put restrictions which must be rigorously construed to fulfil the purpose of the statute.',
	(int) 31 => '<p>19. Following the aforesaid judgment and other pronouncements of the Apex Court, a learned Single Judge of this Court in Tara Chand Sharma v. Baij Nath and Ors. 1992 (2) R.C.J. 323, held as follows:',
	(int) 32 => '<p>16. What appears as the legislative intent, in bold relief, is that the landlord, while seeking eviction of a tenant on the ground that he needs a residential building for his own occupation, must come out clearly and honestly with facts relating to the requirement that he is not occupying another residential building owned by him, in the urban area concerned and that he had not vacated such a building without sufficient cause within five years of the filing of the application, in the said urban area. The primal burden of making a clear disclosure would lie upon the landlord, for, the true facts would be in his special knowledge. An order in his favour by the Rent Controller would depend upon the satisfaction of the Rent Controller in regard not only to the claim that the landlord requires the accommodation, from which he wishes to evict a tenant, for his own occupation but also that he was not occupying another residential building owned by him nor had he vacated such building without sufficient cause within five years of the filing of the application in the application in the urban area concerned....',
	(int) 33 => '<p>It was further held as under:',
	(int) 34 => '<p>18. That the landlord should make a full disclosure of the relevant facts, pertaining to the requirements of Sub-section (3)(a)(i) and the two provisos, becomes all the more necessary because the satisfaction of the Rent Controller in regard thereto is the condition precedent for the making of an order in favour of the landlord....',
	(int) 35 => '<p>20. The aforesaid judgment has been followed in a number of other cases including Vijay Kapoor v. Maya Ram 1997 (2) RCR 437, wherein another learned single Judge of this Court following the aforesaid judgment held that the landlord must make complete and proper disclosure of all the material facts.',
	(int) 36 => '<p>21. On the other hand Sh. Ramakant Sharma has relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in Ram Narain Arora v. Asha Rani 1998(2) RCR 268. In that case the Rent Controller came to the conclusion that the landlord had suppressed material information and had not disclosed the fact that he was already in occupation of a house in Subji Mandi. Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act reads as follows:',
	(int) 37 => '<p>Section 14(1)(e). That the premises let for residential purposes are required bona fide by the landlord for occupation as a residence for himself or for any member of his family dependent on him, if he is the owner thereof, or for any person for whose benefit the premises are held and that the landlord or such person has no other reasonably suitable residential accommodation.',
	(int) 38 => '<p>22. The difference between Delhi Act and the present Act is that under the Delhi Act the only requirement is that the landlord has no other reasonably suitable accommodation whereas under the Himachal Act the residential premises are required to be owned by the landlord. The Apex Court in Rama Narain Arora's case (supra) held that the nondisclosure of the fact that the landlord was in occupation of certain premises in Subji Mandi was.not a ground to non-suit the landlord in view of the facts and circumstances of the case. The Apex Court held as follows:',
	(int) 39 => '<p>9. In making a claim that the suit premises is required bona fide for his own occupation as a residence for himself and other members of his family dependent on him and that he has no other reasonably suitable accommodation is a requirement of law before the Court can state whether the landlord requires the premises bona fide for his use and occupation. In doing so, the Court must also find out whether the landlord or such other person for whose benefit the premises is required has no other reasonably suitable residential accommodation. It cannot be said that the requirement of the landlord is not intermixed with the question of finding out whether he has any other reasonably suitable accommodation. If he has other reasonably suitable accommodation, ihen necessarily it would mean that he does not require the suit premises and his requirement may not be bona fide. In such circumstances further inquiry would be whether that premises is more suitable than the suit premises. Therefore, the questions raised before the Court would not necessarily depend upon only the pleadings. It could be a good defence that the landlord has other reasonably suitable residential accommodation and thereby defend the claim of the landlord.',
	(int) 40 => '<p>10. There cannot be a pedantic or a dogmatic approach in the matter of analysis of pleadings or of the evidence adduced thereto. It is no doubt true that if the pleadings are clearly set out, it would be easy for the Court to decide the matters. But if the pleadings are lacking or vague and if both parties have understood what was the case pleaded and put forth with reference to requirement of law and placed such material before the Court, neither party is prejudiced. If we analyse from this angle, we do not think that the High Court was not justified in interfering with the order made by the Rent Controller.',
	(int) 41 => '<p>23. From the perusal of the judgment of the Apex Court it is apparent that the Rent Controller must approach the matter in a practical manner. In case the non-disclosure is such as that it goes to the very root of the case the Rent Controller would be justified in non-suiting the landlord. However, if the non-disclosure is such that it would not prejudice the rights of the respondent then the landlord should not be non-suited only on this ground.',
	(int) 42 => '<p>24. The decisions of this Court cited hereinabove were delivered prior to the judgment delivered by the Apex Court in Ram Nar'ain Arora's case. Further more both in Tara Chand Sharma's case and Vijay Kapoor's case decided by this Court, no averment had been made ixi respect of other residential buildings owned by a landlord. There was complete non-disclosure as to whether any such residential building owned by the landlord was in his possession or not. In the present case, as I have held above, the residential premises at 31, The Mall, Shimla was not owned by the landlord and hence these two earlier judgments of this Court are distinguishable on facts also.',
	(int) 43 => '<p>25. In the present case, the landlord has been non-suited only on the ground that he did not disclose the fact that he was in occupation of certain premises on the Mall Road. Under law he was not required to disclose this fact. He was only required to disclose the factum of occupying another residential building owned by him in the urban area concerned. True it may be, that it would have been better if the landlord had disclosed all the facts but non-disclosure of a fact which he was not under law required to disclose could not in my opinion be a ground to dismiss his eviction petition.',
	(int) 44 => '<p>26. However, what are the premises in his occupation even as a tenant can be taken into consideration while deciding the question whether he bona fide requires the demised premises for his personal use or occupation or not.',
	(int) 45 => '<p>27. Lastly comes the question with regard to the bona fide requirement of the landlord. The landlord has no children. According to the landlord as well as his other witnesses i.e. his brother-in-law PW-2 and his wife PW-3, the wife now wants to come back and settle in Shimla. There is no reason to disbelieve their statements. Even according to the evidence led by the tenant the accommodation in possession of the landlord consists of two rooms, kitchen, bath room etc. Admittedly, the landlord is also having his office as an Architect in this building. The landlord belongs to the middle class of the Society. It cannot be expected of a landlord who owns sufficient property to reside in a two room set wherein he also runs his office.',
	(int) 46 => '<p>28. The law by now is well settled that the landlord is the best judge of the suitability of the accommodation required by him. This suitability has however to be judged in the context of reasonable expectations. The landlord and his wife who are both well educated can reasonably be expected to entertain guests and they will have visitors to their house. They would obviously require a drawing room, a bed room and a spare bed room for guests. Even at his residence the landlord may require another room for his professional work. This is the minimum accommodation which they would require. Even if the accommodation possessed by the landlord, though not owned by him, at 31, the Mall, Shimla is taken into consideration such accommodation is not sufficient to meet his requirements since admittedly the landlord is running his profession of Architect from some portion of his these premises.',
	(int) 47 => '<p>29. Keeping in view the entire facts and circumstances, I am of the considered view that the learned Appellate Authority gravely erred in rejecting the eviction petition of the landlord solely on the ground that he had not disclosed the factum of being in possession of the premises at 31, the Mall Shimla. Even though I have held that the said premises are residential premises, in view of the above discussion I hold that the landlord cannot be non-suited only on the ground of his being in possession of such premises since same were not owned by him.',
	(int) 48 => '<p>30. In view of the above discussion, the Revision Petition is allowed, the order of the learned Appellate Authority dated 6.5.2003 is seaside and the order of the Rent Controller dated 22.8.2001 is restored.',
	(int) 49 => '<p>31. Keeping in view the fact that the tenant has been in possession of the premises for a long period he is granted time up to 31st October, 2008 to vacate the premises.',
	(int) 50 => '<p>32. No order as to costs.<p>',
	(int) 51 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 52
$i = (int) 6
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

6. Aggrieved by the said order, the landlord has filed the present Revision Petition.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Shri Arun Bhanwara Vs Shri S L Srivastava - Citation 891084 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '891084',
			'acts' => '',
			'appealno' => '',
			'appellant' => 'Shri Arun Bhanwara',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Shri Arun Bhanwara Vs. Shri S.L. Srivastava',
			'casenote' => ' - CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908.[C.A. No. 5/1908]. Order 14, Rule 2 [As amended by Amending Act of 1976]: [V.K. Gupta, CJ, Deepak Gupta & Surjit Singh, JJ] Preliminary issue of law and fact  Court framing all issues both of law and facts together and also  tried all the issues together, including the issue relating to jurisdiction of Court  Held, Except in situations perceived or warranted under sub-rule (2) of Rule 2 of Order 14 where a  Court in fact frames only issues of law in the first instance and postpones settlement of other issues, clearly and explicitly in situations where the Court has framed all issues together, both of law as well as facts and has also tried all these issues together, it is not open to the Court to adopt the principle of severability and proceed to decide issues of law first, without taking up simultaneously other issues for decision. This course of action is not available to a Court because sub-rule (1) does not permit the  Court to adopt any such principle of severability and to dispose of a suit only on preliminary issues, or what can be termed as issues of law. Sub-rule (1)  clearly mandates that in a situation contemplated under it, where all the issues have been together and have also been taken up for adjudication during the course of the trial, these must be decided together and the judgment in the suit as a whole must be pronounced by the Court covering all the issues framed in the suit.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => 'Ram Narain Arora v. Asha Rani;',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => '',
			'counseldef' => '',
			'court' => 'Himachal Pradesh',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2008-07-31',
			'deposition' => 'Petition allowed',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => ' Deepak Gupta, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">Deepak Gupta, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. This Revision Petition under Section 25(5) of the H.P. Urban Rent Control Act, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) is directed against the order of the learned Appellate Authority, Shimla in CMA No. 60-S/14 of 2001 whereby the appeal filed by the respondent (hereinafter referred to as the tenant) has been allowed, the order of the Rent Controller has been set-aside and the petition for eviction filed by the present petitioner (hereinafter referred to as the Landlord) on the ground of personal bona fide requirement has been set-aside.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The undisputed facts are that the landlord is owner of the demised premises situated in building known as Tunnel View, Sanjauli, Shimla-6 consisting of two bed rooms with attached bath room and latrine, drawing-cum-dining room, kitchen and balcony. These premises were purchased by the landlord in the year 1986. Thereafter, the landlord had rented out the premises to one Sh. B.K. Chauhan. According to the landlord, when he got married he requested Sh. B.K. Chauhan to vacate the said premises. Sh. Chauhan vacated the said premises but admittedly the landlord did not occupy the same but rented out the same to the tenant in the year 1990.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. In the year 1997 the landlord filed a petition for eviction of the tenant on two grounds; firstly that the tenant is in arrears of rent from 1.11.1990 to 31.7.1997 and secondly that the premises are bona fide required by the landlord for the use and occupation of himself and his family.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. This petition was contested by the tenant. After trial, the Rent Controller ordered the eviction of the tenant on two grounds; (i) that the tenant was in arrears of rent from November, 1999 till date of order i.e. 22nd August, 2001 and (ii) that the landlord required the premises for his own use and occupation.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. The tenant deposited the rent within the time prescribed. He also filed an appeal challenging the finding on the issue of bona fide requirement. The learned Appellate Authority came to the conclusion that the landlord had not made a proper and full disclosure of facts as required under the provisions of the Act and had withheld material facts from the Court viz. that the landlord was in occupation of residential premises on 31, Mall Road in the urban area of Shimla and as such rejected this petition on this short ground.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. Aggrieved by the said order, the landlord has filed the present Revision Petition.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. I have heard Sh. Ramakant Sharma, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sh. Bhupinder Gupta, learned senior Counsel for the tenant.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. It has been urged on behalf of the landlord that the building which is alleged to be in possession of the landlord i.e. 31, the Mall Shimla is not a residential building and secondly that the building is not owned by him.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. On the other hand Sh. Bhupinder Gupta, learned Counsel of the tenant has strenuously urged that the landlord in para 18 has not stated anything about any building being owned by him and has only made an averment that he does not own or possess any other such building within the urban area Shimla. It is contended by Sh. Bhupinder Gupta that the landlord of his own volition did not state anything about the ownership of the building and since he has kept silent about the building which he is in occupation he has made a false averment and therefore his petition for eviction has rightly been rejected.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. I am not at all in agreement with the contention of the landlord that the premises known as 31, the Mall Shimla which are admittedly in the occupation of the landlord are commercial premises only and not being used by him for his residence. As pointed out above, the landlord purchased the demised premises in 1986. They fell vacant when he got married despite that he did not occupy the same and rented out the same to the tenant in the year 1990. The question that arises is where was the landlord living for this entire period. According to the landlord after the year 1994 he has been living with his brother-in-law Rajan (wife's brother) PW-2, since the year 1994. Prior to 1994 the landlord will have this Court to believe that he was living off and on with one friend or the other. This story is impossible to believe. The landlord was married in the year 1999. He is an Architect by profession. His wife is a law graduate. It is not believable that such a person would have no permanent abode and would continue to live as a guest with his friends for almost 5 years after his marriage. Even the story that he has been living with his brother-in-law after the year 1994 does not inspire confidence. It stands proved on record that the brother-in-law PW-2 Rajan lives with his own family i.e. wife and children. From the evidence it is also clear that the parents of the brother-in-law also reside with him, His flat consists of only two rooms. The flat in possession of the landlord at 31, the Mall Shimla, also consists of two rooms, kitchen and bath room. Even assuming that he was running an office in the part of the flat it cannot be believed that he would not live on his own flat on the Mall Road and reside with his brother-in-law in cramped premises. Even in the electoral list the landlord is shown to be a resident of 31, The Mall, Shimla. Therefore, I am of the considered view that the building 31, the Mall, Shimla was also being used as a residence by the landlord.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. Having held so, the question that arises is whether the landlord can be non-suited only on the ground that he has not made any disclosure about the residential accommodation available with him which premises were admittedly not owned by him.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. The short question which arises for decision in this petition is whether the landlord was guilty of suppressing and withholding such relevant facts which would disentitle him from seeking eviction of the tenant. To appreciate these contentions it would be necessary to refer to relevant portion of Section 14(3) of the Act:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Section 14:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1 and 2 xxxxxxxxxxx</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(3) A landlord may apply to the Controller for an order directing the tenant to put the landlord in possession-</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(a) in case of residential building, if</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(i) he required it for his own occupation:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Provided that he is not occupying another residential building owned by him, in the urban area concerned:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Provided further that he has not vacated such a building without sufficient cause within five years of the filing of the application, in the said urban area....</p><p style="text-align: justify;">13. A perusal of the bare provisions of the Act makes it clear that there are certain essential ingredients which the landlord must satisfy before seeking eviction of the tenant under the Act. Not only must he prove that the residential building is bona fide required by him for his own use and occupation but he must also plead and prove that he is not occupying any other residential building owned by him in the urban area concerned and further that he has not vacated such a building without sufficient cause within 5 years of the filing of the application.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">14. Reference may now be made to the relevant allegations made in para 18 of the eviction petition:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(ii) That the petitioner bona fide requires the premises for his own use and occupation and also for the use and occupation of his family.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The petitioner does not own or possess any other such building within the urban area of Simla nor the petitioner has vacated any such premises within five years of the filing of this petition.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The family of the petitioner presently consists of himself and his wife. Due to paucity of accommodation the petitioner has not been able to keep his wife with himself at Simla, where he is working as an Engineer and she has been residing at Chandigarh since 1991 but on account of her ill health she has been brought to Simla by the petitioner. The petitioner at present is seeking temporary shelter, from time to time, with his relations.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">15. The learned Appellate Authority came to the conclusion that the landlord had falsely pleaded that he does not own or possess any other such building within the urban area of Shimla and hence rejected the eviction petition on this ground.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">16. On a close analysis of the proviso to Section 14(3)(a)(i) of the Act it is clear that a landlord is not entitled to seek eviction of a tenant from residential building even in case of bona fide requirement if the landlord is occupying another residential building owned by him in the urban area concerned. One can read three essential ingredients in this proviso i.e. (i) that the landlord is in occupation of another residential building; (ii) that the said residential building is owned by him and (iii) that the said residential building is situated in the concerned urban area.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">17. The question that arises is what is the impact of the landlord not making a disclosure in respect of premises which he is occupying but are not owned by him.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">18. The Apex Court in Onkar Nath v. Ved Vyas ILR 1979 HP 1, held as follows:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">It is common ground that there are three requirements to make out a cause of action for eviction under that provision, and indeed this is apparent from a bare reading of the sub-section. In the present case the finding is to the effect that the landlord requires the residential building for his own occupation. But, the legislation has taken care to insist upon two more conditions, namely; (a) that the landlord is not occupying any other residential building in the area concerned; and (b) that he has not vacated such a building without sufficient cause. There is not a scintilla of evidence nor indeed there is any averment in compliance with these latter conditions. The necessary consequence follows that not merely is there inadequacy of pleadings sufficient to make out a cause of action but total absence of proof of two vital requirements....</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The Supreme Court also said that:.The statute benignly designed to protect tenants from unreasonable evictions has taken case to put restrictions which must be rigorously construed to fulfil the purpose of the statute.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">19. Following the aforesaid judgment and other pronouncements of the Apex Court, a learned Single Judge of this Court in Tara Chand Sharma v. Baij Nath and Ors. 1992 (2) R.C.J. 323, held as follows:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">16. What appears as the legislative intent, in bold relief, is that the landlord, while seeking eviction of a tenant on the ground that he needs a residential building for his own occupation, must come out clearly and honestly with facts relating to the requirement that he is not occupying another residential building owned by him, in the urban area concerned and that he had not vacated such a building without sufficient cause within five years of the filing of the application, in the said urban area. The primal burden of making a clear disclosure would lie upon the landlord, for, the true facts would be in his special knowledge. An order in his favour by the Rent Controller would depend upon the satisfaction of the Rent Controller in regard not only to the claim that the landlord requires the accommodation, from which he wishes to evict a tenant, for his own occupation but also that he was not occupying another residential building owned by him nor had he vacated such building without sufficient cause within five years of the filing of the application in the application in the urban area concerned....</p><p style="text-align: justify;">It was further held as under:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">18. That the landlord should make a full disclosure of the relevant facts, pertaining to the requirements of Sub-section (3)(a)(i) and the two provisos, becomes all the more necessary because the satisfaction of the Rent Controller in regard thereto is the condition precedent for the making of an order in favour of the landlord....</p><p style="text-align: justify;">20. The aforesaid judgment has been followed in a number of other cases including Vijay Kapoor v. Maya Ram 1997 (2) RCR 437, wherein another learned single Judge of this Court following the aforesaid judgment held that the landlord must make complete and proper disclosure of all the material facts.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">21. On the other hand Sh. Ramakant Sharma has relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in Ram Narain Arora v. Asha Rani 1998(2) RCR 268. In that case the Rent Controller came to the conclusion that the landlord had suppressed material information and had not disclosed the fact that he was already in occupation of a house in Subji Mandi. Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act reads as follows:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Section 14(1)(e). That the premises let for residential purposes are required bona fide by the landlord for occupation as a residence for himself or for any member of his family dependent on him, if he is the owner thereof, or for any person for whose benefit the premises are held and that the landlord or such person has no other reasonably suitable residential accommodation.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">22. The difference between Delhi Act and the present Act is that under the Delhi Act the only requirement is that the landlord has no other reasonably suitable accommodation whereas under the Himachal Act the residential premises are required to be owned by the landlord. The Apex Court in Rama Narain Arora's case (supra) held that the nondisclosure of the fact that the landlord was in occupation of certain premises in Subji Mandi was.not a ground to non-suit the landlord in view of the facts and circumstances of the case. The Apex Court held as follows:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. In making a claim that the suit premises is required bona fide for his own occupation as a residence for himself and other members of his family dependent on him and that he has no other reasonably suitable accommodation is a requirement of law before the Court can state whether the landlord requires the premises bona fide for his use and occupation. In doing so, the Court must also find out whether the landlord or such other person for whose benefit the premises is required has no other reasonably suitable residential accommodation. It cannot be said that the requirement of the landlord is not intermixed with the question of finding out whether he has any other reasonably suitable accommodation. If he has other reasonably suitable accommodation, ihen necessarily it would mean that he does not require the suit premises and his requirement may not be bona fide. In such circumstances further inquiry would be whether that premises is more suitable than the suit premises. Therefore, the questions raised before the Court would not necessarily depend upon only the pleadings. It could be a good defence that the landlord has other reasonably suitable residential accommodation and thereby defend the claim of the landlord.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. There cannot be a pedantic or a dogmatic approach in the matter of analysis of pleadings or of the evidence adduced thereto. It is no doubt true that if the pleadings are clearly set out, it would be easy for the Court to decide the matters. But if the pleadings are lacking or vague and if both parties have understood what was the case pleaded and put forth with reference to requirement of law and placed such material before the Court, neither party is prejudiced. If we analyse from this angle, we do not think that the High Court was not justified in interfering with the order made by the Rent Controller.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">23. From the perusal of the judgment of the Apex Court it is apparent that the Rent Controller must approach the matter in a practical manner. In case the non-disclosure is such as that it goes to the very root of the case the Rent Controller would be justified in non-suiting the landlord. However, if the non-disclosure is such that it would not prejudice the rights of the respondent then the landlord should not be non-suited only on this ground.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">24. The decisions of this Court cited hereinabove were delivered prior to the judgment delivered by the Apex Court in Ram Nar'ain Arora's case. Further more both in Tara Chand Sharma's case and Vijay Kapoor's case decided by this Court, no averment had been made ixi respect of other residential buildings owned by a landlord. There was complete non-disclosure as to whether any such residential building owned by the landlord was in his possession or not. In the present case, as I have held above, the residential premises at 31, The Mall, Shimla was not owned by the landlord and hence these two earlier judgments of this Court are distinguishable on facts also.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">25. In the present case, the landlord has been non-suited only on the ground that he did not disclose the fact that he was in occupation of certain premises on the Mall Road. Under law he was not required to disclose this fact. He was only required to disclose the factum of occupying another residential building owned by him in the urban area concerned. True it may be, that it would have been better if the landlord had disclosed all the facts but non-disclosure of a fact which he was not under law required to disclose could not in my opinion be a ground to dismiss his eviction petition.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">26. However, what are the premises in his occupation even as a tenant can be taken into consideration while deciding the question whether he bona fide requires the demised premises for his personal use or occupation or not.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">27. Lastly comes the question with regard to the bona fide requirement of the landlord. The landlord has no children. According to the landlord as well as his other witnesses i.e. his brother-in-law PW-2 and his wife PW-3, the wife now wants to come back and settle in Shimla. There is no reason to disbelieve their statements. Even according to the evidence led by the tenant the accommodation in possession of the landlord consists of two rooms, kitchen, bath room etc. Admittedly, the landlord is also having his office as an Architect in this building. The landlord belongs to the middle class of the Society. It cannot be expected of a landlord who owns sufficient property to reside in a two room set wherein he also runs his office.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">28. The law by now is well settled that the landlord is the best judge of the suitability of the accommodation required by him. This suitability has however to be judged in the context of reasonable expectations. The landlord and his wife who are both well educated can reasonably be expected to entertain guests and they will have visitors to their house. They would obviously require a drawing room, a bed room and a spare bed room for guests. Even at his residence the landlord may require another room for his professional work. This is the minimum accommodation which they would require. Even if the accommodation possessed by the landlord, though not owned by him, at 31, the Mall, Shimla is taken into consideration such accommodation is not sufficient to meet his requirements since admittedly the landlord is running his profession of Architect from some portion of his these premises.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">29. Keeping in view the entire facts and circumstances, I am of the considered view that the learned Appellate Authority gravely erred in rejecting the eviction petition of the landlord solely on the ground that he had not disclosed the factum of being in possession of the premises at 31, the Mall Shimla. Even though I have held that the said premises are residential premises, in view of the above discussion I hold that the landlord cannot be non-suited only on the ground of his being in possession of such premises since same were not owned by him.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">30. In view of the above discussion, the Revision Petition is allowed, the order of the learned Appellate Authority dated 6.5.2003 is seaside and the order of the Rent Controller dated 22.8.2001 is restored.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">31. Keeping in view the fact that the tenant has been in possession of the premises for a long period he is granted time up to 31st October, 2008 to vacate the premises.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">32. No order as to costs.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '2008(2)ShimLC491',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'Shri S.L. Srivastava',
			'sub' => 'Tenancy',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'shri-arun-bhanwara-vs-s-l-srivastava',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '891084',
		(int) 1 => 'shri-arun-bhanwara-vs-s-l-srivastava'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Shri Arun Bhanwara Vs Shri S L Srivastava - Citation 891084 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '891084',
		'acts' => '',
		'appealno' => '',
		'appellant' => 'Shri Arun Bhanwara',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Shri Arun Bhanwara Vs. Shri S.L. Srivastava',
		'casenote' => ' - CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908.[C.A. No. 5/1908]. Order 14, Rule 2 [As amended by Amending Act of 1976]: [V.K. Gupta, CJ, Deepak Gupta & Surjit Singh, JJ] Preliminary issue of law and fact  Court framing all issues both of law and facts together and also  tried all the issues together, including the issue relating to jurisdiction of Court  Held, Except in situations perceived or warranted under sub-rule (2) of Rule 2 of Order 14 where a  Court in fact frames only issues of law in the first instance and postpones settlement of other issues, clearly and explicitly in situations where the Court has framed all issues together, both of law as well as facts and has also tried all these issues together, it is not open to the Court to adopt the principle of severability and proceed to decide issues of law first, without taking up simultaneously other issues for decision. This course of action is not available to a Court because sub-rule (1) does not permit the  Court to adopt any such principle of severability and to dispose of a suit only on preliminary issues, or what can be termed as issues of law. Sub-rule (1)  clearly mandates that in a situation contemplated under it, where all the issues have been together and have also been taken up for adjudication during the course of the trial, these must be decided together and the judgment in the suit as a whole must be pronounced by the Court covering all the issues framed in the suit.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => 'Ram Narain Arora v. Asha Rani;',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => '',
		'counseldef' => '',
		'court' => 'Himachal Pradesh',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2008-07-31',
		'deposition' => 'Petition allowed',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => ' Deepak Gupta, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>Deepak Gupta, J.</p><p>1. This Revision Petition under Section 25(5) of the H.P. Urban Rent Control Act, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) is directed against the order of the learned Appellate Authority, Shimla in CMA No. 60-S/14 of 2001 whereby the appeal filed by the respondent (hereinafter referred to as the tenant) has been allowed, the order of the Rent Controller has been set-aside and the petition for eviction filed by the present petitioner (hereinafter referred to as the Landlord) on the ground of personal bona fide requirement has been set-aside.</p><p>2. The undisputed facts are that the landlord is owner of the demised premises situated in building known as Tunnel View, Sanjauli, Shimla-6 consisting of two bed rooms with attached bath room and latrine, drawing-cum-dining room, kitchen and balcony. These premises were purchased by the landlord in the year 1986. Thereafter, the landlord had rented out the premises to one Sh. B.K. Chauhan. According to the landlord, when he got married he requested Sh. B.K. Chauhan to vacate the said premises. Sh. Chauhan vacated the said premises but admittedly the landlord did not occupy the same but rented out the same to the tenant in the year 1990.</p><p>3. In the year 1997 the landlord filed a petition for eviction of the tenant on two grounds; firstly that the tenant is in arrears of rent from 1.11.1990 to 31.7.1997 and secondly that the premises are bona fide required by the landlord for the use and occupation of himself and his family.</p><p>4. This petition was contested by the tenant. After trial, the Rent Controller ordered the eviction of the tenant on two grounds; (i) that the tenant was in arrears of rent from November, 1999 till date of order i.e. 22nd August, 2001 and (ii) that the landlord required the premises for his own use and occupation.</p><p>5. The tenant deposited the rent within the time prescribed. He also filed an appeal challenging the finding on the issue of bona fide requirement. The learned Appellate Authority came to the conclusion that the landlord had not made a proper and full disclosure of facts as required under the provisions of the Act and had withheld material facts from the Court viz. that the landlord was in occupation of residential premises on 31, Mall Road in the urban area of Shimla and as such rejected this petition on this short ground.</p><p>6. Aggrieved by the said order, the landlord has filed the present Revision Petition.</p><p>7. I have heard Sh. Ramakant Sharma, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sh. Bhupinder Gupta, learned senior Counsel for the tenant.</p><p>8. It has been urged on behalf of the landlord that the building which is alleged to be in possession of the landlord i.e. 31, the Mall Shimla is not a residential building and secondly that the building is not owned by him.</p><p>9. On the other hand Sh. Bhupinder Gupta, learned Counsel of the tenant has strenuously urged that the landlord in para 18 has not stated anything about any building being owned by him and has only made an averment that he does not own or possess any other such building within the urban area Shimla. It is contended by Sh. Bhupinder Gupta that the landlord of his own volition did not state anything about the ownership of the building and since he has kept silent about the building which he is in occupation he has made a false averment and therefore his petition for eviction has rightly been rejected.</p><p>10. I am not at all in agreement with the contention of the landlord that the premises known as 31, the Mall Shimla which are admittedly in the occupation of the landlord are commercial premises only and not being used by him for his residence. As pointed out above, the landlord purchased the demised premises in 1986. They fell vacant when he got married despite that he did not occupy the same and rented out the same to the tenant in the year 1990. The question that arises is where was the landlord living for this entire period. According to the landlord after the year 1994 he has been living with his brother-in-law Rajan (wife's brother) PW-2, since the year 1994. Prior to 1994 the landlord will have this Court to believe that he was living off and on with one friend or the other. This story is impossible to believe. The landlord was married in the year 1999. He is an Architect by profession. His wife is a law graduate. It is not believable that such a person would have no permanent abode and would continue to live as a guest with his friends for almost 5 years after his marriage. Even the story that he has been living with his brother-in-law after the year 1994 does not inspire confidence. It stands proved on record that the brother-in-law PW-2 Rajan lives with his own family i.e. wife and children. From the evidence it is also clear that the parents of the brother-in-law also reside with him, His flat consists of only two rooms. The flat in possession of the landlord at 31, the Mall Shimla, also consists of two rooms, kitchen and bath room. Even assuming that he was running an office in the part of the flat it cannot be believed that he would not live on his own flat on the Mall Road and reside with his brother-in-law in cramped premises. Even in the electoral list the landlord is shown to be a resident of 31, The Mall, Shimla. Therefore, I am of the considered view that the building 31, the Mall, Shimla was also being used as a residence by the landlord.</p><p>11. Having held so, the question that arises is whether the landlord can be non-suited only on the ground that he has not made any disclosure about the residential accommodation available with him which premises were admittedly not owned by him.</p><p>12. The short question which arises for decision in this petition is whether the landlord was guilty of suppressing and withholding such relevant facts which would disentitle him from seeking eviction of the tenant. To appreciate these contentions it would be necessary to refer to relevant portion of Section 14(3) of the Act:</p><p>Section 14:</p><p>1 and 2 xxxxxxxxxxx</p><p>(3) A landlord may apply to the Controller for an order directing the tenant to put the landlord in possession-</p><p>(a) in case of residential building, if</p><p>(i) he required it for his own occupation:</p><p>Provided that he is not occupying another residential building owned by him, in the urban area concerned:</p><p>Provided further that he has not vacated such a building without sufficient cause within five years of the filing of the application, in the said urban area....</p><p>13. A perusal of the bare provisions of the Act makes it clear that there are certain essential ingredients which the landlord must satisfy before seeking eviction of the tenant under the Act. Not only must he prove that the residential building is bona fide required by him for his own use and occupation but he must also plead and prove that he is not occupying any other residential building owned by him in the urban area concerned and further that he has not vacated such a building without sufficient cause within 5 years of the filing of the application.</p><p>14. Reference may now be made to the relevant allegations made in para 18 of the eviction petition:</p><p>(ii) That the petitioner bona fide requires the premises for his own use and occupation and also for the use and occupation of his family.</p><p>The petitioner does not own or possess any other such building within the urban area of Simla nor the petitioner has vacated any such premises within five years of the filing of this petition.</p><p>The family of the petitioner presently consists of himself and his wife. Due to paucity of accommodation the petitioner has not been able to keep his wife with himself at Simla, where he is working as an Engineer and she has been residing at Chandigarh since 1991 but on account of her ill health she has been brought to Simla by the petitioner. The petitioner at present is seeking temporary shelter, from time to time, with his relations.</p><p>15. The learned Appellate Authority came to the conclusion that the landlord had falsely pleaded that he does not own or possess any other such building within the urban area of Shimla and hence rejected the eviction petition on this ground.</p><p>16. On a close analysis of the proviso to Section 14(3)(a)(i) of the Act it is clear that a landlord is not entitled to seek eviction of a tenant from residential building even in case of bona fide requirement if the landlord is occupying another residential building owned by him in the urban area concerned. One can read three essential ingredients in this proviso i.e. (i) that the landlord is in occupation of another residential building; (ii) that the said residential building is owned by him and (iii) that the said residential building is situated in the concerned urban area.</p><p>17. The question that arises is what is the impact of the landlord not making a disclosure in respect of premises which he is occupying but are not owned by him.</p><p>18. The Apex Court in Onkar Nath v. Ved Vyas ILR 1979 HP 1, held as follows:</p><p>It is common ground that there are three requirements to make out a cause of action for eviction under that provision, and indeed this is apparent from a bare reading of the sub-section. In the present case the finding is to the effect that the landlord requires the residential building for his own occupation. But, the legislation has taken care to insist upon two more conditions, namely; (a) that the landlord is not occupying any other residential building in the area concerned; and (b) that he has not vacated such a building without sufficient cause. There is not a scintilla of evidence nor indeed there is any averment in compliance with these latter conditions. The necessary consequence follows that not merely is there inadequacy of pleadings sufficient to make out a cause of action but total absence of proof of two vital requirements....</p><p>The Supreme Court also said that:.The statute benignly designed to protect tenants from unreasonable evictions has taken case to put restrictions which must be rigorously construed to fulfil the purpose of the statute.</p><p>19. Following the aforesaid judgment and other pronouncements of the Apex Court, a learned Single Judge of this Court in Tara Chand Sharma v. Baij Nath and Ors. 1992 (2) R.C.J. 323, held as follows:</p><p>16. What appears as the legislative intent, in bold relief, is that the landlord, while seeking eviction of a tenant on the ground that he needs a residential building for his own occupation, must come out clearly and honestly with facts relating to the requirement that he is not occupying another residential building owned by him, in the urban area concerned and that he had not vacated such a building without sufficient cause within five years of the filing of the application, in the said urban area. The primal burden of making a clear disclosure would lie upon the landlord, for, the true facts would be in his special knowledge. An order in his favour by the Rent Controller would depend upon the satisfaction of the Rent Controller in regard not only to the claim that the landlord requires the accommodation, from which he wishes to evict a tenant, for his own occupation but also that he was not occupying another residential building owned by him nor had he vacated such building without sufficient cause within five years of the filing of the application in the application in the urban area concerned....</p><p>It was further held as under:</p><p>18. That the landlord should make a full disclosure of the relevant facts, pertaining to the requirements of Sub-section (3)(a)(i) and the two provisos, becomes all the more necessary because the satisfaction of the Rent Controller in regard thereto is the condition precedent for the making of an order in favour of the landlord....</p><p>20. The aforesaid judgment has been followed in a number of other cases including Vijay Kapoor v. Maya Ram 1997 (2) RCR 437, wherein another learned single Judge of this Court following the aforesaid judgment held that the landlord must make complete and proper disclosure of all the material facts.</p><p>21. On the other hand Sh. Ramakant Sharma has relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in Ram Narain Arora v. Asha Rani 1998(2) RCR 268. In that case the Rent Controller came to the conclusion that the landlord had suppressed material information and had not disclosed the fact that he was already in occupation of a house in Subji Mandi. Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act reads as follows:</p><p>Section 14(1)(e). That the premises let for residential purposes are required bona fide by the landlord for occupation as a residence for himself or for any member of his family dependent on him, if he is the owner thereof, or for any person for whose benefit the premises are held and that the landlord or such person has no other reasonably suitable residential accommodation.</p><p>22. The difference between Delhi Act and the present Act is that under the Delhi Act the only requirement is that the landlord has no other reasonably suitable accommodation whereas under the Himachal Act the residential premises are required to be owned by the landlord. The Apex Court in Rama Narain Arora's case (supra) held that the nondisclosure of the fact that the landlord was in occupation of certain premises in Subji Mandi was.not a ground to non-suit the landlord in view of the facts and circumstances of the case. The Apex Court held as follows:</p><p>9. In making a claim that the suit premises is required bona fide for his own occupation as a residence for himself and other members of his family dependent on him and that he has no other reasonably suitable accommodation is a requirement of law before the Court can state whether the landlord requires the premises bona fide for his use and occupation. In doing so, the Court must also find out whether the landlord or such other person for whose benefit the premises is required has no other reasonably suitable residential accommodation. It cannot be said that the requirement of the landlord is not intermixed with the question of finding out whether he has any other reasonably suitable accommodation. If he has other reasonably suitable accommodation, ihen necessarily it would mean that he does not require the suit premises and his requirement may not be bona fide. In such circumstances further inquiry would be whether that premises is more suitable than the suit premises. Therefore, the questions raised before the Court would not necessarily depend upon only the pleadings. It could be a good defence that the landlord has other reasonably suitable residential accommodation and thereby defend the claim of the landlord.</p><p>10. There cannot be a pedantic or a dogmatic approach in the matter of analysis of pleadings or of the evidence adduced thereto. It is no doubt true that if the pleadings are clearly set out, it would be easy for the Court to decide the matters. But if the pleadings are lacking or vague and if both parties have understood what was the case pleaded and put forth with reference to requirement of law and placed such material before the Court, neither party is prejudiced. If we analyse from this angle, we do not think that the High Court was not justified in interfering with the order made by the Rent Controller.</p><p>23. From the perusal of the judgment of the Apex Court it is apparent that the Rent Controller must approach the matter in a practical manner. In case the non-disclosure is such as that it goes to the very root of the case the Rent Controller would be justified in non-suiting the landlord. However, if the non-disclosure is such that it would not prejudice the rights of the respondent then the landlord should not be non-suited only on this ground.</p><p>24. The decisions of this Court cited hereinabove were delivered prior to the judgment delivered by the Apex Court in Ram Nar'ain Arora's case. Further more both in Tara Chand Sharma's case and Vijay Kapoor's case decided by this Court, no averment had been made ixi respect of other residential buildings owned by a landlord. There was complete non-disclosure as to whether any such residential building owned by the landlord was in his possession or not. In the present case, as I have held above, the residential premises at 31, The Mall, Shimla was not owned by the landlord and hence these two earlier judgments of this Court are distinguishable on facts also.</p><p>25. In the present case, the landlord has been non-suited only on the ground that he did not disclose the fact that he was in occupation of certain premises on the Mall Road. Under law he was not required to disclose this fact. He was only required to disclose the factum of occupying another residential building owned by him in the urban area concerned. True it may be, that it would have been better if the landlord had disclosed all the facts but non-disclosure of a fact which he was not under law required to disclose could not in my opinion be a ground to dismiss his eviction petition.</p><p>26. However, what are the premises in his occupation even as a tenant can be taken into consideration while deciding the question whether he bona fide requires the demised premises for his personal use or occupation or not.</p><p>27. Lastly comes the question with regard to the bona fide requirement of the landlord. The landlord has no children. According to the landlord as well as his other witnesses i.e. his brother-in-law PW-2 and his wife PW-3, the wife now wants to come back and settle in Shimla. There is no reason to disbelieve their statements. Even according to the evidence led by the tenant the accommodation in possession of the landlord consists of two rooms, kitchen, bath room etc. Admittedly, the landlord is also having his office as an Architect in this building. The landlord belongs to the middle class of the Society. It cannot be expected of a landlord who owns sufficient property to reside in a two room set wherein he also runs his office.</p><p>28. The law by now is well settled that the landlord is the best judge of the suitability of the accommodation required by him. This suitability has however to be judged in the context of reasonable expectations. The landlord and his wife who are both well educated can reasonably be expected to entertain guests and they will have visitors to their house. They would obviously require a drawing room, a bed room and a spare bed room for guests. Even at his residence the landlord may require another room for his professional work. This is the minimum accommodation which they would require. Even if the accommodation possessed by the landlord, though not owned by him, at 31, the Mall, Shimla is taken into consideration such accommodation is not sufficient to meet his requirements since admittedly the landlord is running his profession of Architect from some portion of his these premises.</p><p>29. Keeping in view the entire facts and circumstances, I am of the considered view that the learned Appellate Authority gravely erred in rejecting the eviction petition of the landlord solely on the ground that he had not disclosed the factum of being in possession of the premises at 31, the Mall Shimla. Even though I have held that the said premises are residential premises, in view of the above discussion I hold that the landlord cannot be non-suited only on the ground of his being in possession of such premises since same were not owned by him.</p><p>30. In view of the above discussion, the Revision Petition is allowed, the order of the learned Appellate Authority dated 6.5.2003 is seaside and the order of the Rent Controller dated 22.8.2001 is restored.</p><p>31. Keeping in view the fact that the tenant has been in possession of the premises for a long period he is granted time up to 31st October, 2008 to vacate the premises.</p><p>32. No order as to costs.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '2008(2)ShimLC491',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'Shri S.L. Srivastava',
		'sub' => 'Tenancy',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'shri-arun-bhanwara-vs-s-l-srivastava'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '891084',
	(int) 1 => 'shri-arun-bhanwara-vs-s-l-srivastava'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/891084/shri-arun-bhanwara-vs-s-l-srivastava'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$caseref = 'Ram Narain Arora v. Asha Rani<br>'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>Deepak Gupta, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. This Revision Petition under Section 25(5) of the H.P. Urban Rent Control Act, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) is directed against the order of the learned Appellate Authority, Shimla in CMA No. 60-S/14 of 2001 whereby the appeal filed by the respondent (hereinafter referred to as the tenant) has been allowed, the order of the Rent Controller has been set-aside and the petition for eviction filed by the present petitioner (hereinafter referred to as the Landlord) on the ground of personal bona fide requirement has been set-aside.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. The undisputed facts are that the landlord is owner of the demised premises situated in building known as Tunnel View, Sanjauli, Shimla-6 consisting of two bed rooms with attached bath room and latrine, drawing-cum-dining room, kitchen and balcony. These premises were purchased by the landlord in the year 1986. Thereafter, the landlord had rented out the premises to one Sh. B.K. Chauhan. According to the landlord, when he got married he requested Sh. B.K. Chauhan to vacate the said premises. Sh. Chauhan vacated the said premises but admittedly the landlord did not occupy the same but rented out the same to the tenant in the year 1990.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. In the year 1997 the landlord filed a petition for eviction of the tenant on two grounds; firstly that the tenant is in arrears of rent from 1.11.1990 to 31.7.1997 and secondly that the premises are bona fide required by the landlord for the use and occupation of himself and his family.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>4. This petition was contested by the tenant. After trial, the Rent Controller ordered the eviction of the tenant on two grounds; (i) that the tenant was in arrears of rent from November, 1999 till date of order i.e. 22nd August, 2001 and (ii) that the landlord required the premises for his own use and occupation.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>5. The tenant deposited the rent within the time prescribed. He also filed an appeal challenging the finding on the issue of bona fide requirement. The learned Appellate Authority came to the conclusion that the landlord had not made a proper and full disclosure of facts as required under the provisions of the Act and had withheld material facts from the Court viz. that the landlord was in occupation of residential premises on 31, Mall Road in the urban area of Shimla and as such rejected this petition on this short ground.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>6. Aggrieved by the said order, the landlord has filed the present Revision Petition.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>7. I have heard Sh. Ramakant Sharma, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sh. Bhupinder Gupta, learned senior Counsel for the tenant.',
	(int) 8 => '<p>8. It has been urged on behalf of the landlord that the building which is alleged to be in possession of the landlord i.e. 31, the Mall Shimla is not a residential building and secondly that the building is not owned by him.',
	(int) 9 => '<p>9. On the other hand Sh. Bhupinder Gupta, learned Counsel of the tenant has strenuously urged that the landlord in para 18 has not stated anything about any building being owned by him and has only made an averment that he does not own or possess any other such building within the urban area Shimla. It is contended by Sh. Bhupinder Gupta that the landlord of his own volition did not state anything about the ownership of the building and since he has kept silent about the building which he is in occupation he has made a false averment and therefore his petition for eviction has rightly been rejected.',
	(int) 10 => '<p>10. I am not at all in agreement with the contention of the landlord that the premises known as 31, the Mall Shimla which are admittedly in the occupation of the landlord are commercial premises only and not being used by him for his residence. As pointed out above, the landlord purchased the demised premises in 1986. They fell vacant when he got married despite that he did not occupy the same and rented out the same to the tenant in the year 1990. The question that arises is where was the landlord living for this entire period. According to the landlord after the year 1994 he has been living with his brother-in-law Rajan (wife's brother) PW-2, since the year 1994. Prior to 1994 the landlord will have this Court to believe that he was living off and on with one friend or the other. This story is impossible to believe. The landlord was married in the year 1999. He is an Architect by profession. His wife is a law graduate. It is not believable that such a person would have no permanent abode and would continue to live as a guest with his friends for almost 5 years after his marriage. Even the story that he has been living with his brother-in-law after the year 1994 does not inspire confidence. It stands proved on record that the brother-in-law PW-2 Rajan lives with his own family i.e. wife and children. From the evidence it is also clear that the parents of the brother-in-law also reside with him, His flat consists of only two rooms. The flat in possession of the landlord at 31, the Mall Shimla, also consists of two rooms, kitchen and bath room. Even assuming that he was running an office in the part of the flat it cannot be believed that he would not live on his own flat on the Mall Road and reside with his brother-in-law in cramped premises. Even in the electoral list the landlord is shown to be a resident of 31, The Mall, Shimla. Therefore, I am of the considered view that the building 31, the Mall, Shimla was also being used as a residence by the landlord.',
	(int) 11 => '<p>11. Having held so, the question that arises is whether the landlord can be non-suited only on the ground that he has not made any disclosure about the residential accommodation available with him which premises were admittedly not owned by him.',
	(int) 12 => '<p>12. The short question which arises for decision in this petition is whether the landlord was guilty of suppressing and withholding such relevant facts which would disentitle him from seeking eviction of the tenant. To appreciate these contentions it would be necessary to refer to relevant portion of Section 14(3) of the Act:',
	(int) 13 => '<p>Section 14:',
	(int) 14 => '<p>1 and 2 xxxxxxxxxxx',
	(int) 15 => '<p>(3) A landlord may apply to the Controller for an order directing the tenant to put the landlord in possession-',
	(int) 16 => '<p>(a) in case of residential building, if',
	(int) 17 => '<p>(i) he required it for his own occupation:',
	(int) 18 => '<p>Provided that he is not occupying another residential building owned by him, in the urban area concerned:',
	(int) 19 => '<p>Provided further that he has not vacated such a building without sufficient cause within five years of the filing of the application, in the said urban area....',
	(int) 20 => '<p>13. A perusal of the bare provisions of the Act makes it clear that there are certain essential ingredients which the landlord must satisfy before seeking eviction of the tenant under the Act. Not only must he prove that the residential building is bona fide required by him for his own use and occupation but he must also plead and prove that he is not occupying any other residential building owned by him in the urban area concerned and further that he has not vacated such a building without sufficient cause within 5 years of the filing of the application.',
	(int) 21 => '<p>14. Reference may now be made to the relevant allegations made in para 18 of the eviction petition:',
	(int) 22 => '<p>(ii) That the petitioner bona fide requires the premises for his own use and occupation and also for the use and occupation of his family.',
	(int) 23 => '<p>The petitioner does not own or possess any other such building within the urban area of Simla nor the petitioner has vacated any such premises within five years of the filing of this petition.',
	(int) 24 => '<p>The family of the petitioner presently consists of himself and his wife. Due to paucity of accommodation the petitioner has not been able to keep his wife with himself at Simla, where he is working as an Engineer and she has been residing at Chandigarh since 1991 but on account of her ill health she has been brought to Simla by the petitioner. The petitioner at present is seeking temporary shelter, from time to time, with his relations.',
	(int) 25 => '<p>15. The learned Appellate Authority came to the conclusion that the landlord had falsely pleaded that he does not own or possess any other such building within the urban area of Shimla and hence rejected the eviction petition on this ground.',
	(int) 26 => '<p>16. On a close analysis of the proviso to Section 14(3)(a)(i) of the Act it is clear that a landlord is not entitled to seek eviction of a tenant from residential building even in case of bona fide requirement if the landlord is occupying another residential building owned by him in the urban area concerned. One can read three essential ingredients in this proviso i.e. (i) that the landlord is in occupation of another residential building; (ii) that the said residential building is owned by him and (iii) that the said residential building is situated in the concerned urban area.',
	(int) 27 => '<p>17. The question that arises is what is the impact of the landlord not making a disclosure in respect of premises which he is occupying but are not owned by him.',
	(int) 28 => '<p>18. The Apex Court in Onkar Nath v. Ved Vyas ILR 1979 HP 1, held as follows:',
	(int) 29 => '<p>It is common ground that there are three requirements to make out a cause of action for eviction under that provision, and indeed this is apparent from a bare reading of the sub-section. In the present case the finding is to the effect that the landlord requires the residential building for his own occupation. But, the legislation has taken care to insist upon two more conditions, namely; (a) that the landlord is not occupying any other residential building in the area concerned; and (b) that he has not vacated such a building without sufficient cause. There is not a scintilla of evidence nor indeed there is any averment in compliance with these latter conditions. The necessary consequence follows that not merely is there inadequacy of pleadings sufficient to make out a cause of action but total absence of proof of two vital requirements....',
	(int) 30 => '<p>The Supreme Court also said that:.The statute benignly designed to protect tenants from unreasonable evictions has taken case to put restrictions which must be rigorously construed to fulfil the purpose of the statute.',
	(int) 31 => '<p>19. Following the aforesaid judgment and other pronouncements of the Apex Court, a learned Single Judge of this Court in Tara Chand Sharma v. Baij Nath and Ors. 1992 (2) R.C.J. 323, held as follows:',
	(int) 32 => '<p>16. What appears as the legislative intent, in bold relief, is that the landlord, while seeking eviction of a tenant on the ground that he needs a residential building for his own occupation, must come out clearly and honestly with facts relating to the requirement that he is not occupying another residential building owned by him, in the urban area concerned and that he had not vacated such a building without sufficient cause within five years of the filing of the application, in the said urban area. The primal burden of making a clear disclosure would lie upon the landlord, for, the true facts would be in his special knowledge. An order in his favour by the Rent Controller would depend upon the satisfaction of the Rent Controller in regard not only to the claim that the landlord requires the accommodation, from which he wishes to evict a tenant, for his own occupation but also that he was not occupying another residential building owned by him nor had he vacated such building without sufficient cause within five years of the filing of the application in the application in the urban area concerned....',
	(int) 33 => '<p>It was further held as under:',
	(int) 34 => '<p>18. That the landlord should make a full disclosure of the relevant facts, pertaining to the requirements of Sub-section (3)(a)(i) and the two provisos, becomes all the more necessary because the satisfaction of the Rent Controller in regard thereto is the condition precedent for the making of an order in favour of the landlord....',
	(int) 35 => '<p>20. The aforesaid judgment has been followed in a number of other cases including Vijay Kapoor v. Maya Ram 1997 (2) RCR 437, wherein another learned single Judge of this Court following the aforesaid judgment held that the landlord must make complete and proper disclosure of all the material facts.',
	(int) 36 => '<p>21. On the other hand Sh. Ramakant Sharma has relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in Ram Narain Arora v. Asha Rani 1998(2) RCR 268. In that case the Rent Controller came to the conclusion that the landlord had suppressed material information and had not disclosed the fact that he was already in occupation of a house in Subji Mandi. Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act reads as follows:',
	(int) 37 => '<p>Section 14(1)(e). That the premises let for residential purposes are required bona fide by the landlord for occupation as a residence for himself or for any member of his family dependent on him, if he is the owner thereof, or for any person for whose benefit the premises are held and that the landlord or such person has no other reasonably suitable residential accommodation.',
	(int) 38 => '<p>22. The difference between Delhi Act and the present Act is that under the Delhi Act the only requirement is that the landlord has no other reasonably suitable accommodation whereas under the Himachal Act the residential premises are required to be owned by the landlord. The Apex Court in Rama Narain Arora's case (supra) held that the nondisclosure of the fact that the landlord was in occupation of certain premises in Subji Mandi was.not a ground to non-suit the landlord in view of the facts and circumstances of the case. The Apex Court held as follows:',
	(int) 39 => '<p>9. In making a claim that the suit premises is required bona fide for his own occupation as a residence for himself and other members of his family dependent on him and that he has no other reasonably suitable accommodation is a requirement of law before the Court can state whether the landlord requires the premises bona fide for his use and occupation. In doing so, the Court must also find out whether the landlord or such other person for whose benefit the premises is required has no other reasonably suitable residential accommodation. It cannot be said that the requirement of the landlord is not intermixed with the question of finding out whether he has any other reasonably suitable accommodation. If he has other reasonably suitable accommodation, ihen necessarily it would mean that he does not require the suit premises and his requirement may not be bona fide. In such circumstances further inquiry would be whether that premises is more suitable than the suit premises. Therefore, the questions raised before the Court would not necessarily depend upon only the pleadings. It could be a good defence that the landlord has other reasonably suitable residential accommodation and thereby defend the claim of the landlord.',
	(int) 40 => '<p>10. There cannot be a pedantic or a dogmatic approach in the matter of analysis of pleadings or of the evidence adduced thereto. It is no doubt true that if the pleadings are clearly set out, it would be easy for the Court to decide the matters. But if the pleadings are lacking or vague and if both parties have understood what was the case pleaded and put forth with reference to requirement of law and placed such material before the Court, neither party is prejudiced. If we analyse from this angle, we do not think that the High Court was not justified in interfering with the order made by the Rent Controller.',
	(int) 41 => '<p>23. From the perusal of the judgment of the Apex Court it is apparent that the Rent Controller must approach the matter in a practical manner. In case the non-disclosure is such as that it goes to the very root of the case the Rent Controller would be justified in non-suiting the landlord. However, if the non-disclosure is such that it would not prejudice the rights of the respondent then the landlord should not be non-suited only on this ground.',
	(int) 42 => '<p>24. The decisions of this Court cited hereinabove were delivered prior to the judgment delivered by the Apex Court in Ram Nar'ain Arora's case. Further more both in Tara Chand Sharma's case and Vijay Kapoor's case decided by this Court, no averment had been made ixi respect of other residential buildings owned by a landlord. There was complete non-disclosure as to whether any such residential building owned by the landlord was in his possession or not. In the present case, as I have held above, the residential premises at 31, The Mall, Shimla was not owned by the landlord and hence these two earlier judgments of this Court are distinguishable on facts also.',
	(int) 43 => '<p>25. In the present case, the landlord has been non-suited only on the ground that he did not disclose the fact that he was in occupation of certain premises on the Mall Road. Under law he was not required to disclose this fact. He was only required to disclose the factum of occupying another residential building owned by him in the urban area concerned. True it may be, that it would have been better if the landlord had disclosed all the facts but non-disclosure of a fact which he was not under law required to disclose could not in my opinion be a ground to dismiss his eviction petition.',
	(int) 44 => '<p>26. However, what are the premises in his occupation even as a tenant can be taken into consideration while deciding the question whether he bona fide requires the demised premises for his personal use or occupation or not.',
	(int) 45 => '<p>27. Lastly comes the question with regard to the bona fide requirement of the landlord. The landlord has no children. According to the landlord as well as his other witnesses i.e. his brother-in-law PW-2 and his wife PW-3, the wife now wants to come back and settle in Shimla. There is no reason to disbelieve their statements. Even according to the evidence led by the tenant the accommodation in possession of the landlord consists of two rooms, kitchen, bath room etc. Admittedly, the landlord is also having his office as an Architect in this building. The landlord belongs to the middle class of the Society. It cannot be expected of a landlord who owns sufficient property to reside in a two room set wherein he also runs his office.',
	(int) 46 => '<p>28. The law by now is well settled that the landlord is the best judge of the suitability of the accommodation required by him. This suitability has however to be judged in the context of reasonable expectations. The landlord and his wife who are both well educated can reasonably be expected to entertain guests and they will have visitors to their house. They would obviously require a drawing room, a bed room and a spare bed room for guests. Even at his residence the landlord may require another room for his professional work. This is the minimum accommodation which they would require. Even if the accommodation possessed by the landlord, though not owned by him, at 31, the Mall, Shimla is taken into consideration such accommodation is not sufficient to meet his requirements since admittedly the landlord is running his profession of Architect from some portion of his these premises.',
	(int) 47 => '<p>29. Keeping in view the entire facts and circumstances, I am of the considered view that the learned Appellate Authority gravely erred in rejecting the eviction petition of the landlord solely on the ground that he had not disclosed the factum of being in possession of the premises at 31, the Mall Shimla. Even though I have held that the said premises are residential premises, in view of the above discussion I hold that the landlord cannot be non-suited only on the ground of his being in possession of such premises since same were not owned by him.',
	(int) 48 => '<p>30. In view of the above discussion, the Revision Petition is allowed, the order of the learned Appellate Authority dated 6.5.2003 is seaside and the order of the Rent Controller dated 22.8.2001 is restored.',
	(int) 49 => '<p>31. Keeping in view the fact that the tenant has been in possession of the premises for a long period he is granted time up to 31st October, 2008 to vacate the premises.',
	(int) 50 => '<p>32. No order as to costs.<p>',
	(int) 51 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 52
$i = (int) 7
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

7. I have heard Sh. Ramakant Sharma, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sh. Bhupinder Gupta, learned senior Counsel for the tenant.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Shri Arun Bhanwara Vs Shri S L Srivastava - Citation 891084 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '891084',
			'acts' => '',
			'appealno' => '',
			'appellant' => 'Shri Arun Bhanwara',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Shri Arun Bhanwara Vs. Shri S.L. Srivastava',
			'casenote' => ' - CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908.[C.A. No. 5/1908]. Order 14, Rule 2 [As amended by Amending Act of 1976]: [V.K. Gupta, CJ, Deepak Gupta & Surjit Singh, JJ] Preliminary issue of law and fact  Court framing all issues both of law and facts together and also  tried all the issues together, including the issue relating to jurisdiction of Court  Held, Except in situations perceived or warranted under sub-rule (2) of Rule 2 of Order 14 where a  Court in fact frames only issues of law in the first instance and postpones settlement of other issues, clearly and explicitly in situations where the Court has framed all issues together, both of law as well as facts and has also tried all these issues together, it is not open to the Court to adopt the principle of severability and proceed to decide issues of law first, without taking up simultaneously other issues for decision. This course of action is not available to a Court because sub-rule (1) does not permit the  Court to adopt any such principle of severability and to dispose of a suit only on preliminary issues, or what can be termed as issues of law. Sub-rule (1)  clearly mandates that in a situation contemplated under it, where all the issues have been together and have also been taken up for adjudication during the course of the trial, these must be decided together and the judgment in the suit as a whole must be pronounced by the Court covering all the issues framed in the suit.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => 'Ram Narain Arora v. Asha Rani;',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => '',
			'counseldef' => '',
			'court' => 'Himachal Pradesh',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2008-07-31',
			'deposition' => 'Petition allowed',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => ' Deepak Gupta, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">Deepak Gupta, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. This Revision Petition under Section 25(5) of the H.P. Urban Rent Control Act, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) is directed against the order of the learned Appellate Authority, Shimla in CMA No. 60-S/14 of 2001 whereby the appeal filed by the respondent (hereinafter referred to as the tenant) has been allowed, the order of the Rent Controller has been set-aside and the petition for eviction filed by the present petitioner (hereinafter referred to as the Landlord) on the ground of personal bona fide requirement has been set-aside.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The undisputed facts are that the landlord is owner of the demised premises situated in building known as Tunnel View, Sanjauli, Shimla-6 consisting of two bed rooms with attached bath room and latrine, drawing-cum-dining room, kitchen and balcony. These premises were purchased by the landlord in the year 1986. Thereafter, the landlord had rented out the premises to one Sh. B.K. Chauhan. According to the landlord, when he got married he requested Sh. B.K. Chauhan to vacate the said premises. Sh. Chauhan vacated the said premises but admittedly the landlord did not occupy the same but rented out the same to the tenant in the year 1990.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. In the year 1997 the landlord filed a petition for eviction of the tenant on two grounds; firstly that the tenant is in arrears of rent from 1.11.1990 to 31.7.1997 and secondly that the premises are bona fide required by the landlord for the use and occupation of himself and his family.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. This petition was contested by the tenant. After trial, the Rent Controller ordered the eviction of the tenant on two grounds; (i) that the tenant was in arrears of rent from November, 1999 till date of order i.e. 22nd August, 2001 and (ii) that the landlord required the premises for his own use and occupation.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. The tenant deposited the rent within the time prescribed. He also filed an appeal challenging the finding on the issue of bona fide requirement. The learned Appellate Authority came to the conclusion that the landlord had not made a proper and full disclosure of facts as required under the provisions of the Act and had withheld material facts from the Court viz. that the landlord was in occupation of residential premises on 31, Mall Road in the urban area of Shimla and as such rejected this petition on this short ground.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. Aggrieved by the said order, the landlord has filed the present Revision Petition.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. I have heard Sh. Ramakant Sharma, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sh. Bhupinder Gupta, learned senior Counsel for the tenant.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. It has been urged on behalf of the landlord that the building which is alleged to be in possession of the landlord i.e. 31, the Mall Shimla is not a residential building and secondly that the building is not owned by him.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. On the other hand Sh. Bhupinder Gupta, learned Counsel of the tenant has strenuously urged that the landlord in para 18 has not stated anything about any building being owned by him and has only made an averment that he does not own or possess any other such building within the urban area Shimla. It is contended by Sh. Bhupinder Gupta that the landlord of his own volition did not state anything about the ownership of the building and since he has kept silent about the building which he is in occupation he has made a false averment and therefore his petition for eviction has rightly been rejected.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. I am not at all in agreement with the contention of the landlord that the premises known as 31, the Mall Shimla which are admittedly in the occupation of the landlord are commercial premises only and not being used by him for his residence. As pointed out above, the landlord purchased the demised premises in 1986. They fell vacant when he got married despite that he did not occupy the same and rented out the same to the tenant in the year 1990. The question that arises is where was the landlord living for this entire period. According to the landlord after the year 1994 he has been living with his brother-in-law Rajan (wife's brother) PW-2, since the year 1994. Prior to 1994 the landlord will have this Court to believe that he was living off and on with one friend or the other. This story is impossible to believe. The landlord was married in the year 1999. He is an Architect by profession. His wife is a law graduate. It is not believable that such a person would have no permanent abode and would continue to live as a guest with his friends for almost 5 years after his marriage. Even the story that he has been living with his brother-in-law after the year 1994 does not inspire confidence. It stands proved on record that the brother-in-law PW-2 Rajan lives with his own family i.e. wife and children. From the evidence it is also clear that the parents of the brother-in-law also reside with him, His flat consists of only two rooms. The flat in possession of the landlord at 31, the Mall Shimla, also consists of two rooms, kitchen and bath room. Even assuming that he was running an office in the part of the flat it cannot be believed that he would not live on his own flat on the Mall Road and reside with his brother-in-law in cramped premises. Even in the electoral list the landlord is shown to be a resident of 31, The Mall, Shimla. Therefore, I am of the considered view that the building 31, the Mall, Shimla was also being used as a residence by the landlord.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. Having held so, the question that arises is whether the landlord can be non-suited only on the ground that he has not made any disclosure about the residential accommodation available with him which premises were admittedly not owned by him.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. The short question which arises for decision in this petition is whether the landlord was guilty of suppressing and withholding such relevant facts which would disentitle him from seeking eviction of the tenant. To appreciate these contentions it would be necessary to refer to relevant portion of Section 14(3) of the Act:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Section 14:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1 and 2 xxxxxxxxxxx</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(3) A landlord may apply to the Controller for an order directing the tenant to put the landlord in possession-</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(a) in case of residential building, if</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(i) he required it for his own occupation:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Provided that he is not occupying another residential building owned by him, in the urban area concerned:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Provided further that he has not vacated such a building without sufficient cause within five years of the filing of the application, in the said urban area....</p><p style="text-align: justify;">13. A perusal of the bare provisions of the Act makes it clear that there are certain essential ingredients which the landlord must satisfy before seeking eviction of the tenant under the Act. Not only must he prove that the residential building is bona fide required by him for his own use and occupation but he must also plead and prove that he is not occupying any other residential building owned by him in the urban area concerned and further that he has not vacated such a building without sufficient cause within 5 years of the filing of the application.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">14. Reference may now be made to the relevant allegations made in para 18 of the eviction petition:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(ii) That the petitioner bona fide requires the premises for his own use and occupation and also for the use and occupation of his family.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The petitioner does not own or possess any other such building within the urban area of Simla nor the petitioner has vacated any such premises within five years of the filing of this petition.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The family of the petitioner presently consists of himself and his wife. Due to paucity of accommodation the petitioner has not been able to keep his wife with himself at Simla, where he is working as an Engineer and she has been residing at Chandigarh since 1991 but on account of her ill health she has been brought to Simla by the petitioner. The petitioner at present is seeking temporary shelter, from time to time, with his relations.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">15. The learned Appellate Authority came to the conclusion that the landlord had falsely pleaded that he does not own or possess any other such building within the urban area of Shimla and hence rejected the eviction petition on this ground.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">16. On a close analysis of the proviso to Section 14(3)(a)(i) of the Act it is clear that a landlord is not entitled to seek eviction of a tenant from residential building even in case of bona fide requirement if the landlord is occupying another residential building owned by him in the urban area concerned. One can read three essential ingredients in this proviso i.e. (i) that the landlord is in occupation of another residential building; (ii) that the said residential building is owned by him and (iii) that the said residential building is situated in the concerned urban area.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">17. The question that arises is what is the impact of the landlord not making a disclosure in respect of premises which he is occupying but are not owned by him.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">18. The Apex Court in Onkar Nath v. Ved Vyas ILR 1979 HP 1, held as follows:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">It is common ground that there are three requirements to make out a cause of action for eviction under that provision, and indeed this is apparent from a bare reading of the sub-section. In the present case the finding is to the effect that the landlord requires the residential building for his own occupation. But, the legislation has taken care to insist upon two more conditions, namely; (a) that the landlord is not occupying any other residential building in the area concerned; and (b) that he has not vacated such a building without sufficient cause. There is not a scintilla of evidence nor indeed there is any averment in compliance with these latter conditions. The necessary consequence follows that not merely is there inadequacy of pleadings sufficient to make out a cause of action but total absence of proof of two vital requirements....</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The Supreme Court also said that:.The statute benignly designed to protect tenants from unreasonable evictions has taken case to put restrictions which must be rigorously construed to fulfil the purpose of the statute.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">19. Following the aforesaid judgment and other pronouncements of the Apex Court, a learned Single Judge of this Court in Tara Chand Sharma v. Baij Nath and Ors. 1992 (2) R.C.J. 323, held as follows:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">16. What appears as the legislative intent, in bold relief, is that the landlord, while seeking eviction of a tenant on the ground that he needs a residential building for his own occupation, must come out clearly and honestly with facts relating to the requirement that he is not occupying another residential building owned by him, in the urban area concerned and that he had not vacated such a building without sufficient cause within five years of the filing of the application, in the said urban area. The primal burden of making a clear disclosure would lie upon the landlord, for, the true facts would be in his special knowledge. An order in his favour by the Rent Controller would depend upon the satisfaction of the Rent Controller in regard not only to the claim that the landlord requires the accommodation, from which he wishes to evict a tenant, for his own occupation but also that he was not occupying another residential building owned by him nor had he vacated such building without sufficient cause within five years of the filing of the application in the application in the urban area concerned....</p><p style="text-align: justify;">It was further held as under:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">18. That the landlord should make a full disclosure of the relevant facts, pertaining to the requirements of Sub-section (3)(a)(i) and the two provisos, becomes all the more necessary because the satisfaction of the Rent Controller in regard thereto is the condition precedent for the making of an order in favour of the landlord....</p><p style="text-align: justify;">20. The aforesaid judgment has been followed in a number of other cases including Vijay Kapoor v. Maya Ram 1997 (2) RCR 437, wherein another learned single Judge of this Court following the aforesaid judgment held that the landlord must make complete and proper disclosure of all the material facts.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">21. On the other hand Sh. Ramakant Sharma has relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in Ram Narain Arora v. Asha Rani 1998(2) RCR 268. In that case the Rent Controller came to the conclusion that the landlord had suppressed material information and had not disclosed the fact that he was already in occupation of a house in Subji Mandi. Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act reads as follows:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Section 14(1)(e). That the premises let for residential purposes are required bona fide by the landlord for occupation as a residence for himself or for any member of his family dependent on him, if he is the owner thereof, or for any person for whose benefit the premises are held and that the landlord or such person has no other reasonably suitable residential accommodation.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">22. The difference between Delhi Act and the present Act is that under the Delhi Act the only requirement is that the landlord has no other reasonably suitable accommodation whereas under the Himachal Act the residential premises are required to be owned by the landlord. The Apex Court in Rama Narain Arora's case (supra) held that the nondisclosure of the fact that the landlord was in occupation of certain premises in Subji Mandi was.not a ground to non-suit the landlord in view of the facts and circumstances of the case. The Apex Court held as follows:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. In making a claim that the suit premises is required bona fide for his own occupation as a residence for himself and other members of his family dependent on him and that he has no other reasonably suitable accommodation is a requirement of law before the Court can state whether the landlord requires the premises bona fide for his use and occupation. In doing so, the Court must also find out whether the landlord or such other person for whose benefit the premises is required has no other reasonably suitable residential accommodation. It cannot be said that the requirement of the landlord is not intermixed with the question of finding out whether he has any other reasonably suitable accommodation. If he has other reasonably suitable accommodation, ihen necessarily it would mean that he does not require the suit premises and his requirement may not be bona fide. In such circumstances further inquiry would be whether that premises is more suitable than the suit premises. Therefore, the questions raised before the Court would not necessarily depend upon only the pleadings. It could be a good defence that the landlord has other reasonably suitable residential accommodation and thereby defend the claim of the landlord.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. There cannot be a pedantic or a dogmatic approach in the matter of analysis of pleadings or of the evidence adduced thereto. It is no doubt true that if the pleadings are clearly set out, it would be easy for the Court to decide the matters. But if the pleadings are lacking or vague and if both parties have understood what was the case pleaded and put forth with reference to requirement of law and placed such material before the Court, neither party is prejudiced. If we analyse from this angle, we do not think that the High Court was not justified in interfering with the order made by the Rent Controller.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">23. From the perusal of the judgment of the Apex Court it is apparent that the Rent Controller must approach the matter in a practical manner. In case the non-disclosure is such as that it goes to the very root of the case the Rent Controller would be justified in non-suiting the landlord. However, if the non-disclosure is such that it would not prejudice the rights of the respondent then the landlord should not be non-suited only on this ground.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">24. The decisions of this Court cited hereinabove were delivered prior to the judgment delivered by the Apex Court in Ram Nar'ain Arora's case. Further more both in Tara Chand Sharma's case and Vijay Kapoor's case decided by this Court, no averment had been made ixi respect of other residential buildings owned by a landlord. There was complete non-disclosure as to whether any such residential building owned by the landlord was in his possession or not. In the present case, as I have held above, the residential premises at 31, The Mall, Shimla was not owned by the landlord and hence these two earlier judgments of this Court are distinguishable on facts also.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">25. In the present case, the landlord has been non-suited only on the ground that he did not disclose the fact that he was in occupation of certain premises on the Mall Road. Under law he was not required to disclose this fact. He was only required to disclose the factum of occupying another residential building owned by him in the urban area concerned. True it may be, that it would have been better if the landlord had disclosed all the facts but non-disclosure of a fact which he was not under law required to disclose could not in my opinion be a ground to dismiss his eviction petition.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">26. However, what are the premises in his occupation even as a tenant can be taken into consideration while deciding the question whether he bona fide requires the demised premises for his personal use or occupation or not.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">27. Lastly comes the question with regard to the bona fide requirement of the landlord. The landlord has no children. According to the landlord as well as his other witnesses i.e. his brother-in-law PW-2 and his wife PW-3, the wife now wants to come back and settle in Shimla. There is no reason to disbelieve their statements. Even according to the evidence led by the tenant the accommodation in possession of the landlord consists of two rooms, kitchen, bath room etc. Admittedly, the landlord is also having his office as an Architect in this building. The landlord belongs to the middle class of the Society. It cannot be expected of a landlord who owns sufficient property to reside in a two room set wherein he also runs his office.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">28. The law by now is well settled that the landlord is the best judge of the suitability of the accommodation required by him. This suitability has however to be judged in the context of reasonable expectations. The landlord and his wife who are both well educated can reasonably be expected to entertain guests and they will have visitors to their house. They would obviously require a drawing room, a bed room and a spare bed room for guests. Even at his residence the landlord may require another room for his professional work. This is the minimum accommodation which they would require. Even if the accommodation possessed by the landlord, though not owned by him, at 31, the Mall, Shimla is taken into consideration such accommodation is not sufficient to meet his requirements since admittedly the landlord is running his profession of Architect from some portion of his these premises.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">29. Keeping in view the entire facts and circumstances, I am of the considered view that the learned Appellate Authority gravely erred in rejecting the eviction petition of the landlord solely on the ground that he had not disclosed the factum of being in possession of the premises at 31, the Mall Shimla. Even though I have held that the said premises are residential premises, in view of the above discussion I hold that the landlord cannot be non-suited only on the ground of his being in possession of such premises since same were not owned by him.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">30. In view of the above discussion, the Revision Petition is allowed, the order of the learned Appellate Authority dated 6.5.2003 is seaside and the order of the Rent Controller dated 22.8.2001 is restored.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">31. Keeping in view the fact that the tenant has been in possession of the premises for a long period he is granted time up to 31st October, 2008 to vacate the premises.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">32. No order as to costs.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '2008(2)ShimLC491',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'Shri S.L. Srivastava',
			'sub' => 'Tenancy',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'shri-arun-bhanwara-vs-s-l-srivastava',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '891084',
		(int) 1 => 'shri-arun-bhanwara-vs-s-l-srivastava'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Shri Arun Bhanwara Vs Shri S L Srivastava - Citation 891084 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '891084',
		'acts' => '',
		'appealno' => '',
		'appellant' => 'Shri Arun Bhanwara',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Shri Arun Bhanwara Vs. Shri S.L. Srivastava',
		'casenote' => ' - CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908.[C.A. No. 5/1908]. Order 14, Rule 2 [As amended by Amending Act of 1976]: [V.K. Gupta, CJ, Deepak Gupta & Surjit Singh, JJ] Preliminary issue of law and fact  Court framing all issues both of law and facts together and also  tried all the issues together, including the issue relating to jurisdiction of Court  Held, Except in situations perceived or warranted under sub-rule (2) of Rule 2 of Order 14 where a  Court in fact frames only issues of law in the first instance and postpones settlement of other issues, clearly and explicitly in situations where the Court has framed all issues together, both of law as well as facts and has also tried all these issues together, it is not open to the Court to adopt the principle of severability and proceed to decide issues of law first, without taking up simultaneously other issues for decision. This course of action is not available to a Court because sub-rule (1) does not permit the  Court to adopt any such principle of severability and to dispose of a suit only on preliminary issues, or what can be termed as issues of law. Sub-rule (1)  clearly mandates that in a situation contemplated under it, where all the issues have been together and have also been taken up for adjudication during the course of the trial, these must be decided together and the judgment in the suit as a whole must be pronounced by the Court covering all the issues framed in the suit.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => 'Ram Narain Arora v. Asha Rani;',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => '',
		'counseldef' => '',
		'court' => 'Himachal Pradesh',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2008-07-31',
		'deposition' => 'Petition allowed',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => ' Deepak Gupta, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>Deepak Gupta, J.</p><p>1. This Revision Petition under Section 25(5) of the H.P. Urban Rent Control Act, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) is directed against the order of the learned Appellate Authority, Shimla in CMA No. 60-S/14 of 2001 whereby the appeal filed by the respondent (hereinafter referred to as the tenant) has been allowed, the order of the Rent Controller has been set-aside and the petition for eviction filed by the present petitioner (hereinafter referred to as the Landlord) on the ground of personal bona fide requirement has been set-aside.</p><p>2. The undisputed facts are that the landlord is owner of the demised premises situated in building known as Tunnel View, Sanjauli, Shimla-6 consisting of two bed rooms with attached bath room and latrine, drawing-cum-dining room, kitchen and balcony. These premises were purchased by the landlord in the year 1986. Thereafter, the landlord had rented out the premises to one Sh. B.K. Chauhan. According to the landlord, when he got married he requested Sh. B.K. Chauhan to vacate the said premises. Sh. Chauhan vacated the said premises but admittedly the landlord did not occupy the same but rented out the same to the tenant in the year 1990.</p><p>3. In the year 1997 the landlord filed a petition for eviction of the tenant on two grounds; firstly that the tenant is in arrears of rent from 1.11.1990 to 31.7.1997 and secondly that the premises are bona fide required by the landlord for the use and occupation of himself and his family.</p><p>4. This petition was contested by the tenant. After trial, the Rent Controller ordered the eviction of the tenant on two grounds; (i) that the tenant was in arrears of rent from November, 1999 till date of order i.e. 22nd August, 2001 and (ii) that the landlord required the premises for his own use and occupation.</p><p>5. The tenant deposited the rent within the time prescribed. He also filed an appeal challenging the finding on the issue of bona fide requirement. The learned Appellate Authority came to the conclusion that the landlord had not made a proper and full disclosure of facts as required under the provisions of the Act and had withheld material facts from the Court viz. that the landlord was in occupation of residential premises on 31, Mall Road in the urban area of Shimla and as such rejected this petition on this short ground.</p><p>6. Aggrieved by the said order, the landlord has filed the present Revision Petition.</p><p>7. I have heard Sh. Ramakant Sharma, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sh. Bhupinder Gupta, learned senior Counsel for the tenant.</p><p>8. It has been urged on behalf of the landlord that the building which is alleged to be in possession of the landlord i.e. 31, the Mall Shimla is not a residential building and secondly that the building is not owned by him.</p><p>9. On the other hand Sh. Bhupinder Gupta, learned Counsel of the tenant has strenuously urged that the landlord in para 18 has not stated anything about any building being owned by him and has only made an averment that he does not own or possess any other such building within the urban area Shimla. It is contended by Sh. Bhupinder Gupta that the landlord of his own volition did not state anything about the ownership of the building and since he has kept silent about the building which he is in occupation he has made a false averment and therefore his petition for eviction has rightly been rejected.</p><p>10. I am not at all in agreement with the contention of the landlord that the premises known as 31, the Mall Shimla which are admittedly in the occupation of the landlord are commercial premises only and not being used by him for his residence. As pointed out above, the landlord purchased the demised premises in 1986. They fell vacant when he got married despite that he did not occupy the same and rented out the same to the tenant in the year 1990. The question that arises is where was the landlord living for this entire period. According to the landlord after the year 1994 he has been living with his brother-in-law Rajan (wife's brother) PW-2, since the year 1994. Prior to 1994 the landlord will have this Court to believe that he was living off and on with one friend or the other. This story is impossible to believe. The landlord was married in the year 1999. He is an Architect by profession. His wife is a law graduate. It is not believable that such a person would have no permanent abode and would continue to live as a guest with his friends for almost 5 years after his marriage. Even the story that he has been living with his brother-in-law after the year 1994 does not inspire confidence. It stands proved on record that the brother-in-law PW-2 Rajan lives with his own family i.e. wife and children. From the evidence it is also clear that the parents of the brother-in-law also reside with him, His flat consists of only two rooms. The flat in possession of the landlord at 31, the Mall Shimla, also consists of two rooms, kitchen and bath room. Even assuming that he was running an office in the part of the flat it cannot be believed that he would not live on his own flat on the Mall Road and reside with his brother-in-law in cramped premises. Even in the electoral list the landlord is shown to be a resident of 31, The Mall, Shimla. Therefore, I am of the considered view that the building 31, the Mall, Shimla was also being used as a residence by the landlord.</p><p>11. Having held so, the question that arises is whether the landlord can be non-suited only on the ground that he has not made any disclosure about the residential accommodation available with him which premises were admittedly not owned by him.</p><p>12. The short question which arises for decision in this petition is whether the landlord was guilty of suppressing and withholding such relevant facts which would disentitle him from seeking eviction of the tenant. To appreciate these contentions it would be necessary to refer to relevant portion of Section 14(3) of the Act:</p><p>Section 14:</p><p>1 and 2 xxxxxxxxxxx</p><p>(3) A landlord may apply to the Controller for an order directing the tenant to put the landlord in possession-</p><p>(a) in case of residential building, if</p><p>(i) he required it for his own occupation:</p><p>Provided that he is not occupying another residential building owned by him, in the urban area concerned:</p><p>Provided further that he has not vacated such a building without sufficient cause within five years of the filing of the application, in the said urban area....</p><p>13. A perusal of the bare provisions of the Act makes it clear that there are certain essential ingredients which the landlord must satisfy before seeking eviction of the tenant under the Act. Not only must he prove that the residential building is bona fide required by him for his own use and occupation but he must also plead and prove that he is not occupying any other residential building owned by him in the urban area concerned and further that he has not vacated such a building without sufficient cause within 5 years of the filing of the application.</p><p>14. Reference may now be made to the relevant allegations made in para 18 of the eviction petition:</p><p>(ii) That the petitioner bona fide requires the premises for his own use and occupation and also for the use and occupation of his family.</p><p>The petitioner does not own or possess any other such building within the urban area of Simla nor the petitioner has vacated any such premises within five years of the filing of this petition.</p><p>The family of the petitioner presently consists of himself and his wife. Due to paucity of accommodation the petitioner has not been able to keep his wife with himself at Simla, where he is working as an Engineer and she has been residing at Chandigarh since 1991 but on account of her ill health she has been brought to Simla by the petitioner. The petitioner at present is seeking temporary shelter, from time to time, with his relations.</p><p>15. The learned Appellate Authority came to the conclusion that the landlord had falsely pleaded that he does not own or possess any other such building within the urban area of Shimla and hence rejected the eviction petition on this ground.</p><p>16. On a close analysis of the proviso to Section 14(3)(a)(i) of the Act it is clear that a landlord is not entitled to seek eviction of a tenant from residential building even in case of bona fide requirement if the landlord is occupying another residential building owned by him in the urban area concerned. One can read three essential ingredients in this proviso i.e. (i) that the landlord is in occupation of another residential building; (ii) that the said residential building is owned by him and (iii) that the said residential building is situated in the concerned urban area.</p><p>17. The question that arises is what is the impact of the landlord not making a disclosure in respect of premises which he is occupying but are not owned by him.</p><p>18. The Apex Court in Onkar Nath v. Ved Vyas ILR 1979 HP 1, held as follows:</p><p>It is common ground that there are three requirements to make out a cause of action for eviction under that provision, and indeed this is apparent from a bare reading of the sub-section. In the present case the finding is to the effect that the landlord requires the residential building for his own occupation. But, the legislation has taken care to insist upon two more conditions, namely; (a) that the landlord is not occupying any other residential building in the area concerned; and (b) that he has not vacated such a building without sufficient cause. There is not a scintilla of evidence nor indeed there is any averment in compliance with these latter conditions. The necessary consequence follows that not merely is there inadequacy of pleadings sufficient to make out a cause of action but total absence of proof of two vital requirements....</p><p>The Supreme Court also said that:.The statute benignly designed to protect tenants from unreasonable evictions has taken case to put restrictions which must be rigorously construed to fulfil the purpose of the statute.</p><p>19. Following the aforesaid judgment and other pronouncements of the Apex Court, a learned Single Judge of this Court in Tara Chand Sharma v. Baij Nath and Ors. 1992 (2) R.C.J. 323, held as follows:</p><p>16. What appears as the legislative intent, in bold relief, is that the landlord, while seeking eviction of a tenant on the ground that he needs a residential building for his own occupation, must come out clearly and honestly with facts relating to the requirement that he is not occupying another residential building owned by him, in the urban area concerned and that he had not vacated such a building without sufficient cause within five years of the filing of the application, in the said urban area. The primal burden of making a clear disclosure would lie upon the landlord, for, the true facts would be in his special knowledge. An order in his favour by the Rent Controller would depend upon the satisfaction of the Rent Controller in regard not only to the claim that the landlord requires the accommodation, from which he wishes to evict a tenant, for his own occupation but also that he was not occupying another residential building owned by him nor had he vacated such building without sufficient cause within five years of the filing of the application in the application in the urban area concerned....</p><p>It was further held as under:</p><p>18. That the landlord should make a full disclosure of the relevant facts, pertaining to the requirements of Sub-section (3)(a)(i) and the two provisos, becomes all the more necessary because the satisfaction of the Rent Controller in regard thereto is the condition precedent for the making of an order in favour of the landlord....</p><p>20. The aforesaid judgment has been followed in a number of other cases including Vijay Kapoor v. Maya Ram 1997 (2) RCR 437, wherein another learned single Judge of this Court following the aforesaid judgment held that the landlord must make complete and proper disclosure of all the material facts.</p><p>21. On the other hand Sh. Ramakant Sharma has relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in Ram Narain Arora v. Asha Rani 1998(2) RCR 268. In that case the Rent Controller came to the conclusion that the landlord had suppressed material information and had not disclosed the fact that he was already in occupation of a house in Subji Mandi. Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act reads as follows:</p><p>Section 14(1)(e). That the premises let for residential purposes are required bona fide by the landlord for occupation as a residence for himself or for any member of his family dependent on him, if he is the owner thereof, or for any person for whose benefit the premises are held and that the landlord or such person has no other reasonably suitable residential accommodation.</p><p>22. The difference between Delhi Act and the present Act is that under the Delhi Act the only requirement is that the landlord has no other reasonably suitable accommodation whereas under the Himachal Act the residential premises are required to be owned by the landlord. The Apex Court in Rama Narain Arora's case (supra) held that the nondisclosure of the fact that the landlord was in occupation of certain premises in Subji Mandi was.not a ground to non-suit the landlord in view of the facts and circumstances of the case. The Apex Court held as follows:</p><p>9. In making a claim that the suit premises is required bona fide for his own occupation as a residence for himself and other members of his family dependent on him and that he has no other reasonably suitable accommodation is a requirement of law before the Court can state whether the landlord requires the premises bona fide for his use and occupation. In doing so, the Court must also find out whether the landlord or such other person for whose benefit the premises is required has no other reasonably suitable residential accommodation. It cannot be said that the requirement of the landlord is not intermixed with the question of finding out whether he has any other reasonably suitable accommodation. If he has other reasonably suitable accommodation, ihen necessarily it would mean that he does not require the suit premises and his requirement may not be bona fide. In such circumstances further inquiry would be whether that premises is more suitable than the suit premises. Therefore, the questions raised before the Court would not necessarily depend upon only the pleadings. It could be a good defence that the landlord has other reasonably suitable residential accommodation and thereby defend the claim of the landlord.</p><p>10. There cannot be a pedantic or a dogmatic approach in the matter of analysis of pleadings or of the evidence adduced thereto. It is no doubt true that if the pleadings are clearly set out, it would be easy for the Court to decide the matters. But if the pleadings are lacking or vague and if both parties have understood what was the case pleaded and put forth with reference to requirement of law and placed such material before the Court, neither party is prejudiced. If we analyse from this angle, we do not think that the High Court was not justified in interfering with the order made by the Rent Controller.</p><p>23. From the perusal of the judgment of the Apex Court it is apparent that the Rent Controller must approach the matter in a practical manner. In case the non-disclosure is such as that it goes to the very root of the case the Rent Controller would be justified in non-suiting the landlord. However, if the non-disclosure is such that it would not prejudice the rights of the respondent then the landlord should not be non-suited only on this ground.</p><p>24. The decisions of this Court cited hereinabove were delivered prior to the judgment delivered by the Apex Court in Ram Nar'ain Arora's case. Further more both in Tara Chand Sharma's case and Vijay Kapoor's case decided by this Court, no averment had been made ixi respect of other residential buildings owned by a landlord. There was complete non-disclosure as to whether any such residential building owned by the landlord was in his possession or not. In the present case, as I have held above, the residential premises at 31, The Mall, Shimla was not owned by the landlord and hence these two earlier judgments of this Court are distinguishable on facts also.</p><p>25. In the present case, the landlord has been non-suited only on the ground that he did not disclose the fact that he was in occupation of certain premises on the Mall Road. Under law he was not required to disclose this fact. He was only required to disclose the factum of occupying another residential building owned by him in the urban area concerned. True it may be, that it would have been better if the landlord had disclosed all the facts but non-disclosure of a fact which he was not under law required to disclose could not in my opinion be a ground to dismiss his eviction petition.</p><p>26. However, what are the premises in his occupation even as a tenant can be taken into consideration while deciding the question whether he bona fide requires the demised premises for his personal use or occupation or not.</p><p>27. Lastly comes the question with regard to the bona fide requirement of the landlord. The landlord has no children. According to the landlord as well as his other witnesses i.e. his brother-in-law PW-2 and his wife PW-3, the wife now wants to come back and settle in Shimla. There is no reason to disbelieve their statements. Even according to the evidence led by the tenant the accommodation in possession of the landlord consists of two rooms, kitchen, bath room etc. Admittedly, the landlord is also having his office as an Architect in this building. The landlord belongs to the middle class of the Society. It cannot be expected of a landlord who owns sufficient property to reside in a two room set wherein he also runs his office.</p><p>28. The law by now is well settled that the landlord is the best judge of the suitability of the accommodation required by him. This suitability has however to be judged in the context of reasonable expectations. The landlord and his wife who are both well educated can reasonably be expected to entertain guests and they will have visitors to their house. They would obviously require a drawing room, a bed room and a spare bed room for guests. Even at his residence the landlord may require another room for his professional work. This is the minimum accommodation which they would require. Even if the accommodation possessed by the landlord, though not owned by him, at 31, the Mall, Shimla is taken into consideration such accommodation is not sufficient to meet his requirements since admittedly the landlord is running his profession of Architect from some portion of his these premises.</p><p>29. Keeping in view the entire facts and circumstances, I am of the considered view that the learned Appellate Authority gravely erred in rejecting the eviction petition of the landlord solely on the ground that he had not disclosed the factum of being in possession of the premises at 31, the Mall Shimla. Even though I have held that the said premises are residential premises, in view of the above discussion I hold that the landlord cannot be non-suited only on the ground of his being in possession of such premises since same were not owned by him.</p><p>30. In view of the above discussion, the Revision Petition is allowed, the order of the learned Appellate Authority dated 6.5.2003 is seaside and the order of the Rent Controller dated 22.8.2001 is restored.</p><p>31. Keeping in view the fact that the tenant has been in possession of the premises for a long period he is granted time up to 31st October, 2008 to vacate the premises.</p><p>32. No order as to costs.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '2008(2)ShimLC491',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'Shri S.L. Srivastava',
		'sub' => 'Tenancy',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'shri-arun-bhanwara-vs-s-l-srivastava'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '891084',
	(int) 1 => 'shri-arun-bhanwara-vs-s-l-srivastava'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/891084/shri-arun-bhanwara-vs-s-l-srivastava'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$caseref = 'Ram Narain Arora v. Asha Rani<br>'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>Deepak Gupta, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. This Revision Petition under Section 25(5) of the H.P. Urban Rent Control Act, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) is directed against the order of the learned Appellate Authority, Shimla in CMA No. 60-S/14 of 2001 whereby the appeal filed by the respondent (hereinafter referred to as the tenant) has been allowed, the order of the Rent Controller has been set-aside and the petition for eviction filed by the present petitioner (hereinafter referred to as the Landlord) on the ground of personal bona fide requirement has been set-aside.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. The undisputed facts are that the landlord is owner of the demised premises situated in building known as Tunnel View, Sanjauli, Shimla-6 consisting of two bed rooms with attached bath room and latrine, drawing-cum-dining room, kitchen and balcony. These premises were purchased by the landlord in the year 1986. Thereafter, the landlord had rented out the premises to one Sh. B.K. Chauhan. According to the landlord, when he got married he requested Sh. B.K. Chauhan to vacate the said premises. Sh. Chauhan vacated the said premises but admittedly the landlord did not occupy the same but rented out the same to the tenant in the year 1990.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. In the year 1997 the landlord filed a petition for eviction of the tenant on two grounds; firstly that the tenant is in arrears of rent from 1.11.1990 to 31.7.1997 and secondly that the premises are bona fide required by the landlord for the use and occupation of himself and his family.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>4. This petition was contested by the tenant. After trial, the Rent Controller ordered the eviction of the tenant on two grounds; (i) that the tenant was in arrears of rent from November, 1999 till date of order i.e. 22nd August, 2001 and (ii) that the landlord required the premises for his own use and occupation.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>5. The tenant deposited the rent within the time prescribed. He also filed an appeal challenging the finding on the issue of bona fide requirement. The learned Appellate Authority came to the conclusion that the landlord had not made a proper and full disclosure of facts as required under the provisions of the Act and had withheld material facts from the Court viz. that the landlord was in occupation of residential premises on 31, Mall Road in the urban area of Shimla and as such rejected this petition on this short ground.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>6. Aggrieved by the said order, the landlord has filed the present Revision Petition.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>7. I have heard Sh. Ramakant Sharma, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sh. Bhupinder Gupta, learned senior Counsel for the tenant.',
	(int) 8 => '<p>8. It has been urged on behalf of the landlord that the building which is alleged to be in possession of the landlord i.e. 31, the Mall Shimla is not a residential building and secondly that the building is not owned by him.',
	(int) 9 => '<p>9. On the other hand Sh. Bhupinder Gupta, learned Counsel of the tenant has strenuously urged that the landlord in para 18 has not stated anything about any building being owned by him and has only made an averment that he does not own or possess any other such building within the urban area Shimla. It is contended by Sh. Bhupinder Gupta that the landlord of his own volition did not state anything about the ownership of the building and since he has kept silent about the building which he is in occupation he has made a false averment and therefore his petition for eviction has rightly been rejected.',
	(int) 10 => '<p>10. I am not at all in agreement with the contention of the landlord that the premises known as 31, the Mall Shimla which are admittedly in the occupation of the landlord are commercial premises only and not being used by him for his residence. As pointed out above, the landlord purchased the demised premises in 1986. They fell vacant when he got married despite that he did not occupy the same and rented out the same to the tenant in the year 1990. The question that arises is where was the landlord living for this entire period. According to the landlord after the year 1994 he has been living with his brother-in-law Rajan (wife's brother) PW-2, since the year 1994. Prior to 1994 the landlord will have this Court to believe that he was living off and on with one friend or the other. This story is impossible to believe. The landlord was married in the year 1999. He is an Architect by profession. His wife is a law graduate. It is not believable that such a person would have no permanent abode and would continue to live as a guest with his friends for almost 5 years after his marriage. Even the story that he has been living with his brother-in-law after the year 1994 does not inspire confidence. It stands proved on record that the brother-in-law PW-2 Rajan lives with his own family i.e. wife and children. From the evidence it is also clear that the parents of the brother-in-law also reside with him, His flat consists of only two rooms. The flat in possession of the landlord at 31, the Mall Shimla, also consists of two rooms, kitchen and bath room. Even assuming that he was running an office in the part of the flat it cannot be believed that he would not live on his own flat on the Mall Road and reside with his brother-in-law in cramped premises. Even in the electoral list the landlord is shown to be a resident of 31, The Mall, Shimla. Therefore, I am of the considered view that the building 31, the Mall, Shimla was also being used as a residence by the landlord.',
	(int) 11 => '<p>11. Having held so, the question that arises is whether the landlord can be non-suited only on the ground that he has not made any disclosure about the residential accommodation available with him which premises were admittedly not owned by him.',
	(int) 12 => '<p>12. The short question which arises for decision in this petition is whether the landlord was guilty of suppressing and withholding such relevant facts which would disentitle him from seeking eviction of the tenant. To appreciate these contentions it would be necessary to refer to relevant portion of Section 14(3) of the Act:',
	(int) 13 => '<p>Section 14:',
	(int) 14 => '<p>1 and 2 xxxxxxxxxxx',
	(int) 15 => '<p>(3) A landlord may apply to the Controller for an order directing the tenant to put the landlord in possession-',
	(int) 16 => '<p>(a) in case of residential building, if',
	(int) 17 => '<p>(i) he required it for his own occupation:',
	(int) 18 => '<p>Provided that he is not occupying another residential building owned by him, in the urban area concerned:',
	(int) 19 => '<p>Provided further that he has not vacated such a building without sufficient cause within five years of the filing of the application, in the said urban area....',
	(int) 20 => '<p>13. A perusal of the bare provisions of the Act makes it clear that there are certain essential ingredients which the landlord must satisfy before seeking eviction of the tenant under the Act. Not only must he prove that the residential building is bona fide required by him for his own use and occupation but he must also plead and prove that he is not occupying any other residential building owned by him in the urban area concerned and further that he has not vacated such a building without sufficient cause within 5 years of the filing of the application.',
	(int) 21 => '<p>14. Reference may now be made to the relevant allegations made in para 18 of the eviction petition:',
	(int) 22 => '<p>(ii) That the petitioner bona fide requires the premises for his own use and occupation and also for the use and occupation of his family.',
	(int) 23 => '<p>The petitioner does not own or possess any other such building within the urban area of Simla nor the petitioner has vacated any such premises within five years of the filing of this petition.',
	(int) 24 => '<p>The family of the petitioner presently consists of himself and his wife. Due to paucity of accommodation the petitioner has not been able to keep his wife with himself at Simla, where he is working as an Engineer and she has been residing at Chandigarh since 1991 but on account of her ill health she has been brought to Simla by the petitioner. The petitioner at present is seeking temporary shelter, from time to time, with his relations.',
	(int) 25 => '<p>15. The learned Appellate Authority came to the conclusion that the landlord had falsely pleaded that he does not own or possess any other such building within the urban area of Shimla and hence rejected the eviction petition on this ground.',
	(int) 26 => '<p>16. On a close analysis of the proviso to Section 14(3)(a)(i) of the Act it is clear that a landlord is not entitled to seek eviction of a tenant from residential building even in case of bona fide requirement if the landlord is occupying another residential building owned by him in the urban area concerned. One can read three essential ingredients in this proviso i.e. (i) that the landlord is in occupation of another residential building; (ii) that the said residential building is owned by him and (iii) that the said residential building is situated in the concerned urban area.',
	(int) 27 => '<p>17. The question that arises is what is the impact of the landlord not making a disclosure in respect of premises which he is occupying but are not owned by him.',
	(int) 28 => '<p>18. The Apex Court in Onkar Nath v. Ved Vyas ILR 1979 HP 1, held as follows:',
	(int) 29 => '<p>It is common ground that there are three requirements to make out a cause of action for eviction under that provision, and indeed this is apparent from a bare reading of the sub-section. In the present case the finding is to the effect that the landlord requires the residential building for his own occupation. But, the legislation has taken care to insist upon two more conditions, namely; (a) that the landlord is not occupying any other residential building in the area concerned; and (b) that he has not vacated such a building without sufficient cause. There is not a scintilla of evidence nor indeed there is any averment in compliance with these latter conditions. The necessary consequence follows that not merely is there inadequacy of pleadings sufficient to make out a cause of action but total absence of proof of two vital requirements....',
	(int) 30 => '<p>The Supreme Court also said that:.The statute benignly designed to protect tenants from unreasonable evictions has taken case to put restrictions which must be rigorously construed to fulfil the purpose of the statute.',
	(int) 31 => '<p>19. Following the aforesaid judgment and other pronouncements of the Apex Court, a learned Single Judge of this Court in Tara Chand Sharma v. Baij Nath and Ors. 1992 (2) R.C.J. 323, held as follows:',
	(int) 32 => '<p>16. What appears as the legislative intent, in bold relief, is that the landlord, while seeking eviction of a tenant on the ground that he needs a residential building for his own occupation, must come out clearly and honestly with facts relating to the requirement that he is not occupying another residential building owned by him, in the urban area concerned and that he had not vacated such a building without sufficient cause within five years of the filing of the application, in the said urban area. The primal burden of making a clear disclosure would lie upon the landlord, for, the true facts would be in his special knowledge. An order in his favour by the Rent Controller would depend upon the satisfaction of the Rent Controller in regard not only to the claim that the landlord requires the accommodation, from which he wishes to evict a tenant, for his own occupation but also that he was not occupying another residential building owned by him nor had he vacated such building without sufficient cause within five years of the filing of the application in the application in the urban area concerned....',
	(int) 33 => '<p>It was further held as under:',
	(int) 34 => '<p>18. That the landlord should make a full disclosure of the relevant facts, pertaining to the requirements of Sub-section (3)(a)(i) and the two provisos, becomes all the more necessary because the satisfaction of the Rent Controller in regard thereto is the condition precedent for the making of an order in favour of the landlord....',
	(int) 35 => '<p>20. The aforesaid judgment has been followed in a number of other cases including Vijay Kapoor v. Maya Ram 1997 (2) RCR 437, wherein another learned single Judge of this Court following the aforesaid judgment held that the landlord must make complete and proper disclosure of all the material facts.',
	(int) 36 => '<p>21. On the other hand Sh. Ramakant Sharma has relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in Ram Narain Arora v. Asha Rani 1998(2) RCR 268. In that case the Rent Controller came to the conclusion that the landlord had suppressed material information and had not disclosed the fact that he was already in occupation of a house in Subji Mandi. Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act reads as follows:',
	(int) 37 => '<p>Section 14(1)(e). That the premises let for residential purposes are required bona fide by the landlord for occupation as a residence for himself or for any member of his family dependent on him, if he is the owner thereof, or for any person for whose benefit the premises are held and that the landlord or such person has no other reasonably suitable residential accommodation.',
	(int) 38 => '<p>22. The difference between Delhi Act and the present Act is that under the Delhi Act the only requirement is that the landlord has no other reasonably suitable accommodation whereas under the Himachal Act the residential premises are required to be owned by the landlord. The Apex Court in Rama Narain Arora's case (supra) held that the nondisclosure of the fact that the landlord was in occupation of certain premises in Subji Mandi was.not a ground to non-suit the landlord in view of the facts and circumstances of the case. The Apex Court held as follows:',
	(int) 39 => '<p>9. In making a claim that the suit premises is required bona fide for his own occupation as a residence for himself and other members of his family dependent on him and that he has no other reasonably suitable accommodation is a requirement of law before the Court can state whether the landlord requires the premises bona fide for his use and occupation. In doing so, the Court must also find out whether the landlord or such other person for whose benefit the premises is required has no other reasonably suitable residential accommodation. It cannot be said that the requirement of the landlord is not intermixed with the question of finding out whether he has any other reasonably suitable accommodation. If he has other reasonably suitable accommodation, ihen necessarily it would mean that he does not require the suit premises and his requirement may not be bona fide. In such circumstances further inquiry would be whether that premises is more suitable than the suit premises. Therefore, the questions raised before the Court would not necessarily depend upon only the pleadings. It could be a good defence that the landlord has other reasonably suitable residential accommodation and thereby defend the claim of the landlord.',
	(int) 40 => '<p>10. There cannot be a pedantic or a dogmatic approach in the matter of analysis of pleadings or of the evidence adduced thereto. It is no doubt true that if the pleadings are clearly set out, it would be easy for the Court to decide the matters. But if the pleadings are lacking or vague and if both parties have understood what was the case pleaded and put forth with reference to requirement of law and placed such material before the Court, neither party is prejudiced. If we analyse from this angle, we do not think that the High Court was not justified in interfering with the order made by the Rent Controller.',
	(int) 41 => '<p>23. From the perusal of the judgment of the Apex Court it is apparent that the Rent Controller must approach the matter in a practical manner. In case the non-disclosure is such as that it goes to the very root of the case the Rent Controller would be justified in non-suiting the landlord. However, if the non-disclosure is such that it would not prejudice the rights of the respondent then the landlord should not be non-suited only on this ground.',
	(int) 42 => '<p>24. The decisions of this Court cited hereinabove were delivered prior to the judgment delivered by the Apex Court in Ram Nar'ain Arora's case. Further more both in Tara Chand Sharma's case and Vijay Kapoor's case decided by this Court, no averment had been made ixi respect of other residential buildings owned by a landlord. There was complete non-disclosure as to whether any such residential building owned by the landlord was in his possession or not. In the present case, as I have held above, the residential premises at 31, The Mall, Shimla was not owned by the landlord and hence these two earlier judgments of this Court are distinguishable on facts also.',
	(int) 43 => '<p>25. In the present case, the landlord has been non-suited only on the ground that he did not disclose the fact that he was in occupation of certain premises on the Mall Road. Under law he was not required to disclose this fact. He was only required to disclose the factum of occupying another residential building owned by him in the urban area concerned. True it may be, that it would have been better if the landlord had disclosed all the facts but non-disclosure of a fact which he was not under law required to disclose could not in my opinion be a ground to dismiss his eviction petition.',
	(int) 44 => '<p>26. However, what are the premises in his occupation even as a tenant can be taken into consideration while deciding the question whether he bona fide requires the demised premises for his personal use or occupation or not.',
	(int) 45 => '<p>27. Lastly comes the question with regard to the bona fide requirement of the landlord. The landlord has no children. According to the landlord as well as his other witnesses i.e. his brother-in-law PW-2 and his wife PW-3, the wife now wants to come back and settle in Shimla. There is no reason to disbelieve their statements. Even according to the evidence led by the tenant the accommodation in possession of the landlord consists of two rooms, kitchen, bath room etc. Admittedly, the landlord is also having his office as an Architect in this building. The landlord belongs to the middle class of the Society. It cannot be expected of a landlord who owns sufficient property to reside in a two room set wherein he also runs his office.',
	(int) 46 => '<p>28. The law by now is well settled that the landlord is the best judge of the suitability of the accommodation required by him. This suitability has however to be judged in the context of reasonable expectations. The landlord and his wife who are both well educated can reasonably be expected to entertain guests and they will have visitors to their house. They would obviously require a drawing room, a bed room and a spare bed room for guests. Even at his residence the landlord may require another room for his professional work. This is the minimum accommodation which they would require. Even if the accommodation possessed by the landlord, though not owned by him, at 31, the Mall, Shimla is taken into consideration such accommodation is not sufficient to meet his requirements since admittedly the landlord is running his profession of Architect from some portion of his these premises.',
	(int) 47 => '<p>29. Keeping in view the entire facts and circumstances, I am of the considered view that the learned Appellate Authority gravely erred in rejecting the eviction petition of the landlord solely on the ground that he had not disclosed the factum of being in possession of the premises at 31, the Mall Shimla. Even though I have held that the said premises are residential premises, in view of the above discussion I hold that the landlord cannot be non-suited only on the ground of his being in possession of such premises since same were not owned by him.',
	(int) 48 => '<p>30. In view of the above discussion, the Revision Petition is allowed, the order of the learned Appellate Authority dated 6.5.2003 is seaside and the order of the Rent Controller dated 22.8.2001 is restored.',
	(int) 49 => '<p>31. Keeping in view the fact that the tenant has been in possession of the premises for a long period he is granted time up to 31st October, 2008 to vacate the premises.',
	(int) 50 => '<p>32. No order as to costs.<p>',
	(int) 51 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 52
$i = (int) 8
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

8. It has been urged on behalf of the landlord that the building which is alleged to be in possession of the landlord i.e. 31, the Mall Shimla is not a residential building and secondly that the building is not owned by him.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Shri Arun Bhanwara Vs Shri S L Srivastava - Citation 891084 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '891084',
			'acts' => '',
			'appealno' => '',
			'appellant' => 'Shri Arun Bhanwara',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Shri Arun Bhanwara Vs. Shri S.L. Srivastava',
			'casenote' => ' - CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908.[C.A. No. 5/1908]. Order 14, Rule 2 [As amended by Amending Act of 1976]: [V.K. Gupta, CJ, Deepak Gupta & Surjit Singh, JJ] Preliminary issue of law and fact  Court framing all issues both of law and facts together and also  tried all the issues together, including the issue relating to jurisdiction of Court  Held, Except in situations perceived or warranted under sub-rule (2) of Rule 2 of Order 14 where a  Court in fact frames only issues of law in the first instance and postpones settlement of other issues, clearly and explicitly in situations where the Court has framed all issues together, both of law as well as facts and has also tried all these issues together, it is not open to the Court to adopt the principle of severability and proceed to decide issues of law first, without taking up simultaneously other issues for decision. This course of action is not available to a Court because sub-rule (1) does not permit the  Court to adopt any such principle of severability and to dispose of a suit only on preliminary issues, or what can be termed as issues of law. Sub-rule (1)  clearly mandates that in a situation contemplated under it, where all the issues have been together and have also been taken up for adjudication during the course of the trial, these must be decided together and the judgment in the suit as a whole must be pronounced by the Court covering all the issues framed in the suit.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => 'Ram Narain Arora v. Asha Rani;',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => '',
			'counseldef' => '',
			'court' => 'Himachal Pradesh',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2008-07-31',
			'deposition' => 'Petition allowed',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => ' Deepak Gupta, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">Deepak Gupta, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. This Revision Petition under Section 25(5) of the H.P. Urban Rent Control Act, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) is directed against the order of the learned Appellate Authority, Shimla in CMA No. 60-S/14 of 2001 whereby the appeal filed by the respondent (hereinafter referred to as the tenant) has been allowed, the order of the Rent Controller has been set-aside and the petition for eviction filed by the present petitioner (hereinafter referred to as the Landlord) on the ground of personal bona fide requirement has been set-aside.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The undisputed facts are that the landlord is owner of the demised premises situated in building known as Tunnel View, Sanjauli, Shimla-6 consisting of two bed rooms with attached bath room and latrine, drawing-cum-dining room, kitchen and balcony. These premises were purchased by the landlord in the year 1986. Thereafter, the landlord had rented out the premises to one Sh. B.K. Chauhan. According to the landlord, when he got married he requested Sh. B.K. Chauhan to vacate the said premises. Sh. Chauhan vacated the said premises but admittedly the landlord did not occupy the same but rented out the same to the tenant in the year 1990.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. In the year 1997 the landlord filed a petition for eviction of the tenant on two grounds; firstly that the tenant is in arrears of rent from 1.11.1990 to 31.7.1997 and secondly that the premises are bona fide required by the landlord for the use and occupation of himself and his family.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. This petition was contested by the tenant. After trial, the Rent Controller ordered the eviction of the tenant on two grounds; (i) that the tenant was in arrears of rent from November, 1999 till date of order i.e. 22nd August, 2001 and (ii) that the landlord required the premises for his own use and occupation.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. The tenant deposited the rent within the time prescribed. He also filed an appeal challenging the finding on the issue of bona fide requirement. The learned Appellate Authority came to the conclusion that the landlord had not made a proper and full disclosure of facts as required under the provisions of the Act and had withheld material facts from the Court viz. that the landlord was in occupation of residential premises on 31, Mall Road in the urban area of Shimla and as such rejected this petition on this short ground.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. Aggrieved by the said order, the landlord has filed the present Revision Petition.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. I have heard Sh. Ramakant Sharma, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sh. Bhupinder Gupta, learned senior Counsel for the tenant.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. It has been urged on behalf of the landlord that the building which is alleged to be in possession of the landlord i.e. 31, the Mall Shimla is not a residential building and secondly that the building is not owned by him.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. On the other hand Sh. Bhupinder Gupta, learned Counsel of the tenant has strenuously urged that the landlord in para 18 has not stated anything about any building being owned by him and has only made an averment that he does not own or possess any other such building within the urban area Shimla. It is contended by Sh. Bhupinder Gupta that the landlord of his own volition did not state anything about the ownership of the building and since he has kept silent about the building which he is in occupation he has made a false averment and therefore his petition for eviction has rightly been rejected.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. I am not at all in agreement with the contention of the landlord that the premises known as 31, the Mall Shimla which are admittedly in the occupation of the landlord are commercial premises only and not being used by him for his residence. As pointed out above, the landlord purchased the demised premises in 1986. They fell vacant when he got married despite that he did not occupy the same and rented out the same to the tenant in the year 1990. The question that arises is where was the landlord living for this entire period. According to the landlord after the year 1994 he has been living with his brother-in-law Rajan (wife's brother) PW-2, since the year 1994. Prior to 1994 the landlord will have this Court to believe that he was living off and on with one friend or the other. This story is impossible to believe. The landlord was married in the year 1999. He is an Architect by profession. His wife is a law graduate. It is not believable that such a person would have no permanent abode and would continue to live as a guest with his friends for almost 5 years after his marriage. Even the story that he has been living with his brother-in-law after the year 1994 does not inspire confidence. It stands proved on record that the brother-in-law PW-2 Rajan lives with his own family i.e. wife and children. From the evidence it is also clear that the parents of the brother-in-law also reside with him, His flat consists of only two rooms. The flat in possession of the landlord at 31, the Mall Shimla, also consists of two rooms, kitchen and bath room. Even assuming that he was running an office in the part of the flat it cannot be believed that he would not live on his own flat on the Mall Road and reside with his brother-in-law in cramped premises. Even in the electoral list the landlord is shown to be a resident of 31, The Mall, Shimla. Therefore, I am of the considered view that the building 31, the Mall, Shimla was also being used as a residence by the landlord.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. Having held so, the question that arises is whether the landlord can be non-suited only on the ground that he has not made any disclosure about the residential accommodation available with him which premises were admittedly not owned by him.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. The short question which arises for decision in this petition is whether the landlord was guilty of suppressing and withholding such relevant facts which would disentitle him from seeking eviction of the tenant. To appreciate these contentions it would be necessary to refer to relevant portion of Section 14(3) of the Act:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Section 14:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1 and 2 xxxxxxxxxxx</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(3) A landlord may apply to the Controller for an order directing the tenant to put the landlord in possession-</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(a) in case of residential building, if</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(i) he required it for his own occupation:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Provided that he is not occupying another residential building owned by him, in the urban area concerned:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Provided further that he has not vacated such a building without sufficient cause within five years of the filing of the application, in the said urban area....</p><p style="text-align: justify;">13. A perusal of the bare provisions of the Act makes it clear that there are certain essential ingredients which the landlord must satisfy before seeking eviction of the tenant under the Act. Not only must he prove that the residential building is bona fide required by him for his own use and occupation but he must also plead and prove that he is not occupying any other residential building owned by him in the urban area concerned and further that he has not vacated such a building without sufficient cause within 5 years of the filing of the application.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">14. Reference may now be made to the relevant allegations made in para 18 of the eviction petition:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(ii) That the petitioner bona fide requires the premises for his own use and occupation and also for the use and occupation of his family.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The petitioner does not own or possess any other such building within the urban area of Simla nor the petitioner has vacated any such premises within five years of the filing of this petition.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The family of the petitioner presently consists of himself and his wife. Due to paucity of accommodation the petitioner has not been able to keep his wife with himself at Simla, where he is working as an Engineer and she has been residing at Chandigarh since 1991 but on account of her ill health she has been brought to Simla by the petitioner. The petitioner at present is seeking temporary shelter, from time to time, with his relations.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">15. The learned Appellate Authority came to the conclusion that the landlord had falsely pleaded that he does not own or possess any other such building within the urban area of Shimla and hence rejected the eviction petition on this ground.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">16. On a close analysis of the proviso to Section 14(3)(a)(i) of the Act it is clear that a landlord is not entitled to seek eviction of a tenant from residential building even in case of bona fide requirement if the landlord is occupying another residential building owned by him in the urban area concerned. One can read three essential ingredients in this proviso i.e. (i) that the landlord is in occupation of another residential building; (ii) that the said residential building is owned by him and (iii) that the said residential building is situated in the concerned urban area.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">17. The question that arises is what is the impact of the landlord not making a disclosure in respect of premises which he is occupying but are not owned by him.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">18. The Apex Court in Onkar Nath v. Ved Vyas ILR 1979 HP 1, held as follows:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">It is common ground that there are three requirements to make out a cause of action for eviction under that provision, and indeed this is apparent from a bare reading of the sub-section. In the present case the finding is to the effect that the landlord requires the residential building for his own occupation. But, the legislation has taken care to insist upon two more conditions, namely; (a) that the landlord is not occupying any other residential building in the area concerned; and (b) that he has not vacated such a building without sufficient cause. There is not a scintilla of evidence nor indeed there is any averment in compliance with these latter conditions. The necessary consequence follows that not merely is there inadequacy of pleadings sufficient to make out a cause of action but total absence of proof of two vital requirements....</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The Supreme Court also said that:.The statute benignly designed to protect tenants from unreasonable evictions has taken case to put restrictions which must be rigorously construed to fulfil the purpose of the statute.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">19. Following the aforesaid judgment and other pronouncements of the Apex Court, a learned Single Judge of this Court in Tara Chand Sharma v. Baij Nath and Ors. 1992 (2) R.C.J. 323, held as follows:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">16. What appears as the legislative intent, in bold relief, is that the landlord, while seeking eviction of a tenant on the ground that he needs a residential building for his own occupation, must come out clearly and honestly with facts relating to the requirement that he is not occupying another residential building owned by him, in the urban area concerned and that he had not vacated such a building without sufficient cause within five years of the filing of the application, in the said urban area. The primal burden of making a clear disclosure would lie upon the landlord, for, the true facts would be in his special knowledge. An order in his favour by the Rent Controller would depend upon the satisfaction of the Rent Controller in regard not only to the claim that the landlord requires the accommodation, from which he wishes to evict a tenant, for his own occupation but also that he was not occupying another residential building owned by him nor had he vacated such building without sufficient cause within five years of the filing of the application in the application in the urban area concerned....</p><p style="text-align: justify;">It was further held as under:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">18. That the landlord should make a full disclosure of the relevant facts, pertaining to the requirements of Sub-section (3)(a)(i) and the two provisos, becomes all the more necessary because the satisfaction of the Rent Controller in regard thereto is the condition precedent for the making of an order in favour of the landlord....</p><p style="text-align: justify;">20. The aforesaid judgment has been followed in a number of other cases including Vijay Kapoor v. Maya Ram 1997 (2) RCR 437, wherein another learned single Judge of this Court following the aforesaid judgment held that the landlord must make complete and proper disclosure of all the material facts.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">21. On the other hand Sh. Ramakant Sharma has relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in Ram Narain Arora v. Asha Rani 1998(2) RCR 268. In that case the Rent Controller came to the conclusion that the landlord had suppressed material information and had not disclosed the fact that he was already in occupation of a house in Subji Mandi. Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act reads as follows:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Section 14(1)(e). That the premises let for residential purposes are required bona fide by the landlord for occupation as a residence for himself or for any member of his family dependent on him, if he is the owner thereof, or for any person for whose benefit the premises are held and that the landlord or such person has no other reasonably suitable residential accommodation.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">22. The difference between Delhi Act and the present Act is that under the Delhi Act the only requirement is that the landlord has no other reasonably suitable accommodation whereas under the Himachal Act the residential premises are required to be owned by the landlord. The Apex Court in Rama Narain Arora's case (supra) held that the nondisclosure of the fact that the landlord was in occupation of certain premises in Subji Mandi was.not a ground to non-suit the landlord in view of the facts and circumstances of the case. The Apex Court held as follows:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. In making a claim that the suit premises is required bona fide for his own occupation as a residence for himself and other members of his family dependent on him and that he has no other reasonably suitable accommodation is a requirement of law before the Court can state whether the landlord requires the premises bona fide for his use and occupation. In doing so, the Court must also find out whether the landlord or such other person for whose benefit the premises is required has no other reasonably suitable residential accommodation. It cannot be said that the requirement of the landlord is not intermixed with the question of finding out whether he has any other reasonably suitable accommodation. If he has other reasonably suitable accommodation, ihen necessarily it would mean that he does not require the suit premises and his requirement may not be bona fide. In such circumstances further inquiry would be whether that premises is more suitable than the suit premises. Therefore, the questions raised before the Court would not necessarily depend upon only the pleadings. It could be a good defence that the landlord has other reasonably suitable residential accommodation and thereby defend the claim of the landlord.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. There cannot be a pedantic or a dogmatic approach in the matter of analysis of pleadings or of the evidence adduced thereto. It is no doubt true that if the pleadings are clearly set out, it would be easy for the Court to decide the matters. But if the pleadings are lacking or vague and if both parties have understood what was the case pleaded and put forth with reference to requirement of law and placed such material before the Court, neither party is prejudiced. If we analyse from this angle, we do not think that the High Court was not justified in interfering with the order made by the Rent Controller.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">23. From the perusal of the judgment of the Apex Court it is apparent that the Rent Controller must approach the matter in a practical manner. In case the non-disclosure is such as that it goes to the very root of the case the Rent Controller would be justified in non-suiting the landlord. However, if the non-disclosure is such that it would not prejudice the rights of the respondent then the landlord should not be non-suited only on this ground.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">24. The decisions of this Court cited hereinabove were delivered prior to the judgment delivered by the Apex Court in Ram Nar'ain Arora's case. Further more both in Tara Chand Sharma's case and Vijay Kapoor's case decided by this Court, no averment had been made ixi respect of other residential buildings owned by a landlord. There was complete non-disclosure as to whether any such residential building owned by the landlord was in his possession or not. In the present case, as I have held above, the residential premises at 31, The Mall, Shimla was not owned by the landlord and hence these two earlier judgments of this Court are distinguishable on facts also.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">25. In the present case, the landlord has been non-suited only on the ground that he did not disclose the fact that he was in occupation of certain premises on the Mall Road. Under law he was not required to disclose this fact. He was only required to disclose the factum of occupying another residential building owned by him in the urban area concerned. True it may be, that it would have been better if the landlord had disclosed all the facts but non-disclosure of a fact which he was not under law required to disclose could not in my opinion be a ground to dismiss his eviction petition.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">26. However, what are the premises in his occupation even as a tenant can be taken into consideration while deciding the question whether he bona fide requires the demised premises for his personal use or occupation or not.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">27. Lastly comes the question with regard to the bona fide requirement of the landlord. The landlord has no children. According to the landlord as well as his other witnesses i.e. his brother-in-law PW-2 and his wife PW-3, the wife now wants to come back and settle in Shimla. There is no reason to disbelieve their statements. Even according to the evidence led by the tenant the accommodation in possession of the landlord consists of two rooms, kitchen, bath room etc. Admittedly, the landlord is also having his office as an Architect in this building. The landlord belongs to the middle class of the Society. It cannot be expected of a landlord who owns sufficient property to reside in a two room set wherein he also runs his office.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">28. The law by now is well settled that the landlord is the best judge of the suitability of the accommodation required by him. This suitability has however to be judged in the context of reasonable expectations. The landlord and his wife who are both well educated can reasonably be expected to entertain guests and they will have visitors to their house. They would obviously require a drawing room, a bed room and a spare bed room for guests. Even at his residence the landlord may require another room for his professional work. This is the minimum accommodation which they would require. Even if the accommodation possessed by the landlord, though not owned by him, at 31, the Mall, Shimla is taken into consideration such accommodation is not sufficient to meet his requirements since admittedly the landlord is running his profession of Architect from some portion of his these premises.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">29. Keeping in view the entire facts and circumstances, I am of the considered view that the learned Appellate Authority gravely erred in rejecting the eviction petition of the landlord solely on the ground that he had not disclosed the factum of being in possession of the premises at 31, the Mall Shimla. Even though I have held that the said premises are residential premises, in view of the above discussion I hold that the landlord cannot be non-suited only on the ground of his being in possession of such premises since same were not owned by him.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">30. In view of the above discussion, the Revision Petition is allowed, the order of the learned Appellate Authority dated 6.5.2003 is seaside and the order of the Rent Controller dated 22.8.2001 is restored.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">31. Keeping in view the fact that the tenant has been in possession of the premises for a long period he is granted time up to 31st October, 2008 to vacate the premises.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">32. No order as to costs.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '2008(2)ShimLC491',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'Shri S.L. Srivastava',
			'sub' => 'Tenancy',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'shri-arun-bhanwara-vs-s-l-srivastava',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '891084',
		(int) 1 => 'shri-arun-bhanwara-vs-s-l-srivastava'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Shri Arun Bhanwara Vs Shri S L Srivastava - Citation 891084 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '891084',
		'acts' => '',
		'appealno' => '',
		'appellant' => 'Shri Arun Bhanwara',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Shri Arun Bhanwara Vs. Shri S.L. Srivastava',
		'casenote' => ' - CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908.[C.A. No. 5/1908]. Order 14, Rule 2 [As amended by Amending Act of 1976]: [V.K. Gupta, CJ, Deepak Gupta & Surjit Singh, JJ] Preliminary issue of law and fact  Court framing all issues both of law and facts together and also  tried all the issues together, including the issue relating to jurisdiction of Court  Held, Except in situations perceived or warranted under sub-rule (2) of Rule 2 of Order 14 where a  Court in fact frames only issues of law in the first instance and postpones settlement of other issues, clearly and explicitly in situations where the Court has framed all issues together, both of law as well as facts and has also tried all these issues together, it is not open to the Court to adopt the principle of severability and proceed to decide issues of law first, without taking up simultaneously other issues for decision. This course of action is not available to a Court because sub-rule (1) does not permit the  Court to adopt any such principle of severability and to dispose of a suit only on preliminary issues, or what can be termed as issues of law. Sub-rule (1)  clearly mandates that in a situation contemplated under it, where all the issues have been together and have also been taken up for adjudication during the course of the trial, these must be decided together and the judgment in the suit as a whole must be pronounced by the Court covering all the issues framed in the suit.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => 'Ram Narain Arora v. Asha Rani;',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => '',
		'counseldef' => '',
		'court' => 'Himachal Pradesh',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2008-07-31',
		'deposition' => 'Petition allowed',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => ' Deepak Gupta, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>Deepak Gupta, J.</p><p>1. This Revision Petition under Section 25(5) of the H.P. Urban Rent Control Act, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) is directed against the order of the learned Appellate Authority, Shimla in CMA No. 60-S/14 of 2001 whereby the appeal filed by the respondent (hereinafter referred to as the tenant) has been allowed, the order of the Rent Controller has been set-aside and the petition for eviction filed by the present petitioner (hereinafter referred to as the Landlord) on the ground of personal bona fide requirement has been set-aside.</p><p>2. The undisputed facts are that the landlord is owner of the demised premises situated in building known as Tunnel View, Sanjauli, Shimla-6 consisting of two bed rooms with attached bath room and latrine, drawing-cum-dining room, kitchen and balcony. These premises were purchased by the landlord in the year 1986. Thereafter, the landlord had rented out the premises to one Sh. B.K. Chauhan. According to the landlord, when he got married he requested Sh. B.K. Chauhan to vacate the said premises. Sh. Chauhan vacated the said premises but admittedly the landlord did not occupy the same but rented out the same to the tenant in the year 1990.</p><p>3. In the year 1997 the landlord filed a petition for eviction of the tenant on two grounds; firstly that the tenant is in arrears of rent from 1.11.1990 to 31.7.1997 and secondly that the premises are bona fide required by the landlord for the use and occupation of himself and his family.</p><p>4. This petition was contested by the tenant. After trial, the Rent Controller ordered the eviction of the tenant on two grounds; (i) that the tenant was in arrears of rent from November, 1999 till date of order i.e. 22nd August, 2001 and (ii) that the landlord required the premises for his own use and occupation.</p><p>5. The tenant deposited the rent within the time prescribed. He also filed an appeal challenging the finding on the issue of bona fide requirement. The learned Appellate Authority came to the conclusion that the landlord had not made a proper and full disclosure of facts as required under the provisions of the Act and had withheld material facts from the Court viz. that the landlord was in occupation of residential premises on 31, Mall Road in the urban area of Shimla and as such rejected this petition on this short ground.</p><p>6. Aggrieved by the said order, the landlord has filed the present Revision Petition.</p><p>7. I have heard Sh. Ramakant Sharma, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sh. Bhupinder Gupta, learned senior Counsel for the tenant.</p><p>8. It has been urged on behalf of the landlord that the building which is alleged to be in possession of the landlord i.e. 31, the Mall Shimla is not a residential building and secondly that the building is not owned by him.</p><p>9. On the other hand Sh. Bhupinder Gupta, learned Counsel of the tenant has strenuously urged that the landlord in para 18 has not stated anything about any building being owned by him and has only made an averment that he does not own or possess any other such building within the urban area Shimla. It is contended by Sh. Bhupinder Gupta that the landlord of his own volition did not state anything about the ownership of the building and since he has kept silent about the building which he is in occupation he has made a false averment and therefore his petition for eviction has rightly been rejected.</p><p>10. I am not at all in agreement with the contention of the landlord that the premises known as 31, the Mall Shimla which are admittedly in the occupation of the landlord are commercial premises only and not being used by him for his residence. As pointed out above, the landlord purchased the demised premises in 1986. They fell vacant when he got married despite that he did not occupy the same and rented out the same to the tenant in the year 1990. The question that arises is where was the landlord living for this entire period. According to the landlord after the year 1994 he has been living with his brother-in-law Rajan (wife's brother) PW-2, since the year 1994. Prior to 1994 the landlord will have this Court to believe that he was living off and on with one friend or the other. This story is impossible to believe. The landlord was married in the year 1999. He is an Architect by profession. His wife is a law graduate. It is not believable that such a person would have no permanent abode and would continue to live as a guest with his friends for almost 5 years after his marriage. Even the story that he has been living with his brother-in-law after the year 1994 does not inspire confidence. It stands proved on record that the brother-in-law PW-2 Rajan lives with his own family i.e. wife and children. From the evidence it is also clear that the parents of the brother-in-law also reside with him, His flat consists of only two rooms. The flat in possession of the landlord at 31, the Mall Shimla, also consists of two rooms, kitchen and bath room. Even assuming that he was running an office in the part of the flat it cannot be believed that he would not live on his own flat on the Mall Road and reside with his brother-in-law in cramped premises. Even in the electoral list the landlord is shown to be a resident of 31, The Mall, Shimla. Therefore, I am of the considered view that the building 31, the Mall, Shimla was also being used as a residence by the landlord.</p><p>11. Having held so, the question that arises is whether the landlord can be non-suited only on the ground that he has not made any disclosure about the residential accommodation available with him which premises were admittedly not owned by him.</p><p>12. The short question which arises for decision in this petition is whether the landlord was guilty of suppressing and withholding such relevant facts which would disentitle him from seeking eviction of the tenant. To appreciate these contentions it would be necessary to refer to relevant portion of Section 14(3) of the Act:</p><p>Section 14:</p><p>1 and 2 xxxxxxxxxxx</p><p>(3) A landlord may apply to the Controller for an order directing the tenant to put the landlord in possession-</p><p>(a) in case of residential building, if</p><p>(i) he required it for his own occupation:</p><p>Provided that he is not occupying another residential building owned by him, in the urban area concerned:</p><p>Provided further that he has not vacated such a building without sufficient cause within five years of the filing of the application, in the said urban area....</p><p>13. A perusal of the bare provisions of the Act makes it clear that there are certain essential ingredients which the landlord must satisfy before seeking eviction of the tenant under the Act. Not only must he prove that the residential building is bona fide required by him for his own use and occupation but he must also plead and prove that he is not occupying any other residential building owned by him in the urban area concerned and further that he has not vacated such a building without sufficient cause within 5 years of the filing of the application.</p><p>14. Reference may now be made to the relevant allegations made in para 18 of the eviction petition:</p><p>(ii) That the petitioner bona fide requires the premises for his own use and occupation and also for the use and occupation of his family.</p><p>The petitioner does not own or possess any other such building within the urban area of Simla nor the petitioner has vacated any such premises within five years of the filing of this petition.</p><p>The family of the petitioner presently consists of himself and his wife. Due to paucity of accommodation the petitioner has not been able to keep his wife with himself at Simla, where he is working as an Engineer and she has been residing at Chandigarh since 1991 but on account of her ill health she has been brought to Simla by the petitioner. The petitioner at present is seeking temporary shelter, from time to time, with his relations.</p><p>15. The learned Appellate Authority came to the conclusion that the landlord had falsely pleaded that he does not own or possess any other such building within the urban area of Shimla and hence rejected the eviction petition on this ground.</p><p>16. On a close analysis of the proviso to Section 14(3)(a)(i) of the Act it is clear that a landlord is not entitled to seek eviction of a tenant from residential building even in case of bona fide requirement if the landlord is occupying another residential building owned by him in the urban area concerned. One can read three essential ingredients in this proviso i.e. (i) that the landlord is in occupation of another residential building; (ii) that the said residential building is owned by him and (iii) that the said residential building is situated in the concerned urban area.</p><p>17. The question that arises is what is the impact of the landlord not making a disclosure in respect of premises which he is occupying but are not owned by him.</p><p>18. The Apex Court in Onkar Nath v. Ved Vyas ILR 1979 HP 1, held as follows:</p><p>It is common ground that there are three requirements to make out a cause of action for eviction under that provision, and indeed this is apparent from a bare reading of the sub-section. In the present case the finding is to the effect that the landlord requires the residential building for his own occupation. But, the legislation has taken care to insist upon two more conditions, namely; (a) that the landlord is not occupying any other residential building in the area concerned; and (b) that he has not vacated such a building without sufficient cause. There is not a scintilla of evidence nor indeed there is any averment in compliance with these latter conditions. The necessary consequence follows that not merely is there inadequacy of pleadings sufficient to make out a cause of action but total absence of proof of two vital requirements....</p><p>The Supreme Court also said that:.The statute benignly designed to protect tenants from unreasonable evictions has taken case to put restrictions which must be rigorously construed to fulfil the purpose of the statute.</p><p>19. Following the aforesaid judgment and other pronouncements of the Apex Court, a learned Single Judge of this Court in Tara Chand Sharma v. Baij Nath and Ors. 1992 (2) R.C.J. 323, held as follows:</p><p>16. What appears as the legislative intent, in bold relief, is that the landlord, while seeking eviction of a tenant on the ground that he needs a residential building for his own occupation, must come out clearly and honestly with facts relating to the requirement that he is not occupying another residential building owned by him, in the urban area concerned and that he had not vacated such a building without sufficient cause within five years of the filing of the application, in the said urban area. The primal burden of making a clear disclosure would lie upon the landlord, for, the true facts would be in his special knowledge. An order in his favour by the Rent Controller would depend upon the satisfaction of the Rent Controller in regard not only to the claim that the landlord requires the accommodation, from which he wishes to evict a tenant, for his own occupation but also that he was not occupying another residential building owned by him nor had he vacated such building without sufficient cause within five years of the filing of the application in the application in the urban area concerned....</p><p>It was further held as under:</p><p>18. That the landlord should make a full disclosure of the relevant facts, pertaining to the requirements of Sub-section (3)(a)(i) and the two provisos, becomes all the more necessary because the satisfaction of the Rent Controller in regard thereto is the condition precedent for the making of an order in favour of the landlord....</p><p>20. The aforesaid judgment has been followed in a number of other cases including Vijay Kapoor v. Maya Ram 1997 (2) RCR 437, wherein another learned single Judge of this Court following the aforesaid judgment held that the landlord must make complete and proper disclosure of all the material facts.</p><p>21. On the other hand Sh. Ramakant Sharma has relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in Ram Narain Arora v. Asha Rani 1998(2) RCR 268. In that case the Rent Controller came to the conclusion that the landlord had suppressed material information and had not disclosed the fact that he was already in occupation of a house in Subji Mandi. Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act reads as follows:</p><p>Section 14(1)(e). That the premises let for residential purposes are required bona fide by the landlord for occupation as a residence for himself or for any member of his family dependent on him, if he is the owner thereof, or for any person for whose benefit the premises are held and that the landlord or such person has no other reasonably suitable residential accommodation.</p><p>22. The difference between Delhi Act and the present Act is that under the Delhi Act the only requirement is that the landlord has no other reasonably suitable accommodation whereas under the Himachal Act the residential premises are required to be owned by the landlord. The Apex Court in Rama Narain Arora's case (supra) held that the nondisclosure of the fact that the landlord was in occupation of certain premises in Subji Mandi was.not a ground to non-suit the landlord in view of the facts and circumstances of the case. The Apex Court held as follows:</p><p>9. In making a claim that the suit premises is required bona fide for his own occupation as a residence for himself and other members of his family dependent on him and that he has no other reasonably suitable accommodation is a requirement of law before the Court can state whether the landlord requires the premises bona fide for his use and occupation. In doing so, the Court must also find out whether the landlord or such other person for whose benefit the premises is required has no other reasonably suitable residential accommodation. It cannot be said that the requirement of the landlord is not intermixed with the question of finding out whether he has any other reasonably suitable accommodation. If he has other reasonably suitable accommodation, ihen necessarily it would mean that he does not require the suit premises and his requirement may not be bona fide. In such circumstances further inquiry would be whether that premises is more suitable than the suit premises. Therefore, the questions raised before the Court would not necessarily depend upon only the pleadings. It could be a good defence that the landlord has other reasonably suitable residential accommodation and thereby defend the claim of the landlord.</p><p>10. There cannot be a pedantic or a dogmatic approach in the matter of analysis of pleadings or of the evidence adduced thereto. It is no doubt true that if the pleadings are clearly set out, it would be easy for the Court to decide the matters. But if the pleadings are lacking or vague and if both parties have understood what was the case pleaded and put forth with reference to requirement of law and placed such material before the Court, neither party is prejudiced. If we analyse from this angle, we do not think that the High Court was not justified in interfering with the order made by the Rent Controller.</p><p>23. From the perusal of the judgment of the Apex Court it is apparent that the Rent Controller must approach the matter in a practical manner. In case the non-disclosure is such as that it goes to the very root of the case the Rent Controller would be justified in non-suiting the landlord. However, if the non-disclosure is such that it would not prejudice the rights of the respondent then the landlord should not be non-suited only on this ground.</p><p>24. The decisions of this Court cited hereinabove were delivered prior to the judgment delivered by the Apex Court in Ram Nar'ain Arora's case. Further more both in Tara Chand Sharma's case and Vijay Kapoor's case decided by this Court, no averment had been made ixi respect of other residential buildings owned by a landlord. There was complete non-disclosure as to whether any such residential building owned by the landlord was in his possession or not. In the present case, as I have held above, the residential premises at 31, The Mall, Shimla was not owned by the landlord and hence these two earlier judgments of this Court are distinguishable on facts also.</p><p>25. In the present case, the landlord has been non-suited only on the ground that he did not disclose the fact that he was in occupation of certain premises on the Mall Road. Under law he was not required to disclose this fact. He was only required to disclose the factum of occupying another residential building owned by him in the urban area concerned. True it may be, that it would have been better if the landlord had disclosed all the facts but non-disclosure of a fact which he was not under law required to disclose could not in my opinion be a ground to dismiss his eviction petition.</p><p>26. However, what are the premises in his occupation even as a tenant can be taken into consideration while deciding the question whether he bona fide requires the demised premises for his personal use or occupation or not.</p><p>27. Lastly comes the question with regard to the bona fide requirement of the landlord. The landlord has no children. According to the landlord as well as his other witnesses i.e. his brother-in-law PW-2 and his wife PW-3, the wife now wants to come back and settle in Shimla. There is no reason to disbelieve their statements. Even according to the evidence led by the tenant the accommodation in possession of the landlord consists of two rooms, kitchen, bath room etc. Admittedly, the landlord is also having his office as an Architect in this building. The landlord belongs to the middle class of the Society. It cannot be expected of a landlord who owns sufficient property to reside in a two room set wherein he also runs his office.</p><p>28. The law by now is well settled that the landlord is the best judge of the suitability of the accommodation required by him. This suitability has however to be judged in the context of reasonable expectations. The landlord and his wife who are both well educated can reasonably be expected to entertain guests and they will have visitors to their house. They would obviously require a drawing room, a bed room and a spare bed room for guests. Even at his residence the landlord may require another room for his professional work. This is the minimum accommodation which they would require. Even if the accommodation possessed by the landlord, though not owned by him, at 31, the Mall, Shimla is taken into consideration such accommodation is not sufficient to meet his requirements since admittedly the landlord is running his profession of Architect from some portion of his these premises.</p><p>29. Keeping in view the entire facts and circumstances, I am of the considered view that the learned Appellate Authority gravely erred in rejecting the eviction petition of the landlord solely on the ground that he had not disclosed the factum of being in possession of the premises at 31, the Mall Shimla. Even though I have held that the said premises are residential premises, in view of the above discussion I hold that the landlord cannot be non-suited only on the ground of his being in possession of such premises since same were not owned by him.</p><p>30. In view of the above discussion, the Revision Petition is allowed, the order of the learned Appellate Authority dated 6.5.2003 is seaside and the order of the Rent Controller dated 22.8.2001 is restored.</p><p>31. Keeping in view the fact that the tenant has been in possession of the premises for a long period he is granted time up to 31st October, 2008 to vacate the premises.</p><p>32. No order as to costs.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '2008(2)ShimLC491',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'Shri S.L. Srivastava',
		'sub' => 'Tenancy',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'shri-arun-bhanwara-vs-s-l-srivastava'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '891084',
	(int) 1 => 'shri-arun-bhanwara-vs-s-l-srivastava'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/891084/shri-arun-bhanwara-vs-s-l-srivastava'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$caseref = 'Ram Narain Arora v. Asha Rani<br>'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>Deepak Gupta, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. This Revision Petition under Section 25(5) of the H.P. Urban Rent Control Act, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) is directed against the order of the learned Appellate Authority, Shimla in CMA No. 60-S/14 of 2001 whereby the appeal filed by the respondent (hereinafter referred to as the tenant) has been allowed, the order of the Rent Controller has been set-aside and the petition for eviction filed by the present petitioner (hereinafter referred to as the Landlord) on the ground of personal bona fide requirement has been set-aside.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. The undisputed facts are that the landlord is owner of the demised premises situated in building known as Tunnel View, Sanjauli, Shimla-6 consisting of two bed rooms with attached bath room and latrine, drawing-cum-dining room, kitchen and balcony. These premises were purchased by the landlord in the year 1986. Thereafter, the landlord had rented out the premises to one Sh. B.K. Chauhan. According to the landlord, when he got married he requested Sh. B.K. Chauhan to vacate the said premises. Sh. Chauhan vacated the said premises but admittedly the landlord did not occupy the same but rented out the same to the tenant in the year 1990.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. In the year 1997 the landlord filed a petition for eviction of the tenant on two grounds; firstly that the tenant is in arrears of rent from 1.11.1990 to 31.7.1997 and secondly that the premises are bona fide required by the landlord for the use and occupation of himself and his family.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>4. This petition was contested by the tenant. After trial, the Rent Controller ordered the eviction of the tenant on two grounds; (i) that the tenant was in arrears of rent from November, 1999 till date of order i.e. 22nd August, 2001 and (ii) that the landlord required the premises for his own use and occupation.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>5. The tenant deposited the rent within the time prescribed. He also filed an appeal challenging the finding on the issue of bona fide requirement. The learned Appellate Authority came to the conclusion that the landlord had not made a proper and full disclosure of facts as required under the provisions of the Act and had withheld material facts from the Court viz. that the landlord was in occupation of residential premises on 31, Mall Road in the urban area of Shimla and as such rejected this petition on this short ground.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>6. Aggrieved by the said order, the landlord has filed the present Revision Petition.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>7. I have heard Sh. Ramakant Sharma, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sh. Bhupinder Gupta, learned senior Counsel for the tenant.',
	(int) 8 => '<p>8. It has been urged on behalf of the landlord that the building which is alleged to be in possession of the landlord i.e. 31, the Mall Shimla is not a residential building and secondly that the building is not owned by him.',
	(int) 9 => '<p>9. On the other hand Sh. Bhupinder Gupta, learned Counsel of the tenant has strenuously urged that the landlord in para 18 has not stated anything about any building being owned by him and has only made an averment that he does not own or possess any other such building within the urban area Shimla. It is contended by Sh. Bhupinder Gupta that the landlord of his own volition did not state anything about the ownership of the building and since he has kept silent about the building which he is in occupation he has made a false averment and therefore his petition for eviction has rightly been rejected.',
	(int) 10 => '<p>10. I am not at all in agreement with the contention of the landlord that the premises known as 31, the Mall Shimla which are admittedly in the occupation of the landlord are commercial premises only and not being used by him for his residence. As pointed out above, the landlord purchased the demised premises in 1986. They fell vacant when he got married despite that he did not occupy the same and rented out the same to the tenant in the year 1990. The question that arises is where was the landlord living for this entire period. According to the landlord after the year 1994 he has been living with his brother-in-law Rajan (wife's brother) PW-2, since the year 1994. Prior to 1994 the landlord will have this Court to believe that he was living off and on with one friend or the other. This story is impossible to believe. The landlord was married in the year 1999. He is an Architect by profession. His wife is a law graduate. It is not believable that such a person would have no permanent abode and would continue to live as a guest with his friends for almost 5 years after his marriage. Even the story that he has been living with his brother-in-law after the year 1994 does not inspire confidence. It stands proved on record that the brother-in-law PW-2 Rajan lives with his own family i.e. wife and children. From the evidence it is also clear that the parents of the brother-in-law also reside with him, His flat consists of only two rooms. The flat in possession of the landlord at 31, the Mall Shimla, also consists of two rooms, kitchen and bath room. Even assuming that he was running an office in the part of the flat it cannot be believed that he would not live on his own flat on the Mall Road and reside with his brother-in-law in cramped premises. Even in the electoral list the landlord is shown to be a resident of 31, The Mall, Shimla. Therefore, I am of the considered view that the building 31, the Mall, Shimla was also being used as a residence by the landlord.',
	(int) 11 => '<p>11. Having held so, the question that arises is whether the landlord can be non-suited only on the ground that he has not made any disclosure about the residential accommodation available with him which premises were admittedly not owned by him.',
	(int) 12 => '<p>12. The short question which arises for decision in this petition is whether the landlord was guilty of suppressing and withholding such relevant facts which would disentitle him from seeking eviction of the tenant. To appreciate these contentions it would be necessary to refer to relevant portion of Section 14(3) of the Act:',
	(int) 13 => '<p>Section 14:',
	(int) 14 => '<p>1 and 2 xxxxxxxxxxx',
	(int) 15 => '<p>(3) A landlord may apply to the Controller for an order directing the tenant to put the landlord in possession-',
	(int) 16 => '<p>(a) in case of residential building, if',
	(int) 17 => '<p>(i) he required it for his own occupation:',
	(int) 18 => '<p>Provided that he is not occupying another residential building owned by him, in the urban area concerned:',
	(int) 19 => '<p>Provided further that he has not vacated such a building without sufficient cause within five years of the filing of the application, in the said urban area....',
	(int) 20 => '<p>13. A perusal of the bare provisions of the Act makes it clear that there are certain essential ingredients which the landlord must satisfy before seeking eviction of the tenant under the Act. Not only must he prove that the residential building is bona fide required by him for his own use and occupation but he must also plead and prove that he is not occupying any other residential building owned by him in the urban area concerned and further that he has not vacated such a building without sufficient cause within 5 years of the filing of the application.',
	(int) 21 => '<p>14. Reference may now be made to the relevant allegations made in para 18 of the eviction petition:',
	(int) 22 => '<p>(ii) That the petitioner bona fide requires the premises for his own use and occupation and also for the use and occupation of his family.',
	(int) 23 => '<p>The petitioner does not own or possess any other such building within the urban area of Simla nor the petitioner has vacated any such premises within five years of the filing of this petition.',
	(int) 24 => '<p>The family of the petitioner presently consists of himself and his wife. Due to paucity of accommodation the petitioner has not been able to keep his wife with himself at Simla, where he is working as an Engineer and she has been residing at Chandigarh since 1991 but on account of her ill health she has been brought to Simla by the petitioner. The petitioner at present is seeking temporary shelter, from time to time, with his relations.',
	(int) 25 => '<p>15. The learned Appellate Authority came to the conclusion that the landlord had falsely pleaded that he does not own or possess any other such building within the urban area of Shimla and hence rejected the eviction petition on this ground.',
	(int) 26 => '<p>16. On a close analysis of the proviso to Section 14(3)(a)(i) of the Act it is clear that a landlord is not entitled to seek eviction of a tenant from residential building even in case of bona fide requirement if the landlord is occupying another residential building owned by him in the urban area concerned. One can read three essential ingredients in this proviso i.e. (i) that the landlord is in occupation of another residential building; (ii) that the said residential building is owned by him and (iii) that the said residential building is situated in the concerned urban area.',
	(int) 27 => '<p>17. The question that arises is what is the impact of the landlord not making a disclosure in respect of premises which he is occupying but are not owned by him.',
	(int) 28 => '<p>18. The Apex Court in Onkar Nath v. Ved Vyas ILR 1979 HP 1, held as follows:',
	(int) 29 => '<p>It is common ground that there are three requirements to make out a cause of action for eviction under that provision, and indeed this is apparent from a bare reading of the sub-section. In the present case the finding is to the effect that the landlord requires the residential building for his own occupation. But, the legislation has taken care to insist upon two more conditions, namely; (a) that the landlord is not occupying any other residential building in the area concerned; and (b) that he has not vacated such a building without sufficient cause. There is not a scintilla of evidence nor indeed there is any averment in compliance with these latter conditions. The necessary consequence follows that not merely is there inadequacy of pleadings sufficient to make out a cause of action but total absence of proof of two vital requirements....',
	(int) 30 => '<p>The Supreme Court also said that:.The statute benignly designed to protect tenants from unreasonable evictions has taken case to put restrictions which must be rigorously construed to fulfil the purpose of the statute.',
	(int) 31 => '<p>19. Following the aforesaid judgment and other pronouncements of the Apex Court, a learned Single Judge of this Court in Tara Chand Sharma v. Baij Nath and Ors. 1992 (2) R.C.J. 323, held as follows:',
	(int) 32 => '<p>16. What appears as the legislative intent, in bold relief, is that the landlord, while seeking eviction of a tenant on the ground that he needs a residential building for his own occupation, must come out clearly and honestly with facts relating to the requirement that he is not occupying another residential building owned by him, in the urban area concerned and that he had not vacated such a building without sufficient cause within five years of the filing of the application, in the said urban area. The primal burden of making a clear disclosure would lie upon the landlord, for, the true facts would be in his special knowledge. An order in his favour by the Rent Controller would depend upon the satisfaction of the Rent Controller in regard not only to the claim that the landlord requires the accommodation, from which he wishes to evict a tenant, for his own occupation but also that he was not occupying another residential building owned by him nor had he vacated such building without sufficient cause within five years of the filing of the application in the application in the urban area concerned....',
	(int) 33 => '<p>It was further held as under:',
	(int) 34 => '<p>18. That the landlord should make a full disclosure of the relevant facts, pertaining to the requirements of Sub-section (3)(a)(i) and the two provisos, becomes all the more necessary because the satisfaction of the Rent Controller in regard thereto is the condition precedent for the making of an order in favour of the landlord....',
	(int) 35 => '<p>20. The aforesaid judgment has been followed in a number of other cases including Vijay Kapoor v. Maya Ram 1997 (2) RCR 437, wherein another learned single Judge of this Court following the aforesaid judgment held that the landlord must make complete and proper disclosure of all the material facts.',
	(int) 36 => '<p>21. On the other hand Sh. Ramakant Sharma has relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in Ram Narain Arora v. Asha Rani 1998(2) RCR 268. In that case the Rent Controller came to the conclusion that the landlord had suppressed material information and had not disclosed the fact that he was already in occupation of a house in Subji Mandi. Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act reads as follows:',
	(int) 37 => '<p>Section 14(1)(e). That the premises let for residential purposes are required bona fide by the landlord for occupation as a residence for himself or for any member of his family dependent on him, if he is the owner thereof, or for any person for whose benefit the premises are held and that the landlord or such person has no other reasonably suitable residential accommodation.',
	(int) 38 => '<p>22. The difference between Delhi Act and the present Act is that under the Delhi Act the only requirement is that the landlord has no other reasonably suitable accommodation whereas under the Himachal Act the residential premises are required to be owned by the landlord. The Apex Court in Rama Narain Arora's case (supra) held that the nondisclosure of the fact that the landlord was in occupation of certain premises in Subji Mandi was.not a ground to non-suit the landlord in view of the facts and circumstances of the case. The Apex Court held as follows:',
	(int) 39 => '<p>9. In making a claim that the suit premises is required bona fide for his own occupation as a residence for himself and other members of his family dependent on him and that he has no other reasonably suitable accommodation is a requirement of law before the Court can state whether the landlord requires the premises bona fide for his use and occupation. In doing so, the Court must also find out whether the landlord or such other person for whose benefit the premises is required has no other reasonably suitable residential accommodation. It cannot be said that the requirement of the landlord is not intermixed with the question of finding out whether he has any other reasonably suitable accommodation. If he has other reasonably suitable accommodation, ihen necessarily it would mean that he does not require the suit premises and his requirement may not be bona fide. In such circumstances further inquiry would be whether that premises is more suitable than the suit premises. Therefore, the questions raised before the Court would not necessarily depend upon only the pleadings. It could be a good defence that the landlord has other reasonably suitable residential accommodation and thereby defend the claim of the landlord.',
	(int) 40 => '<p>10. There cannot be a pedantic or a dogmatic approach in the matter of analysis of pleadings or of the evidence adduced thereto. It is no doubt true that if the pleadings are clearly set out, it would be easy for the Court to decide the matters. But if the pleadings are lacking or vague and if both parties have understood what was the case pleaded and put forth with reference to requirement of law and placed such material before the Court, neither party is prejudiced. If we analyse from this angle, we do not think that the High Court was not justified in interfering with the order made by the Rent Controller.',
	(int) 41 => '<p>23. From the perusal of the judgment of the Apex Court it is apparent that the Rent Controller must approach the matter in a practical manner. In case the non-disclosure is such as that it goes to the very root of the case the Rent Controller would be justified in non-suiting the landlord. However, if the non-disclosure is such that it would not prejudice the rights of the respondent then the landlord should not be non-suited only on this ground.',
	(int) 42 => '<p>24. The decisions of this Court cited hereinabove were delivered prior to the judgment delivered by the Apex Court in Ram Nar'ain Arora's case. Further more both in Tara Chand Sharma's case and Vijay Kapoor's case decided by this Court, no averment had been made ixi respect of other residential buildings owned by a landlord. There was complete non-disclosure as to whether any such residential building owned by the landlord was in his possession or not. In the present case, as I have held above, the residential premises at 31, The Mall, Shimla was not owned by the landlord and hence these two earlier judgments of this Court are distinguishable on facts also.',
	(int) 43 => '<p>25. In the present case, the landlord has been non-suited only on the ground that he did not disclose the fact that he was in occupation of certain premises on the Mall Road. Under law he was not required to disclose this fact. He was only required to disclose the factum of occupying another residential building owned by him in the urban area concerned. True it may be, that it would have been better if the landlord had disclosed all the facts but non-disclosure of a fact which he was not under law required to disclose could not in my opinion be a ground to dismiss his eviction petition.',
	(int) 44 => '<p>26. However, what are the premises in his occupation even as a tenant can be taken into consideration while deciding the question whether he bona fide requires the demised premises for his personal use or occupation or not.',
	(int) 45 => '<p>27. Lastly comes the question with regard to the bona fide requirement of the landlord. The landlord has no children. According to the landlord as well as his other witnesses i.e. his brother-in-law PW-2 and his wife PW-3, the wife now wants to come back and settle in Shimla. There is no reason to disbelieve their statements. Even according to the evidence led by the tenant the accommodation in possession of the landlord consists of two rooms, kitchen, bath room etc. Admittedly, the landlord is also having his office as an Architect in this building. The landlord belongs to the middle class of the Society. It cannot be expected of a landlord who owns sufficient property to reside in a two room set wherein he also runs his office.',
	(int) 46 => '<p>28. The law by now is well settled that the landlord is the best judge of the suitability of the accommodation required by him. This suitability has however to be judged in the context of reasonable expectations. The landlord and his wife who are both well educated can reasonably be expected to entertain guests and they will have visitors to their house. They would obviously require a drawing room, a bed room and a spare bed room for guests. Even at his residence the landlord may require another room for his professional work. This is the minimum accommodation which they would require. Even if the accommodation possessed by the landlord, though not owned by him, at 31, the Mall, Shimla is taken into consideration such accommodation is not sufficient to meet his requirements since admittedly the landlord is running his profession of Architect from some portion of his these premises.',
	(int) 47 => '<p>29. Keeping in view the entire facts and circumstances, I am of the considered view that the learned Appellate Authority gravely erred in rejecting the eviction petition of the landlord solely on the ground that he had not disclosed the factum of being in possession of the premises at 31, the Mall Shimla. Even though I have held that the said premises are residential premises, in view of the above discussion I hold that the landlord cannot be non-suited only on the ground of his being in possession of such premises since same were not owned by him.',
	(int) 48 => '<p>30. In view of the above discussion, the Revision Petition is allowed, the order of the learned Appellate Authority dated 6.5.2003 is seaside and the order of the Rent Controller dated 22.8.2001 is restored.',
	(int) 49 => '<p>31. Keeping in view the fact that the tenant has been in possession of the premises for a long period he is granted time up to 31st October, 2008 to vacate the premises.',
	(int) 50 => '<p>32. No order as to costs.<p>',
	(int) 51 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 52
$i = (int) 9
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

9. On the other hand Sh. Bhupinder Gupta, learned Counsel of the tenant has strenuously urged that the landlord in para 18 has not stated anything about any building being owned by him and has only made an averment that he does not own or possess any other such building within the urban area Shimla. It is contended by Sh. Bhupinder Gupta that the landlord of his own volition did not state anything about the ownership of the building and since he has kept silent about the building which he is in occupation he has made a false averment and therefore his petition for eviction has rightly been rejected.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Shri Arun Bhanwara Vs Shri S L Srivastava - Citation 891084 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '891084',
			'acts' => '',
			'appealno' => '',
			'appellant' => 'Shri Arun Bhanwara',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Shri Arun Bhanwara Vs. Shri S.L. Srivastava',
			'casenote' => ' - CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908.[C.A. No. 5/1908]. Order 14, Rule 2 [As amended by Amending Act of 1976]: [V.K. Gupta, CJ, Deepak Gupta & Surjit Singh, JJ] Preliminary issue of law and fact  Court framing all issues both of law and facts together and also  tried all the issues together, including the issue relating to jurisdiction of Court  Held, Except in situations perceived or warranted under sub-rule (2) of Rule 2 of Order 14 where a  Court in fact frames only issues of law in the first instance and postpones settlement of other issues, clearly and explicitly in situations where the Court has framed all issues together, both of law as well as facts and has also tried all these issues together, it is not open to the Court to adopt the principle of severability and proceed to decide issues of law first, without taking up simultaneously other issues for decision. This course of action is not available to a Court because sub-rule (1) does not permit the  Court to adopt any such principle of severability and to dispose of a suit only on preliminary issues, or what can be termed as issues of law. Sub-rule (1)  clearly mandates that in a situation contemplated under it, where all the issues have been together and have also been taken up for adjudication during the course of the trial, these must be decided together and the judgment in the suit as a whole must be pronounced by the Court covering all the issues framed in the suit.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => 'Ram Narain Arora v. Asha Rani;',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => '',
			'counseldef' => '',
			'court' => 'Himachal Pradesh',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2008-07-31',
			'deposition' => 'Petition allowed',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => ' Deepak Gupta, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">Deepak Gupta, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. This Revision Petition under Section 25(5) of the H.P. Urban Rent Control Act, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) is directed against the order of the learned Appellate Authority, Shimla in CMA No. 60-S/14 of 2001 whereby the appeal filed by the respondent (hereinafter referred to as the tenant) has been allowed, the order of the Rent Controller has been set-aside and the petition for eviction filed by the present petitioner (hereinafter referred to as the Landlord) on the ground of personal bona fide requirement has been set-aside.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The undisputed facts are that the landlord is owner of the demised premises situated in building known as Tunnel View, Sanjauli, Shimla-6 consisting of two bed rooms with attached bath room and latrine, drawing-cum-dining room, kitchen and balcony. These premises were purchased by the landlord in the year 1986. Thereafter, the landlord had rented out the premises to one Sh. B.K. Chauhan. According to the landlord, when he got married he requested Sh. B.K. Chauhan to vacate the said premises. Sh. Chauhan vacated the said premises but admittedly the landlord did not occupy the same but rented out the same to the tenant in the year 1990.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. In the year 1997 the landlord filed a petition for eviction of the tenant on two grounds; firstly that the tenant is in arrears of rent from 1.11.1990 to 31.7.1997 and secondly that the premises are bona fide required by the landlord for the use and occupation of himself and his family.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. This petition was contested by the tenant. After trial, the Rent Controller ordered the eviction of the tenant on two grounds; (i) that the tenant was in arrears of rent from November, 1999 till date of order i.e. 22nd August, 2001 and (ii) that the landlord required the premises for his own use and occupation.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. The tenant deposited the rent within the time prescribed. He also filed an appeal challenging the finding on the issue of bona fide requirement. The learned Appellate Authority came to the conclusion that the landlord had not made a proper and full disclosure of facts as required under the provisions of the Act and had withheld material facts from the Court viz. that the landlord was in occupation of residential premises on 31, Mall Road in the urban area of Shimla and as such rejected this petition on this short ground.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. Aggrieved by the said order, the landlord has filed the present Revision Petition.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. I have heard Sh. Ramakant Sharma, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sh. Bhupinder Gupta, learned senior Counsel for the tenant.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. It has been urged on behalf of the landlord that the building which is alleged to be in possession of the landlord i.e. 31, the Mall Shimla is not a residential building and secondly that the building is not owned by him.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. On the other hand Sh. Bhupinder Gupta, learned Counsel of the tenant has strenuously urged that the landlord in para 18 has not stated anything about any building being owned by him and has only made an averment that he does not own or possess any other such building within the urban area Shimla. It is contended by Sh. Bhupinder Gupta that the landlord of his own volition did not state anything about the ownership of the building and since he has kept silent about the building which he is in occupation he has made a false averment and therefore his petition for eviction has rightly been rejected.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. I am not at all in agreement with the contention of the landlord that the premises known as 31, the Mall Shimla which are admittedly in the occupation of the landlord are commercial premises only and not being used by him for his residence. As pointed out above, the landlord purchased the demised premises in 1986. They fell vacant when he got married despite that he did not occupy the same and rented out the same to the tenant in the year 1990. The question that arises is where was the landlord living for this entire period. According to the landlord after the year 1994 he has been living with his brother-in-law Rajan (wife's brother) PW-2, since the year 1994. Prior to 1994 the landlord will have this Court to believe that he was living off and on with one friend or the other. This story is impossible to believe. The landlord was married in the year 1999. He is an Architect by profession. His wife is a law graduate. It is not believable that such a person would have no permanent abode and would continue to live as a guest with his friends for almost 5 years after his marriage. Even the story that he has been living with his brother-in-law after the year 1994 does not inspire confidence. It stands proved on record that the brother-in-law PW-2 Rajan lives with his own family i.e. wife and children. From the evidence it is also clear that the parents of the brother-in-law also reside with him, His flat consists of only two rooms. The flat in possession of the landlord at 31, the Mall Shimla, also consists of two rooms, kitchen and bath room. Even assuming that he was running an office in the part of the flat it cannot be believed that he would not live on his own flat on the Mall Road and reside with his brother-in-law in cramped premises. Even in the electoral list the landlord is shown to be a resident of 31, The Mall, Shimla. Therefore, I am of the considered view that the building 31, the Mall, Shimla was also being used as a residence by the landlord.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. Having held so, the question that arises is whether the landlord can be non-suited only on the ground that he has not made any disclosure about the residential accommodation available with him which premises were admittedly not owned by him.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. The short question which arises for decision in this petition is whether the landlord was guilty of suppressing and withholding such relevant facts which would disentitle him from seeking eviction of the tenant. To appreciate these contentions it would be necessary to refer to relevant portion of Section 14(3) of the Act:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Section 14:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1 and 2 xxxxxxxxxxx</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(3) A landlord may apply to the Controller for an order directing the tenant to put the landlord in possession-</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(a) in case of residential building, if</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(i) he required it for his own occupation:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Provided that he is not occupying another residential building owned by him, in the urban area concerned:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Provided further that he has not vacated such a building without sufficient cause within five years of the filing of the application, in the said urban area....</p><p style="text-align: justify;">13. A perusal of the bare provisions of the Act makes it clear that there are certain essential ingredients which the landlord must satisfy before seeking eviction of the tenant under the Act. Not only must he prove that the residential building is bona fide required by him for his own use and occupation but he must also plead and prove that he is not occupying any other residential building owned by him in the urban area concerned and further that he has not vacated such a building without sufficient cause within 5 years of the filing of the application.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">14. Reference may now be made to the relevant allegations made in para 18 of the eviction petition:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(ii) That the petitioner bona fide requires the premises for his own use and occupation and also for the use and occupation of his family.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The petitioner does not own or possess any other such building within the urban area of Simla nor the petitioner has vacated any such premises within five years of the filing of this petition.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The family of the petitioner presently consists of himself and his wife. Due to paucity of accommodation the petitioner has not been able to keep his wife with himself at Simla, where he is working as an Engineer and she has been residing at Chandigarh since 1991 but on account of her ill health she has been brought to Simla by the petitioner. The petitioner at present is seeking temporary shelter, from time to time, with his relations.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">15. The learned Appellate Authority came to the conclusion that the landlord had falsely pleaded that he does not own or possess any other such building within the urban area of Shimla and hence rejected the eviction petition on this ground.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">16. On a close analysis of the proviso to Section 14(3)(a)(i) of the Act it is clear that a landlord is not entitled to seek eviction of a tenant from residential building even in case of bona fide requirement if the landlord is occupying another residential building owned by him in the urban area concerned. One can read three essential ingredients in this proviso i.e. (i) that the landlord is in occupation of another residential building; (ii) that the said residential building is owned by him and (iii) that the said residential building is situated in the concerned urban area.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">17. The question that arises is what is the impact of the landlord not making a disclosure in respect of premises which he is occupying but are not owned by him.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">18. The Apex Court in Onkar Nath v. Ved Vyas ILR 1979 HP 1, held as follows:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">It is common ground that there are three requirements to make out a cause of action for eviction under that provision, and indeed this is apparent from a bare reading of the sub-section. In the present case the finding is to the effect that the landlord requires the residential building for his own occupation. But, the legislation has taken care to insist upon two more conditions, namely; (a) that the landlord is not occupying any other residential building in the area concerned; and (b) that he has not vacated such a building without sufficient cause. There is not a scintilla of evidence nor indeed there is any averment in compliance with these latter conditions. The necessary consequence follows that not merely is there inadequacy of pleadings sufficient to make out a cause of action but total absence of proof of two vital requirements....</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The Supreme Court also said that:.The statute benignly designed to protect tenants from unreasonable evictions has taken case to put restrictions which must be rigorously construed to fulfil the purpose of the statute.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">19. Following the aforesaid judgment and other pronouncements of the Apex Court, a learned Single Judge of this Court in Tara Chand Sharma v. Baij Nath and Ors. 1992 (2) R.C.J. 323, held as follows:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">16. What appears as the legislative intent, in bold relief, is that the landlord, while seeking eviction of a tenant on the ground that he needs a residential building for his own occupation, must come out clearly and honestly with facts relating to the requirement that he is not occupying another residential building owned by him, in the urban area concerned and that he had not vacated such a building without sufficient cause within five years of the filing of the application, in the said urban area. The primal burden of making a clear disclosure would lie upon the landlord, for, the true facts would be in his special knowledge. An order in his favour by the Rent Controller would depend upon the satisfaction of the Rent Controller in regard not only to the claim that the landlord requires the accommodation, from which he wishes to evict a tenant, for his own occupation but also that he was not occupying another residential building owned by him nor had he vacated such building without sufficient cause within five years of the filing of the application in the application in the urban area concerned....</p><p style="text-align: justify;">It was further held as under:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">18. That the landlord should make a full disclosure of the relevant facts, pertaining to the requirements of Sub-section (3)(a)(i) and the two provisos, becomes all the more necessary because the satisfaction of the Rent Controller in regard thereto is the condition precedent for the making of an order in favour of the landlord....</p><p style="text-align: justify;">20. The aforesaid judgment has been followed in a number of other cases including Vijay Kapoor v. Maya Ram 1997 (2) RCR 437, wherein another learned single Judge of this Court following the aforesaid judgment held that the landlord must make complete and proper disclosure of all the material facts.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">21. On the other hand Sh. Ramakant Sharma has relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in Ram Narain Arora v. Asha Rani 1998(2) RCR 268. In that case the Rent Controller came to the conclusion that the landlord had suppressed material information and had not disclosed the fact that he was already in occupation of a house in Subji Mandi. Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act reads as follows:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Section 14(1)(e). That the premises let for residential purposes are required bona fide by the landlord for occupation as a residence for himself or for any member of his family dependent on him, if he is the owner thereof, or for any person for whose benefit the premises are held and that the landlord or such person has no other reasonably suitable residential accommodation.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">22. The difference between Delhi Act and the present Act is that under the Delhi Act the only requirement is that the landlord has no other reasonably suitable accommodation whereas under the Himachal Act the residential premises are required to be owned by the landlord. The Apex Court in Rama Narain Arora's case (supra) held that the nondisclosure of the fact that the landlord was in occupation of certain premises in Subji Mandi was.not a ground to non-suit the landlord in view of the facts and circumstances of the case. The Apex Court held as follows:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. In making a claim that the suit premises is required bona fide for his own occupation as a residence for himself and other members of his family dependent on him and that he has no other reasonably suitable accommodation is a requirement of law before the Court can state whether the landlord requires the premises bona fide for his use and occupation. In doing so, the Court must also find out whether the landlord or such other person for whose benefit the premises is required has no other reasonably suitable residential accommodation. It cannot be said that the requirement of the landlord is not intermixed with the question of finding out whether he has any other reasonably suitable accommodation. If he has other reasonably suitable accommodation, ihen necessarily it would mean that he does not require the suit premises and his requirement may not be bona fide. In such circumstances further inquiry would be whether that premises is more suitable than the suit premises. Therefore, the questions raised before the Court would not necessarily depend upon only the pleadings. It could be a good defence that the landlord has other reasonably suitable residential accommodation and thereby defend the claim of the landlord.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. There cannot be a pedantic or a dogmatic approach in the matter of analysis of pleadings or of the evidence adduced thereto. It is no doubt true that if the pleadings are clearly set out, it would be easy for the Court to decide the matters. But if the pleadings are lacking or vague and if both parties have understood what was the case pleaded and put forth with reference to requirement of law and placed such material before the Court, neither party is prejudiced. If we analyse from this angle, we do not think that the High Court was not justified in interfering with the order made by the Rent Controller.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">23. From the perusal of the judgment of the Apex Court it is apparent that the Rent Controller must approach the matter in a practical manner. In case the non-disclosure is such as that it goes to the very root of the case the Rent Controller would be justified in non-suiting the landlord. However, if the non-disclosure is such that it would not prejudice the rights of the respondent then the landlord should not be non-suited only on this ground.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">24. The decisions of this Court cited hereinabove were delivered prior to the judgment delivered by the Apex Court in Ram Nar'ain Arora's case. Further more both in Tara Chand Sharma's case and Vijay Kapoor's case decided by this Court, no averment had been made ixi respect of other residential buildings owned by a landlord. There was complete non-disclosure as to whether any such residential building owned by the landlord was in his possession or not. In the present case, as I have held above, the residential premises at 31, The Mall, Shimla was not owned by the landlord and hence these two earlier judgments of this Court are distinguishable on facts also.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">25. In the present case, the landlord has been non-suited only on the ground that he did not disclose the fact that he was in occupation of certain premises on the Mall Road. Under law he was not required to disclose this fact. He was only required to disclose the factum of occupying another residential building owned by him in the urban area concerned. True it may be, that it would have been better if the landlord had disclosed all the facts but non-disclosure of a fact which he was not under law required to disclose could not in my opinion be a ground to dismiss his eviction petition.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">26. However, what are the premises in his occupation even as a tenant can be taken into consideration while deciding the question whether he bona fide requires the demised premises for his personal use or occupation or not.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">27. Lastly comes the question with regard to the bona fide requirement of the landlord. The landlord has no children. According to the landlord as well as his other witnesses i.e. his brother-in-law PW-2 and his wife PW-3, the wife now wants to come back and settle in Shimla. There is no reason to disbelieve their statements. Even according to the evidence led by the tenant the accommodation in possession of the landlord consists of two rooms, kitchen, bath room etc. Admittedly, the landlord is also having his office as an Architect in this building. The landlord belongs to the middle class of the Society. It cannot be expected of a landlord who owns sufficient property to reside in a two room set wherein he also runs his office.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">28. The law by now is well settled that the landlord is the best judge of the suitability of the accommodation required by him. This suitability has however to be judged in the context of reasonable expectations. The landlord and his wife who are both well educated can reasonably be expected to entertain guests and they will have visitors to their house. They would obviously require a drawing room, a bed room and a spare bed room for guests. Even at his residence the landlord may require another room for his professional work. This is the minimum accommodation which they would require. Even if the accommodation possessed by the landlord, though not owned by him, at 31, the Mall, Shimla is taken into consideration such accommodation is not sufficient to meet his requirements since admittedly the landlord is running his profession of Architect from some portion of his these premises.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">29. Keeping in view the entire facts and circumstances, I am of the considered view that the learned Appellate Authority gravely erred in rejecting the eviction petition of the landlord solely on the ground that he had not disclosed the factum of being in possession of the premises at 31, the Mall Shimla. Even though I have held that the said premises are residential premises, in view of the above discussion I hold that the landlord cannot be non-suited only on the ground of his being in possession of such premises since same were not owned by him.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">30. In view of the above discussion, the Revision Petition is allowed, the order of the learned Appellate Authority dated 6.5.2003 is seaside and the order of the Rent Controller dated 22.8.2001 is restored.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">31. Keeping in view the fact that the tenant has been in possession of the premises for a long period he is granted time up to 31st October, 2008 to vacate the premises.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">32. No order as to costs.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '2008(2)ShimLC491',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'Shri S.L. Srivastava',
			'sub' => 'Tenancy',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'shri-arun-bhanwara-vs-s-l-srivastava',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '891084',
		(int) 1 => 'shri-arun-bhanwara-vs-s-l-srivastava'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Shri Arun Bhanwara Vs Shri S L Srivastava - Citation 891084 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '891084',
		'acts' => '',
		'appealno' => '',
		'appellant' => 'Shri Arun Bhanwara',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Shri Arun Bhanwara Vs. Shri S.L. Srivastava',
		'casenote' => ' - CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908.[C.A. No. 5/1908]. Order 14, Rule 2 [As amended by Amending Act of 1976]: [V.K. Gupta, CJ, Deepak Gupta & Surjit Singh, JJ] Preliminary issue of law and fact  Court framing all issues both of law and facts together and also  tried all the issues together, including the issue relating to jurisdiction of Court  Held, Except in situations perceived or warranted under sub-rule (2) of Rule 2 of Order 14 where a  Court in fact frames only issues of law in the first instance and postpones settlement of other issues, clearly and explicitly in situations where the Court has framed all issues together, both of law as well as facts and has also tried all these issues together, it is not open to the Court to adopt the principle of severability and proceed to decide issues of law first, without taking up simultaneously other issues for decision. This course of action is not available to a Court because sub-rule (1) does not permit the  Court to adopt any such principle of severability and to dispose of a suit only on preliminary issues, or what can be termed as issues of law. Sub-rule (1)  clearly mandates that in a situation contemplated under it, where all the issues have been together and have also been taken up for adjudication during the course of the trial, these must be decided together and the judgment in the suit as a whole must be pronounced by the Court covering all the issues framed in the suit.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => 'Ram Narain Arora v. Asha Rani;',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => '',
		'counseldef' => '',
		'court' => 'Himachal Pradesh',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2008-07-31',
		'deposition' => 'Petition allowed',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => ' Deepak Gupta, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>Deepak Gupta, J.</p><p>1. This Revision Petition under Section 25(5) of the H.P. Urban Rent Control Act, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) is directed against the order of the learned Appellate Authority, Shimla in CMA No. 60-S/14 of 2001 whereby the appeal filed by the respondent (hereinafter referred to as the tenant) has been allowed, the order of the Rent Controller has been set-aside and the petition for eviction filed by the present petitioner (hereinafter referred to as the Landlord) on the ground of personal bona fide requirement has been set-aside.</p><p>2. The undisputed facts are that the landlord is owner of the demised premises situated in building known as Tunnel View, Sanjauli, Shimla-6 consisting of two bed rooms with attached bath room and latrine, drawing-cum-dining room, kitchen and balcony. These premises were purchased by the landlord in the year 1986. Thereafter, the landlord had rented out the premises to one Sh. B.K. Chauhan. According to the landlord, when he got married he requested Sh. B.K. Chauhan to vacate the said premises. Sh. Chauhan vacated the said premises but admittedly the landlord did not occupy the same but rented out the same to the tenant in the year 1990.</p><p>3. In the year 1997 the landlord filed a petition for eviction of the tenant on two grounds; firstly that the tenant is in arrears of rent from 1.11.1990 to 31.7.1997 and secondly that the premises are bona fide required by the landlord for the use and occupation of himself and his family.</p><p>4. This petition was contested by the tenant. After trial, the Rent Controller ordered the eviction of the tenant on two grounds; (i) that the tenant was in arrears of rent from November, 1999 till date of order i.e. 22nd August, 2001 and (ii) that the landlord required the premises for his own use and occupation.</p><p>5. The tenant deposited the rent within the time prescribed. He also filed an appeal challenging the finding on the issue of bona fide requirement. The learned Appellate Authority came to the conclusion that the landlord had not made a proper and full disclosure of facts as required under the provisions of the Act and had withheld material facts from the Court viz. that the landlord was in occupation of residential premises on 31, Mall Road in the urban area of Shimla and as such rejected this petition on this short ground.</p><p>6. Aggrieved by the said order, the landlord has filed the present Revision Petition.</p><p>7. I have heard Sh. Ramakant Sharma, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sh. Bhupinder Gupta, learned senior Counsel for the tenant.</p><p>8. It has been urged on behalf of the landlord that the building which is alleged to be in possession of the landlord i.e. 31, the Mall Shimla is not a residential building and secondly that the building is not owned by him.</p><p>9. On the other hand Sh. Bhupinder Gupta, learned Counsel of the tenant has strenuously urged that the landlord in para 18 has not stated anything about any building being owned by him and has only made an averment that he does not own or possess any other such building within the urban area Shimla. It is contended by Sh. Bhupinder Gupta that the landlord of his own volition did not state anything about the ownership of the building and since he has kept silent about the building which he is in occupation he has made a false averment and therefore his petition for eviction has rightly been rejected.</p><p>10. I am not at all in agreement with the contention of the landlord that the premises known as 31, the Mall Shimla which are admittedly in the occupation of the landlord are commercial premises only and not being used by him for his residence. As pointed out above, the landlord purchased the demised premises in 1986. They fell vacant when he got married despite that he did not occupy the same and rented out the same to the tenant in the year 1990. The question that arises is where was the landlord living for this entire period. According to the landlord after the year 1994 he has been living with his brother-in-law Rajan (wife's brother) PW-2, since the year 1994. Prior to 1994 the landlord will have this Court to believe that he was living off and on with one friend or the other. This story is impossible to believe. The landlord was married in the year 1999. He is an Architect by profession. His wife is a law graduate. It is not believable that such a person would have no permanent abode and would continue to live as a guest with his friends for almost 5 years after his marriage. Even the story that he has been living with his brother-in-law after the year 1994 does not inspire confidence. It stands proved on record that the brother-in-law PW-2 Rajan lives with his own family i.e. wife and children. From the evidence it is also clear that the parents of the brother-in-law also reside with him, His flat consists of only two rooms. The flat in possession of the landlord at 31, the Mall Shimla, also consists of two rooms, kitchen and bath room. Even assuming that he was running an office in the part of the flat it cannot be believed that he would not live on his own flat on the Mall Road and reside with his brother-in-law in cramped premises. Even in the electoral list the landlord is shown to be a resident of 31, The Mall, Shimla. Therefore, I am of the considered view that the building 31, the Mall, Shimla was also being used as a residence by the landlord.</p><p>11. Having held so, the question that arises is whether the landlord can be non-suited only on the ground that he has not made any disclosure about the residential accommodation available with him which premises were admittedly not owned by him.</p><p>12. The short question which arises for decision in this petition is whether the landlord was guilty of suppressing and withholding such relevant facts which would disentitle him from seeking eviction of the tenant. To appreciate these contentions it would be necessary to refer to relevant portion of Section 14(3) of the Act:</p><p>Section 14:</p><p>1 and 2 xxxxxxxxxxx</p><p>(3) A landlord may apply to the Controller for an order directing the tenant to put the landlord in possession-</p><p>(a) in case of residential building, if</p><p>(i) he required it for his own occupation:</p><p>Provided that he is not occupying another residential building owned by him, in the urban area concerned:</p><p>Provided further that he has not vacated such a building without sufficient cause within five years of the filing of the application, in the said urban area....</p><p>13. A perusal of the bare provisions of the Act makes it clear that there are certain essential ingredients which the landlord must satisfy before seeking eviction of the tenant under the Act. Not only must he prove that the residential building is bona fide required by him for his own use and occupation but he must also plead and prove that he is not occupying any other residential building owned by him in the urban area concerned and further that he has not vacated such a building without sufficient cause within 5 years of the filing of the application.</p><p>14. Reference may now be made to the relevant allegations made in para 18 of the eviction petition:</p><p>(ii) That the petitioner bona fide requires the premises for his own use and occupation and also for the use and occupation of his family.</p><p>The petitioner does not own or possess any other such building within the urban area of Simla nor the petitioner has vacated any such premises within five years of the filing of this petition.</p><p>The family of the petitioner presently consists of himself and his wife. Due to paucity of accommodation the petitioner has not been able to keep his wife with himself at Simla, where he is working as an Engineer and she has been residing at Chandigarh since 1991 but on account of her ill health she has been brought to Simla by the petitioner. The petitioner at present is seeking temporary shelter, from time to time, with his relations.</p><p>15. The learned Appellate Authority came to the conclusion that the landlord had falsely pleaded that he does not own or possess any other such building within the urban area of Shimla and hence rejected the eviction petition on this ground.</p><p>16. On a close analysis of the proviso to Section 14(3)(a)(i) of the Act it is clear that a landlord is not entitled to seek eviction of a tenant from residential building even in case of bona fide requirement if the landlord is occupying another residential building owned by him in the urban area concerned. One can read three essential ingredients in this proviso i.e. (i) that the landlord is in occupation of another residential building; (ii) that the said residential building is owned by him and (iii) that the said residential building is situated in the concerned urban area.</p><p>17. The question that arises is what is the impact of the landlord not making a disclosure in respect of premises which he is occupying but are not owned by him.</p><p>18. The Apex Court in Onkar Nath v. Ved Vyas ILR 1979 HP 1, held as follows:</p><p>It is common ground that there are three requirements to make out a cause of action for eviction under that provision, and indeed this is apparent from a bare reading of the sub-section. In the present case the finding is to the effect that the landlord requires the residential building for his own occupation. But, the legislation has taken care to insist upon two more conditions, namely; (a) that the landlord is not occupying any other residential building in the area concerned; and (b) that he has not vacated such a building without sufficient cause. There is not a scintilla of evidence nor indeed there is any averment in compliance with these latter conditions. The necessary consequence follows that not merely is there inadequacy of pleadings sufficient to make out a cause of action but total absence of proof of two vital requirements....</p><p>The Supreme Court also said that:.The statute benignly designed to protect tenants from unreasonable evictions has taken case to put restrictions which must be rigorously construed to fulfil the purpose of the statute.</p><p>19. Following the aforesaid judgment and other pronouncements of the Apex Court, a learned Single Judge of this Court in Tara Chand Sharma v. Baij Nath and Ors. 1992 (2) R.C.J. 323, held as follows:</p><p>16. What appears as the legislative intent, in bold relief, is that the landlord, while seeking eviction of a tenant on the ground that he needs a residential building for his own occupation, must come out clearly and honestly with facts relating to the requirement that he is not occupying another residential building owned by him, in the urban area concerned and that he had not vacated such a building without sufficient cause within five years of the filing of the application, in the said urban area. The primal burden of making a clear disclosure would lie upon the landlord, for, the true facts would be in his special knowledge. An order in his favour by the Rent Controller would depend upon the satisfaction of the Rent Controller in regard not only to the claim that the landlord requires the accommodation, from which he wishes to evict a tenant, for his own occupation but also that he was not occupying another residential building owned by him nor had he vacated such building without sufficient cause within five years of the filing of the application in the application in the urban area concerned....</p><p>It was further held as under:</p><p>18. That the landlord should make a full disclosure of the relevant facts, pertaining to the requirements of Sub-section (3)(a)(i) and the two provisos, becomes all the more necessary because the satisfaction of the Rent Controller in regard thereto is the condition precedent for the making of an order in favour of the landlord....</p><p>20. The aforesaid judgment has been followed in a number of other cases including Vijay Kapoor v. Maya Ram 1997 (2) RCR 437, wherein another learned single Judge of this Court following the aforesaid judgment held that the landlord must make complete and proper disclosure of all the material facts.</p><p>21. On the other hand Sh. Ramakant Sharma has relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in Ram Narain Arora v. Asha Rani 1998(2) RCR 268. In that case the Rent Controller came to the conclusion that the landlord had suppressed material information and had not disclosed the fact that he was already in occupation of a house in Subji Mandi. Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act reads as follows:</p><p>Section 14(1)(e). That the premises let for residential purposes are required bona fide by the landlord for occupation as a residence for himself or for any member of his family dependent on him, if he is the owner thereof, or for any person for whose benefit the premises are held and that the landlord or such person has no other reasonably suitable residential accommodation.</p><p>22. The difference between Delhi Act and the present Act is that under the Delhi Act the only requirement is that the landlord has no other reasonably suitable accommodation whereas under the Himachal Act the residential premises are required to be owned by the landlord. The Apex Court in Rama Narain Arora's case (supra) held that the nondisclosure of the fact that the landlord was in occupation of certain premises in Subji Mandi was.not a ground to non-suit the landlord in view of the facts and circumstances of the case. The Apex Court held as follows:</p><p>9. In making a claim that the suit premises is required bona fide for his own occupation as a residence for himself and other members of his family dependent on him and that he has no other reasonably suitable accommodation is a requirement of law before the Court can state whether the landlord requires the premises bona fide for his use and occupation. In doing so, the Court must also find out whether the landlord or such other person for whose benefit the premises is required has no other reasonably suitable residential accommodation. It cannot be said that the requirement of the landlord is not intermixed with the question of finding out whether he has any other reasonably suitable accommodation. If he has other reasonably suitable accommodation, ihen necessarily it would mean that he does not require the suit premises and his requirement may not be bona fide. In such circumstances further inquiry would be whether that premises is more suitable than the suit premises. Therefore, the questions raised before the Court would not necessarily depend upon only the pleadings. It could be a good defence that the landlord has other reasonably suitable residential accommodation and thereby defend the claim of the landlord.</p><p>10. There cannot be a pedantic or a dogmatic approach in the matter of analysis of pleadings or of the evidence adduced thereto. It is no doubt true that if the pleadings are clearly set out, it would be easy for the Court to decide the matters. But if the pleadings are lacking or vague and if both parties have understood what was the case pleaded and put forth with reference to requirement of law and placed such material before the Court, neither party is prejudiced. If we analyse from this angle, we do not think that the High Court was not justified in interfering with the order made by the Rent Controller.</p><p>23. From the perusal of the judgment of the Apex Court it is apparent that the Rent Controller must approach the matter in a practical manner. In case the non-disclosure is such as that it goes to the very root of the case the Rent Controller would be justified in non-suiting the landlord. However, if the non-disclosure is such that it would not prejudice the rights of the respondent then the landlord should not be non-suited only on this ground.</p><p>24. The decisions of this Court cited hereinabove were delivered prior to the judgment delivered by the Apex Court in Ram Nar'ain Arora's case. Further more both in Tara Chand Sharma's case and Vijay Kapoor's case decided by this Court, no averment had been made ixi respect of other residential buildings owned by a landlord. There was complete non-disclosure as to whether any such residential building owned by the landlord was in his possession or not. In the present case, as I have held above, the residential premises at 31, The Mall, Shimla was not owned by the landlord and hence these two earlier judgments of this Court are distinguishable on facts also.</p><p>25. In the present case, the landlord has been non-suited only on the ground that he did not disclose the fact that he was in occupation of certain premises on the Mall Road. Under law he was not required to disclose this fact. He was only required to disclose the factum of occupying another residential building owned by him in the urban area concerned. True it may be, that it would have been better if the landlord had disclosed all the facts but non-disclosure of a fact which he was not under law required to disclose could not in my opinion be a ground to dismiss his eviction petition.</p><p>26. However, what are the premises in his occupation even as a tenant can be taken into consideration while deciding the question whether he bona fide requires the demised premises for his personal use or occupation or not.</p><p>27. Lastly comes the question with regard to the bona fide requirement of the landlord. The landlord has no children. According to the landlord as well as his other witnesses i.e. his brother-in-law PW-2 and his wife PW-3, the wife now wants to come back and settle in Shimla. There is no reason to disbelieve their statements. Even according to the evidence led by the tenant the accommodation in possession of the landlord consists of two rooms, kitchen, bath room etc. Admittedly, the landlord is also having his office as an Architect in this building. The landlord belongs to the middle class of the Society. It cannot be expected of a landlord who owns sufficient property to reside in a two room set wherein he also runs his office.</p><p>28. The law by now is well settled that the landlord is the best judge of the suitability of the accommodation required by him. This suitability has however to be judged in the context of reasonable expectations. The landlord and his wife who are both well educated can reasonably be expected to entertain guests and they will have visitors to their house. They would obviously require a drawing room, a bed room and a spare bed room for guests. Even at his residence the landlord may require another room for his professional work. This is the minimum accommodation which they would require. Even if the accommodation possessed by the landlord, though not owned by him, at 31, the Mall, Shimla is taken into consideration such accommodation is not sufficient to meet his requirements since admittedly the landlord is running his profession of Architect from some portion of his these premises.</p><p>29. Keeping in view the entire facts and circumstances, I am of the considered view that the learned Appellate Authority gravely erred in rejecting the eviction petition of the landlord solely on the ground that he had not disclosed the factum of being in possession of the premises at 31, the Mall Shimla. Even though I have held that the said premises are residential premises, in view of the above discussion I hold that the landlord cannot be non-suited only on the ground of his being in possession of such premises since same were not owned by him.</p><p>30. In view of the above discussion, the Revision Petition is allowed, the order of the learned Appellate Authority dated 6.5.2003 is seaside and the order of the Rent Controller dated 22.8.2001 is restored.</p><p>31. Keeping in view the fact that the tenant has been in possession of the premises for a long period he is granted time up to 31st October, 2008 to vacate the premises.</p><p>32. No order as to costs.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '2008(2)ShimLC491',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'Shri S.L. Srivastava',
		'sub' => 'Tenancy',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'shri-arun-bhanwara-vs-s-l-srivastava'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '891084',
	(int) 1 => 'shri-arun-bhanwara-vs-s-l-srivastava'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/891084/shri-arun-bhanwara-vs-s-l-srivastava'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$caseref = 'Ram Narain Arora v. Asha Rani<br>'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>Deepak Gupta, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. This Revision Petition under Section 25(5) of the H.P. Urban Rent Control Act, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) is directed against the order of the learned Appellate Authority, Shimla in CMA No. 60-S/14 of 2001 whereby the appeal filed by the respondent (hereinafter referred to as the tenant) has been allowed, the order of the Rent Controller has been set-aside and the petition for eviction filed by the present petitioner (hereinafter referred to as the Landlord) on the ground of personal bona fide requirement has been set-aside.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. The undisputed facts are that the landlord is owner of the demised premises situated in building known as Tunnel View, Sanjauli, Shimla-6 consisting of two bed rooms with attached bath room and latrine, drawing-cum-dining room, kitchen and balcony. These premises were purchased by the landlord in the year 1986. Thereafter, the landlord had rented out the premises to one Sh. B.K. Chauhan. According to the landlord, when he got married he requested Sh. B.K. Chauhan to vacate the said premises. Sh. Chauhan vacated the said premises but admittedly the landlord did not occupy the same but rented out the same to the tenant in the year 1990.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. In the year 1997 the landlord filed a petition for eviction of the tenant on two grounds; firstly that the tenant is in arrears of rent from 1.11.1990 to 31.7.1997 and secondly that the premises are bona fide required by the landlord for the use and occupation of himself and his family.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>4. This petition was contested by the tenant. After trial, the Rent Controller ordered the eviction of the tenant on two grounds; (i) that the tenant was in arrears of rent from November, 1999 till date of order i.e. 22nd August, 2001 and (ii) that the landlord required the premises for his own use and occupation.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>5. The tenant deposited the rent within the time prescribed. He also filed an appeal challenging the finding on the issue of bona fide requirement. The learned Appellate Authority came to the conclusion that the landlord had not made a proper and full disclosure of facts as required under the provisions of the Act and had withheld material facts from the Court viz. that the landlord was in occupation of residential premises on 31, Mall Road in the urban area of Shimla and as such rejected this petition on this short ground.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>6. Aggrieved by the said order, the landlord has filed the present Revision Petition.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>7. I have heard Sh. Ramakant Sharma, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sh. Bhupinder Gupta, learned senior Counsel for the tenant.',
	(int) 8 => '<p>8. It has been urged on behalf of the landlord that the building which is alleged to be in possession of the landlord i.e. 31, the Mall Shimla is not a residential building and secondly that the building is not owned by him.',
	(int) 9 => '<p>9. On the other hand Sh. Bhupinder Gupta, learned Counsel of the tenant has strenuously urged that the landlord in para 18 has not stated anything about any building being owned by him and has only made an averment that he does not own or possess any other such building within the urban area Shimla. It is contended by Sh. Bhupinder Gupta that the landlord of his own volition did not state anything about the ownership of the building and since he has kept silent about the building which he is in occupation he has made a false averment and therefore his petition for eviction has rightly been rejected.',
	(int) 10 => '<p>10. I am not at all in agreement with the contention of the landlord that the premises known as 31, the Mall Shimla which are admittedly in the occupation of the landlord are commercial premises only and not being used by him for his residence. As pointed out above, the landlord purchased the demised premises in 1986. They fell vacant when he got married despite that he did not occupy the same and rented out the same to the tenant in the year 1990. The question that arises is where was the landlord living for this entire period. According to the landlord after the year 1994 he has been living with his brother-in-law Rajan (wife's brother) PW-2, since the year 1994. Prior to 1994 the landlord will have this Court to believe that he was living off and on with one friend or the other. This story is impossible to believe. The landlord was married in the year 1999. He is an Architect by profession. His wife is a law graduate. It is not believable that such a person would have no permanent abode and would continue to live as a guest with his friends for almost 5 years after his marriage. Even the story that he has been living with his brother-in-law after the year 1994 does not inspire confidence. It stands proved on record that the brother-in-law PW-2 Rajan lives with his own family i.e. wife and children. From the evidence it is also clear that the parents of the brother-in-law also reside with him, His flat consists of only two rooms. The flat in possession of the landlord at 31, the Mall Shimla, also consists of two rooms, kitchen and bath room. Even assuming that he was running an office in the part of the flat it cannot be believed that he would not live on his own flat on the Mall Road and reside with his brother-in-law in cramped premises. Even in the electoral list the landlord is shown to be a resident of 31, The Mall, Shimla. Therefore, I am of the considered view that the building 31, the Mall, Shimla was also being used as a residence by the landlord.',
	(int) 11 => '<p>11. Having held so, the question that arises is whether the landlord can be non-suited only on the ground that he has not made any disclosure about the residential accommodation available with him which premises were admittedly not owned by him.',
	(int) 12 => '<p>12. The short question which arises for decision in this petition is whether the landlord was guilty of suppressing and withholding such relevant facts which would disentitle him from seeking eviction of the tenant. To appreciate these contentions it would be necessary to refer to relevant portion of Section 14(3) of the Act:',
	(int) 13 => '<p>Section 14:',
	(int) 14 => '<p>1 and 2 xxxxxxxxxxx',
	(int) 15 => '<p>(3) A landlord may apply to the Controller for an order directing the tenant to put the landlord in possession-',
	(int) 16 => '<p>(a) in case of residential building, if',
	(int) 17 => '<p>(i) he required it for his own occupation:',
	(int) 18 => '<p>Provided that he is not occupying another residential building owned by him, in the urban area concerned:',
	(int) 19 => '<p>Provided further that he has not vacated such a building without sufficient cause within five years of the filing of the application, in the said urban area....',
	(int) 20 => '<p>13. A perusal of the bare provisions of the Act makes it clear that there are certain essential ingredients which the landlord must satisfy before seeking eviction of the tenant under the Act. Not only must he prove that the residential building is bona fide required by him for his own use and occupation but he must also plead and prove that he is not occupying any other residential building owned by him in the urban area concerned and further that he has not vacated such a building without sufficient cause within 5 years of the filing of the application.',
	(int) 21 => '<p>14. Reference may now be made to the relevant allegations made in para 18 of the eviction petition:',
	(int) 22 => '<p>(ii) That the petitioner bona fide requires the premises for his own use and occupation and also for the use and occupation of his family.',
	(int) 23 => '<p>The petitioner does not own or possess any other such building within the urban area of Simla nor the petitioner has vacated any such premises within five years of the filing of this petition.',
	(int) 24 => '<p>The family of the petitioner presently consists of himself and his wife. Due to paucity of accommodation the petitioner has not been able to keep his wife with himself at Simla, where he is working as an Engineer and she has been residing at Chandigarh since 1991 but on account of her ill health she has been brought to Simla by the petitioner. The petitioner at present is seeking temporary shelter, from time to time, with his relations.',
	(int) 25 => '<p>15. The learned Appellate Authority came to the conclusion that the landlord had falsely pleaded that he does not own or possess any other such building within the urban area of Shimla and hence rejected the eviction petition on this ground.',
	(int) 26 => '<p>16. On a close analysis of the proviso to Section 14(3)(a)(i) of the Act it is clear that a landlord is not entitled to seek eviction of a tenant from residential building even in case of bona fide requirement if the landlord is occupying another residential building owned by him in the urban area concerned. One can read three essential ingredients in this proviso i.e. (i) that the landlord is in occupation of another residential building; (ii) that the said residential building is owned by him and (iii) that the said residential building is situated in the concerned urban area.',
	(int) 27 => '<p>17. The question that arises is what is the impact of the landlord not making a disclosure in respect of premises which he is occupying but are not owned by him.',
	(int) 28 => '<p>18. The Apex Court in Onkar Nath v. Ved Vyas ILR 1979 HP 1, held as follows:',
	(int) 29 => '<p>It is common ground that there are three requirements to make out a cause of action for eviction under that provision, and indeed this is apparent from a bare reading of the sub-section. In the present case the finding is to the effect that the landlord requires the residential building for his own occupation. But, the legislation has taken care to insist upon two more conditions, namely; (a) that the landlord is not occupying any other residential building in the area concerned; and (b) that he has not vacated such a building without sufficient cause. There is not a scintilla of evidence nor indeed there is any averment in compliance with these latter conditions. The necessary consequence follows that not merely is there inadequacy of pleadings sufficient to make out a cause of action but total absence of proof of two vital requirements....',
	(int) 30 => '<p>The Supreme Court also said that:.The statute benignly designed to protect tenants from unreasonable evictions has taken case to put restrictions which must be rigorously construed to fulfil the purpose of the statute.',
	(int) 31 => '<p>19. Following the aforesaid judgment and other pronouncements of the Apex Court, a learned Single Judge of this Court in Tara Chand Sharma v. Baij Nath and Ors. 1992 (2) R.C.J. 323, held as follows:',
	(int) 32 => '<p>16. What appears as the legislative intent, in bold relief, is that the landlord, while seeking eviction of a tenant on the ground that he needs a residential building for his own occupation, must come out clearly and honestly with facts relating to the requirement that he is not occupying another residential building owned by him, in the urban area concerned and that he had not vacated such a building without sufficient cause within five years of the filing of the application, in the said urban area. The primal burden of making a clear disclosure would lie upon the landlord, for, the true facts would be in his special knowledge. An order in his favour by the Rent Controller would depend upon the satisfaction of the Rent Controller in regard not only to the claim that the landlord requires the accommodation, from which he wishes to evict a tenant, for his own occupation but also that he was not occupying another residential building owned by him nor had he vacated such building without sufficient cause within five years of the filing of the application in the application in the urban area concerned....',
	(int) 33 => '<p>It was further held as under:',
	(int) 34 => '<p>18. That the landlord should make a full disclosure of the relevant facts, pertaining to the requirements of Sub-section (3)(a)(i) and the two provisos, becomes all the more necessary because the satisfaction of the Rent Controller in regard thereto is the condition precedent for the making of an order in favour of the landlord....',
	(int) 35 => '<p>20. The aforesaid judgment has been followed in a number of other cases including Vijay Kapoor v. Maya Ram 1997 (2) RCR 437, wherein another learned single Judge of this Court following the aforesaid judgment held that the landlord must make complete and proper disclosure of all the material facts.',
	(int) 36 => '<p>21. On the other hand Sh. Ramakant Sharma has relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in Ram Narain Arora v. Asha Rani 1998(2) RCR 268. In that case the Rent Controller came to the conclusion that the landlord had suppressed material information and had not disclosed the fact that he was already in occupation of a house in Subji Mandi. Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act reads as follows:',
	(int) 37 => '<p>Section 14(1)(e). That the premises let for residential purposes are required bona fide by the landlord for occupation as a residence for himself or for any member of his family dependent on him, if he is the owner thereof, or for any person for whose benefit the premises are held and that the landlord or such person has no other reasonably suitable residential accommodation.',
	(int) 38 => '<p>22. The difference between Delhi Act and the present Act is that under the Delhi Act the only requirement is that the landlord has no other reasonably suitable accommodation whereas under the Himachal Act the residential premises are required to be owned by the landlord. The Apex Court in Rama Narain Arora's case (supra) held that the nondisclosure of the fact that the landlord was in occupation of certain premises in Subji Mandi was.not a ground to non-suit the landlord in view of the facts and circumstances of the case. The Apex Court held as follows:',
	(int) 39 => '<p>9. In making a claim that the suit premises is required bona fide for his own occupation as a residence for himself and other members of his family dependent on him and that he has no other reasonably suitable accommodation is a requirement of law before the Court can state whether the landlord requires the premises bona fide for his use and occupation. In doing so, the Court must also find out whether the landlord or such other person for whose benefit the premises is required has no other reasonably suitable residential accommodation. It cannot be said that the requirement of the landlord is not intermixed with the question of finding out whether he has any other reasonably suitable accommodation. If he has other reasonably suitable accommodation, ihen necessarily it would mean that he does not require the suit premises and his requirement may not be bona fide. In such circumstances further inquiry would be whether that premises is more suitable than the suit premises. Therefore, the questions raised before the Court would not necessarily depend upon only the pleadings. It could be a good defence that the landlord has other reasonably suitable residential accommodation and thereby defend the claim of the landlord.',
	(int) 40 => '<p>10. There cannot be a pedantic or a dogmatic approach in the matter of analysis of pleadings or of the evidence adduced thereto. It is no doubt true that if the pleadings are clearly set out, it would be easy for the Court to decide the matters. But if the pleadings are lacking or vague and if both parties have understood what was the case pleaded and put forth with reference to requirement of law and placed such material before the Court, neither party is prejudiced. If we analyse from this angle, we do not think that the High Court was not justified in interfering with the order made by the Rent Controller.',
	(int) 41 => '<p>23. From the perusal of the judgment of the Apex Court it is apparent that the Rent Controller must approach the matter in a practical manner. In case the non-disclosure is such as that it goes to the very root of the case the Rent Controller would be justified in non-suiting the landlord. However, if the non-disclosure is such that it would not prejudice the rights of the respondent then the landlord should not be non-suited only on this ground.',
	(int) 42 => '<p>24. The decisions of this Court cited hereinabove were delivered prior to the judgment delivered by the Apex Court in Ram Nar'ain Arora's case. Further more both in Tara Chand Sharma's case and Vijay Kapoor's case decided by this Court, no averment had been made ixi respect of other residential buildings owned by a landlord. There was complete non-disclosure as to whether any such residential building owned by the landlord was in his possession or not. In the present case, as I have held above, the residential premises at 31, The Mall, Shimla was not owned by the landlord and hence these two earlier judgments of this Court are distinguishable on facts also.',
	(int) 43 => '<p>25. In the present case, the landlord has been non-suited only on the ground that he did not disclose the fact that he was in occupation of certain premises on the Mall Road. Under law he was not required to disclose this fact. He was only required to disclose the factum of occupying another residential building owned by him in the urban area concerned. True it may be, that it would have been better if the landlord had disclosed all the facts but non-disclosure of a fact which he was not under law required to disclose could not in my opinion be a ground to dismiss his eviction petition.',
	(int) 44 => '<p>26. However, what are the premises in his occupation even as a tenant can be taken into consideration while deciding the question whether he bona fide requires the demised premises for his personal use or occupation or not.',
	(int) 45 => '<p>27. Lastly comes the question with regard to the bona fide requirement of the landlord. The landlord has no children. According to the landlord as well as his other witnesses i.e. his brother-in-law PW-2 and his wife PW-3, the wife now wants to come back and settle in Shimla. There is no reason to disbelieve their statements. Even according to the evidence led by the tenant the accommodation in possession of the landlord consists of two rooms, kitchen, bath room etc. Admittedly, the landlord is also having his office as an Architect in this building. The landlord belongs to the middle class of the Society. It cannot be expected of a landlord who owns sufficient property to reside in a two room set wherein he also runs his office.',
	(int) 46 => '<p>28. The law by now is well settled that the landlord is the best judge of the suitability of the accommodation required by him. This suitability has however to be judged in the context of reasonable expectations. The landlord and his wife who are both well educated can reasonably be expected to entertain guests and they will have visitors to their house. They would obviously require a drawing room, a bed room and a spare bed room for guests. Even at his residence the landlord may require another room for his professional work. This is the minimum accommodation which they would require. Even if the accommodation possessed by the landlord, though not owned by him, at 31, the Mall, Shimla is taken into consideration such accommodation is not sufficient to meet his requirements since admittedly the landlord is running his profession of Architect from some portion of his these premises.',
	(int) 47 => '<p>29. Keeping in view the entire facts and circumstances, I am of the considered view that the learned Appellate Authority gravely erred in rejecting the eviction petition of the landlord solely on the ground that he had not disclosed the factum of being in possession of the premises at 31, the Mall Shimla. Even though I have held that the said premises are residential premises, in view of the above discussion I hold that the landlord cannot be non-suited only on the ground of his being in possession of such premises since same were not owned by him.',
	(int) 48 => '<p>30. In view of the above discussion, the Revision Petition is allowed, the order of the learned Appellate Authority dated 6.5.2003 is seaside and the order of the Rent Controller dated 22.8.2001 is restored.',
	(int) 49 => '<p>31. Keeping in view the fact that the tenant has been in possession of the premises for a long period he is granted time up to 31st October, 2008 to vacate the premises.',
	(int) 50 => '<p>32. No order as to costs.<p>',
	(int) 51 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 52
$i = (int) 10
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

10. I am not at all in agreement with the contention of the landlord that the premises known as 31, the Mall Shimla which are admittedly in the occupation of the landlord are commercial premises only and not being used by him for his residence. As pointed out above, the landlord purchased the demised premises in 1986. They fell vacant when he got married despite that he did not occupy the same and rented out the same to the tenant in the year 1990. The question that arises is where was the landlord living for this entire period. According to the landlord after the year 1994 he has been living with his brother-in-law Rajan (wife's brother) PW-2, since the year 1994. Prior to 1994 the landlord will have this Court to believe that he was living off and on with one friend or the other. This story is impossible to believe. The landlord was married in the year 1999. He is an Architect by profession. His wife is a law graduate. It is not believable that such a person would have no permanent abode and would continue to live as a guest with his friends for almost 5 years after his marriage. Even the story that he has been living with his brother-in-law after the year 1994 does not inspire confidence. It stands proved on record that the brother-in-law PW-2 Rajan lives with his own family i.e. wife and children. From the evidence it is also clear that the parents of the brother-in-law also reside with him, His flat consists of only two rooms. The flat in possession of the landlord at 31, the Mall Shimla, also consists of two rooms, kitchen and bath room. Even assuming that he was running an office in the part of the flat it cannot be believed that he would not live on his own flat on the Mall Road and reside with his brother-in-law in cramped premises. Even in the electoral list the landlord is shown to be a resident of 31, The Mall, Shimla. Therefore, I am of the considered view that the building 31, the Mall, Shimla was also being used as a residence by the landlord.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Shri Arun Bhanwara Vs Shri S L Srivastava - Citation 891084 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '891084',
			'acts' => '',
			'appealno' => '',
			'appellant' => 'Shri Arun Bhanwara',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Shri Arun Bhanwara Vs. Shri S.L. Srivastava',
			'casenote' => ' - CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908.[C.A. No. 5/1908]. Order 14, Rule 2 [As amended by Amending Act of 1976]: [V.K. Gupta, CJ, Deepak Gupta & Surjit Singh, JJ] Preliminary issue of law and fact  Court framing all issues both of law and facts together and also  tried all the issues together, including the issue relating to jurisdiction of Court  Held, Except in situations perceived or warranted under sub-rule (2) of Rule 2 of Order 14 where a  Court in fact frames only issues of law in the first instance and postpones settlement of other issues, clearly and explicitly in situations where the Court has framed all issues together, both of law as well as facts and has also tried all these issues together, it is not open to the Court to adopt the principle of severability and proceed to decide issues of law first, without taking up simultaneously other issues for decision. This course of action is not available to a Court because sub-rule (1) does not permit the  Court to adopt any such principle of severability and to dispose of a suit only on preliminary issues, or what can be termed as issues of law. Sub-rule (1)  clearly mandates that in a situation contemplated under it, where all the issues have been together and have also been taken up for adjudication during the course of the trial, these must be decided together and the judgment in the suit as a whole must be pronounced by the Court covering all the issues framed in the suit.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => 'Ram Narain Arora v. Asha Rani;',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => '',
			'counseldef' => '',
			'court' => 'Himachal Pradesh',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2008-07-31',
			'deposition' => 'Petition allowed',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => ' Deepak Gupta, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">Deepak Gupta, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. This Revision Petition under Section 25(5) of the H.P. Urban Rent Control Act, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) is directed against the order of the learned Appellate Authority, Shimla in CMA No. 60-S/14 of 2001 whereby the appeal filed by the respondent (hereinafter referred to as the tenant) has been allowed, the order of the Rent Controller has been set-aside and the petition for eviction filed by the present petitioner (hereinafter referred to as the Landlord) on the ground of personal bona fide requirement has been set-aside.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The undisputed facts are that the landlord is owner of the demised premises situated in building known as Tunnel View, Sanjauli, Shimla-6 consisting of two bed rooms with attached bath room and latrine, drawing-cum-dining room, kitchen and balcony. These premises were purchased by the landlord in the year 1986. Thereafter, the landlord had rented out the premises to one Sh. B.K. Chauhan. According to the landlord, when he got married he requested Sh. B.K. Chauhan to vacate the said premises. Sh. Chauhan vacated the said premises but admittedly the landlord did not occupy the same but rented out the same to the tenant in the year 1990.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. In the year 1997 the landlord filed a petition for eviction of the tenant on two grounds; firstly that the tenant is in arrears of rent from 1.11.1990 to 31.7.1997 and secondly that the premises are bona fide required by the landlord for the use and occupation of himself and his family.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. This petition was contested by the tenant. After trial, the Rent Controller ordered the eviction of the tenant on two grounds; (i) that the tenant was in arrears of rent from November, 1999 till date of order i.e. 22nd August, 2001 and (ii) that the landlord required the premises for his own use and occupation.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. The tenant deposited the rent within the time prescribed. He also filed an appeal challenging the finding on the issue of bona fide requirement. The learned Appellate Authority came to the conclusion that the landlord had not made a proper and full disclosure of facts as required under the provisions of the Act and had withheld material facts from the Court viz. that the landlord was in occupation of residential premises on 31, Mall Road in the urban area of Shimla and as such rejected this petition on this short ground.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. Aggrieved by the said order, the landlord has filed the present Revision Petition.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. I have heard Sh. Ramakant Sharma, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sh. Bhupinder Gupta, learned senior Counsel for the tenant.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. It has been urged on behalf of the landlord that the building which is alleged to be in possession of the landlord i.e. 31, the Mall Shimla is not a residential building and secondly that the building is not owned by him.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. On the other hand Sh. Bhupinder Gupta, learned Counsel of the tenant has strenuously urged that the landlord in para 18 has not stated anything about any building being owned by him and has only made an averment that he does not own or possess any other such building within the urban area Shimla. It is contended by Sh. Bhupinder Gupta that the landlord of his own volition did not state anything about the ownership of the building and since he has kept silent about the building which he is in occupation he has made a false averment and therefore his petition for eviction has rightly been rejected.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. I am not at all in agreement with the contention of the landlord that the premises known as 31, the Mall Shimla which are admittedly in the occupation of the landlord are commercial premises only and not being used by him for his residence. As pointed out above, the landlord purchased the demised premises in 1986. They fell vacant when he got married despite that he did not occupy the same and rented out the same to the tenant in the year 1990. The question that arises is where was the landlord living for this entire period. According to the landlord after the year 1994 he has been living with his brother-in-law Rajan (wife's brother) PW-2, since the year 1994. Prior to 1994 the landlord will have this Court to believe that he was living off and on with one friend or the other. This story is impossible to believe. The landlord was married in the year 1999. He is an Architect by profession. His wife is a law graduate. It is not believable that such a person would have no permanent abode and would continue to live as a guest with his friends for almost 5 years after his marriage. Even the story that he has been living with his brother-in-law after the year 1994 does not inspire confidence. It stands proved on record that the brother-in-law PW-2 Rajan lives with his own family i.e. wife and children. From the evidence it is also clear that the parents of the brother-in-law also reside with him, His flat consists of only two rooms. The flat in possession of the landlord at 31, the Mall Shimla, also consists of two rooms, kitchen and bath room. Even assuming that he was running an office in the part of the flat it cannot be believed that he would not live on his own flat on the Mall Road and reside with his brother-in-law in cramped premises. Even in the electoral list the landlord is shown to be a resident of 31, The Mall, Shimla. Therefore, I am of the considered view that the building 31, the Mall, Shimla was also being used as a residence by the landlord.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. Having held so, the question that arises is whether the landlord can be non-suited only on the ground that he has not made any disclosure about the residential accommodation available with him which premises were admittedly not owned by him.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. The short question which arises for decision in this petition is whether the landlord was guilty of suppressing and withholding such relevant facts which would disentitle him from seeking eviction of the tenant. To appreciate these contentions it would be necessary to refer to relevant portion of Section 14(3) of the Act:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Section 14:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1 and 2 xxxxxxxxxxx</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(3) A landlord may apply to the Controller for an order directing the tenant to put the landlord in possession-</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(a) in case of residential building, if</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(i) he required it for his own occupation:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Provided that he is not occupying another residential building owned by him, in the urban area concerned:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Provided further that he has not vacated such a building without sufficient cause within five years of the filing of the application, in the said urban area....</p><p style="text-align: justify;">13. A perusal of the bare provisions of the Act makes it clear that there are certain essential ingredients which the landlord must satisfy before seeking eviction of the tenant under the Act. Not only must he prove that the residential building is bona fide required by him for his own use and occupation but he must also plead and prove that he is not occupying any other residential building owned by him in the urban area concerned and further that he has not vacated such a building without sufficient cause within 5 years of the filing of the application.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">14. Reference may now be made to the relevant allegations made in para 18 of the eviction petition:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(ii) That the petitioner bona fide requires the premises for his own use and occupation and also for the use and occupation of his family.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The petitioner does not own or possess any other such building within the urban area of Simla nor the petitioner has vacated any such premises within five years of the filing of this petition.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The family of the petitioner presently consists of himself and his wife. Due to paucity of accommodation the petitioner has not been able to keep his wife with himself at Simla, where he is working as an Engineer and she has been residing at Chandigarh since 1991 but on account of her ill health she has been brought to Simla by the petitioner. The petitioner at present is seeking temporary shelter, from time to time, with his relations.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">15. The learned Appellate Authority came to the conclusion that the landlord had falsely pleaded that he does not own or possess any other such building within the urban area of Shimla and hence rejected the eviction petition on this ground.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">16. On a close analysis of the proviso to Section 14(3)(a)(i) of the Act it is clear that a landlord is not entitled to seek eviction of a tenant from residential building even in case of bona fide requirement if the landlord is occupying another residential building owned by him in the urban area concerned. One can read three essential ingredients in this proviso i.e. (i) that the landlord is in occupation of another residential building; (ii) that the said residential building is owned by him and (iii) that the said residential building is situated in the concerned urban area.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">17. The question that arises is what is the impact of the landlord not making a disclosure in respect of premises which he is occupying but are not owned by him.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">18. The Apex Court in Onkar Nath v. Ved Vyas ILR 1979 HP 1, held as follows:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">It is common ground that there are three requirements to make out a cause of action for eviction under that provision, and indeed this is apparent from a bare reading of the sub-section. In the present case the finding is to the effect that the landlord requires the residential building for his own occupation. But, the legislation has taken care to insist upon two more conditions, namely; (a) that the landlord is not occupying any other residential building in the area concerned; and (b) that he has not vacated such a building without sufficient cause. There is not a scintilla of evidence nor indeed there is any averment in compliance with these latter conditions. The necessary consequence follows that not merely is there inadequacy of pleadings sufficient to make out a cause of action but total absence of proof of two vital requirements....</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The Supreme Court also said that:.The statute benignly designed to protect tenants from unreasonable evictions has taken case to put restrictions which must be rigorously construed to fulfil the purpose of the statute.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">19. Following the aforesaid judgment and other pronouncements of the Apex Court, a learned Single Judge of this Court in Tara Chand Sharma v. Baij Nath and Ors. 1992 (2) R.C.J. 323, held as follows:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">16. What appears as the legislative intent, in bold relief, is that the landlord, while seeking eviction of a tenant on the ground that he needs a residential building for his own occupation, must come out clearly and honestly with facts relating to the requirement that he is not occupying another residential building owned by him, in the urban area concerned and that he had not vacated such a building without sufficient cause within five years of the filing of the application, in the said urban area. The primal burden of making a clear disclosure would lie upon the landlord, for, the true facts would be in his special knowledge. An order in his favour by the Rent Controller would depend upon the satisfaction of the Rent Controller in regard not only to the claim that the landlord requires the accommodation, from which he wishes to evict a tenant, for his own occupation but also that he was not occupying another residential building owned by him nor had he vacated such building without sufficient cause within five years of the filing of the application in the application in the urban area concerned....</p><p style="text-align: justify;">It was further held as under:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">18. That the landlord should make a full disclosure of the relevant facts, pertaining to the requirements of Sub-section (3)(a)(i) and the two provisos, becomes all the more necessary because the satisfaction of the Rent Controller in regard thereto is the condition precedent for the making of an order in favour of the landlord....</p><p style="text-align: justify;">20. The aforesaid judgment has been followed in a number of other cases including Vijay Kapoor v. Maya Ram 1997 (2) RCR 437, wherein another learned single Judge of this Court following the aforesaid judgment held that the landlord must make complete and proper disclosure of all the material facts.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">21. On the other hand Sh. Ramakant Sharma has relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in Ram Narain Arora v. Asha Rani 1998(2) RCR 268. In that case the Rent Controller came to the conclusion that the landlord had suppressed material information and had not disclosed the fact that he was already in occupation of a house in Subji Mandi. Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act reads as follows:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Section 14(1)(e). That the premises let for residential purposes are required bona fide by the landlord for occupation as a residence for himself or for any member of his family dependent on him, if he is the owner thereof, or for any person for whose benefit the premises are held and that the landlord or such person has no other reasonably suitable residential accommodation.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">22. The difference between Delhi Act and the present Act is that under the Delhi Act the only requirement is that the landlord has no other reasonably suitable accommodation whereas under the Himachal Act the residential premises are required to be owned by the landlord. The Apex Court in Rama Narain Arora's case (supra) held that the nondisclosure of the fact that the landlord was in occupation of certain premises in Subji Mandi was.not a ground to non-suit the landlord in view of the facts and circumstances of the case. The Apex Court held as follows:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. In making a claim that the suit premises is required bona fide for his own occupation as a residence for himself and other members of his family dependent on him and that he has no other reasonably suitable accommodation is a requirement of law before the Court can state whether the landlord requires the premises bona fide for his use and occupation. In doing so, the Court must also find out whether the landlord or such other person for whose benefit the premises is required has no other reasonably suitable residential accommodation. It cannot be said that the requirement of the landlord is not intermixed with the question of finding out whether he has any other reasonably suitable accommodation. If he has other reasonably suitable accommodation, ihen necessarily it would mean that he does not require the suit premises and his requirement may not be bona fide. In such circumstances further inquiry would be whether that premises is more suitable than the suit premises. Therefore, the questions raised before the Court would not necessarily depend upon only the pleadings. It could be a good defence that the landlord has other reasonably suitable residential accommodation and thereby defend the claim of the landlord.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. There cannot be a pedantic or a dogmatic approach in the matter of analysis of pleadings or of the evidence adduced thereto. It is no doubt true that if the pleadings are clearly set out, it would be easy for the Court to decide the matters. But if the pleadings are lacking or vague and if both parties have understood what was the case pleaded and put forth with reference to requirement of law and placed such material before the Court, neither party is prejudiced. If we analyse from this angle, we do not think that the High Court was not justified in interfering with the order made by the Rent Controller.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">23. From the perusal of the judgment of the Apex Court it is apparent that the Rent Controller must approach the matter in a practical manner. In case the non-disclosure is such as that it goes to the very root of the case the Rent Controller would be justified in non-suiting the landlord. However, if the non-disclosure is such that it would not prejudice the rights of the respondent then the landlord should not be non-suited only on this ground.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">24. The decisions of this Court cited hereinabove were delivered prior to the judgment delivered by the Apex Court in Ram Nar'ain Arora's case. Further more both in Tara Chand Sharma's case and Vijay Kapoor's case decided by this Court, no averment had been made ixi respect of other residential buildings owned by a landlord. There was complete non-disclosure as to whether any such residential building owned by the landlord was in his possession or not. In the present case, as I have held above, the residential premises at 31, The Mall, Shimla was not owned by the landlord and hence these two earlier judgments of this Court are distinguishable on facts also.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">25. In the present case, the landlord has been non-suited only on the ground that he did not disclose the fact that he was in occupation of certain premises on the Mall Road. Under law he was not required to disclose this fact. He was only required to disclose the factum of occupying another residential building owned by him in the urban area concerned. True it may be, that it would have been better if the landlord had disclosed all the facts but non-disclosure of a fact which he was not under law required to disclose could not in my opinion be a ground to dismiss his eviction petition.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">26. However, what are the premises in his occupation even as a tenant can be taken into consideration while deciding the question whether he bona fide requires the demised premises for his personal use or occupation or not.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">27. Lastly comes the question with regard to the bona fide requirement of the landlord. The landlord has no children. According to the landlord as well as his other witnesses i.e. his brother-in-law PW-2 and his wife PW-3, the wife now wants to come back and settle in Shimla. There is no reason to disbelieve their statements. Even according to the evidence led by the tenant the accommodation in possession of the landlord consists of two rooms, kitchen, bath room etc. Admittedly, the landlord is also having his office as an Architect in this building. The landlord belongs to the middle class of the Society. It cannot be expected of a landlord who owns sufficient property to reside in a two room set wherein he also runs his office.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">28. The law by now is well settled that the landlord is the best judge of the suitability of the accommodation required by him. This suitability has however to be judged in the context of reasonable expectations. The landlord and his wife who are both well educated can reasonably be expected to entertain guests and they will have visitors to their house. They would obviously require a drawing room, a bed room and a spare bed room for guests. Even at his residence the landlord may require another room for his professional work. This is the minimum accommodation which they would require. Even if the accommodation possessed by the landlord, though not owned by him, at 31, the Mall, Shimla is taken into consideration such accommodation is not sufficient to meet his requirements since admittedly the landlord is running his profession of Architect from some portion of his these premises.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">29. Keeping in view the entire facts and circumstances, I am of the considered view that the learned Appellate Authority gravely erred in rejecting the eviction petition of the landlord solely on the ground that he had not disclosed the factum of being in possession of the premises at 31, the Mall Shimla. Even though I have held that the said premises are residential premises, in view of the above discussion I hold that the landlord cannot be non-suited only on the ground of his being in possession of such premises since same were not owned by him.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">30. In view of the above discussion, the Revision Petition is allowed, the order of the learned Appellate Authority dated 6.5.2003 is seaside and the order of the Rent Controller dated 22.8.2001 is restored.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">31. Keeping in view the fact that the tenant has been in possession of the premises for a long period he is granted time up to 31st October, 2008 to vacate the premises.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">32. No order as to costs.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '2008(2)ShimLC491',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'Shri S.L. Srivastava',
			'sub' => 'Tenancy',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'shri-arun-bhanwara-vs-s-l-srivastava',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '891084',
		(int) 1 => 'shri-arun-bhanwara-vs-s-l-srivastava'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Shri Arun Bhanwara Vs Shri S L Srivastava - Citation 891084 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '891084',
		'acts' => '',
		'appealno' => '',
		'appellant' => 'Shri Arun Bhanwara',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Shri Arun Bhanwara Vs. Shri S.L. Srivastava',
		'casenote' => ' - CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908.[C.A. No. 5/1908]. Order 14, Rule 2 [As amended by Amending Act of 1976]: [V.K. Gupta, CJ, Deepak Gupta & Surjit Singh, JJ] Preliminary issue of law and fact  Court framing all issues both of law and facts together and also  tried all the issues together, including the issue relating to jurisdiction of Court  Held, Except in situations perceived or warranted under sub-rule (2) of Rule 2 of Order 14 where a  Court in fact frames only issues of law in the first instance and postpones settlement of other issues, clearly and explicitly in situations where the Court has framed all issues together, both of law as well as facts and has also tried all these issues together, it is not open to the Court to adopt the principle of severability and proceed to decide issues of law first, without taking up simultaneously other issues for decision. This course of action is not available to a Court because sub-rule (1) does not permit the  Court to adopt any such principle of severability and to dispose of a suit only on preliminary issues, or what can be termed as issues of law. Sub-rule (1)  clearly mandates that in a situation contemplated under it, where all the issues have been together and have also been taken up for adjudication during the course of the trial, these must be decided together and the judgment in the suit as a whole must be pronounced by the Court covering all the issues framed in the suit.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => 'Ram Narain Arora v. Asha Rani;',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => '',
		'counseldef' => '',
		'court' => 'Himachal Pradesh',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2008-07-31',
		'deposition' => 'Petition allowed',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => ' Deepak Gupta, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>Deepak Gupta, J.</p><p>1. This Revision Petition under Section 25(5) of the H.P. Urban Rent Control Act, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) is directed against the order of the learned Appellate Authority, Shimla in CMA No. 60-S/14 of 2001 whereby the appeal filed by the respondent (hereinafter referred to as the tenant) has been allowed, the order of the Rent Controller has been set-aside and the petition for eviction filed by the present petitioner (hereinafter referred to as the Landlord) on the ground of personal bona fide requirement has been set-aside.</p><p>2. The undisputed facts are that the landlord is owner of the demised premises situated in building known as Tunnel View, Sanjauli, Shimla-6 consisting of two bed rooms with attached bath room and latrine, drawing-cum-dining room, kitchen and balcony. These premises were purchased by the landlord in the year 1986. Thereafter, the landlord had rented out the premises to one Sh. B.K. Chauhan. According to the landlord, when he got married he requested Sh. B.K. Chauhan to vacate the said premises. Sh. Chauhan vacated the said premises but admittedly the landlord did not occupy the same but rented out the same to the tenant in the year 1990.</p><p>3. In the year 1997 the landlord filed a petition for eviction of the tenant on two grounds; firstly that the tenant is in arrears of rent from 1.11.1990 to 31.7.1997 and secondly that the premises are bona fide required by the landlord for the use and occupation of himself and his family.</p><p>4. This petition was contested by the tenant. After trial, the Rent Controller ordered the eviction of the tenant on two grounds; (i) that the tenant was in arrears of rent from November, 1999 till date of order i.e. 22nd August, 2001 and (ii) that the landlord required the premises for his own use and occupation.</p><p>5. The tenant deposited the rent within the time prescribed. He also filed an appeal challenging the finding on the issue of bona fide requirement. The learned Appellate Authority came to the conclusion that the landlord had not made a proper and full disclosure of facts as required under the provisions of the Act and had withheld material facts from the Court viz. that the landlord was in occupation of residential premises on 31, Mall Road in the urban area of Shimla and as such rejected this petition on this short ground.</p><p>6. Aggrieved by the said order, the landlord has filed the present Revision Petition.</p><p>7. I have heard Sh. Ramakant Sharma, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sh. Bhupinder Gupta, learned senior Counsel for the tenant.</p><p>8. It has been urged on behalf of the landlord that the building which is alleged to be in possession of the landlord i.e. 31, the Mall Shimla is not a residential building and secondly that the building is not owned by him.</p><p>9. On the other hand Sh. Bhupinder Gupta, learned Counsel of the tenant has strenuously urged that the landlord in para 18 has not stated anything about any building being owned by him and has only made an averment that he does not own or possess any other such building within the urban area Shimla. It is contended by Sh. Bhupinder Gupta that the landlord of his own volition did not state anything about the ownership of the building and since he has kept silent about the building which he is in occupation he has made a false averment and therefore his petition for eviction has rightly been rejected.</p><p>10. I am not at all in agreement with the contention of the landlord that the premises known as 31, the Mall Shimla which are admittedly in the occupation of the landlord are commercial premises only and not being used by him for his residence. As pointed out above, the landlord purchased the demised premises in 1986. They fell vacant when he got married despite that he did not occupy the same and rented out the same to the tenant in the year 1990. The question that arises is where was the landlord living for this entire period. According to the landlord after the year 1994 he has been living with his brother-in-law Rajan (wife's brother) PW-2, since the year 1994. Prior to 1994 the landlord will have this Court to believe that he was living off and on with one friend or the other. This story is impossible to believe. The landlord was married in the year 1999. He is an Architect by profession. His wife is a law graduate. It is not believable that such a person would have no permanent abode and would continue to live as a guest with his friends for almost 5 years after his marriage. Even the story that he has been living with his brother-in-law after the year 1994 does not inspire confidence. It stands proved on record that the brother-in-law PW-2 Rajan lives with his own family i.e. wife and children. From the evidence it is also clear that the parents of the brother-in-law also reside with him, His flat consists of only two rooms. The flat in possession of the landlord at 31, the Mall Shimla, also consists of two rooms, kitchen and bath room. Even assuming that he was running an office in the part of the flat it cannot be believed that he would not live on his own flat on the Mall Road and reside with his brother-in-law in cramped premises. Even in the electoral list the landlord is shown to be a resident of 31, The Mall, Shimla. Therefore, I am of the considered view that the building 31, the Mall, Shimla was also being used as a residence by the landlord.</p><p>11. Having held so, the question that arises is whether the landlord can be non-suited only on the ground that he has not made any disclosure about the residential accommodation available with him which premises were admittedly not owned by him.</p><p>12. The short question which arises for decision in this petition is whether the landlord was guilty of suppressing and withholding such relevant facts which would disentitle him from seeking eviction of the tenant. To appreciate these contentions it would be necessary to refer to relevant portion of Section 14(3) of the Act:</p><p>Section 14:</p><p>1 and 2 xxxxxxxxxxx</p><p>(3) A landlord may apply to the Controller for an order directing the tenant to put the landlord in possession-</p><p>(a) in case of residential building, if</p><p>(i) he required it for his own occupation:</p><p>Provided that he is not occupying another residential building owned by him, in the urban area concerned:</p><p>Provided further that he has not vacated such a building without sufficient cause within five years of the filing of the application, in the said urban area....</p><p>13. A perusal of the bare provisions of the Act makes it clear that there are certain essential ingredients which the landlord must satisfy before seeking eviction of the tenant under the Act. Not only must he prove that the residential building is bona fide required by him for his own use and occupation but he must also plead and prove that he is not occupying any other residential building owned by him in the urban area concerned and further that he has not vacated such a building without sufficient cause within 5 years of the filing of the application.</p><p>14. Reference may now be made to the relevant allegations made in para 18 of the eviction petition:</p><p>(ii) That the petitioner bona fide requires the premises for his own use and occupation and also for the use and occupation of his family.</p><p>The petitioner does not own or possess any other such building within the urban area of Simla nor the petitioner has vacated any such premises within five years of the filing of this petition.</p><p>The family of the petitioner presently consists of himself and his wife. Due to paucity of accommodation the petitioner has not been able to keep his wife with himself at Simla, where he is working as an Engineer and she has been residing at Chandigarh since 1991 but on account of her ill health she has been brought to Simla by the petitioner. The petitioner at present is seeking temporary shelter, from time to time, with his relations.</p><p>15. The learned Appellate Authority came to the conclusion that the landlord had falsely pleaded that he does not own or possess any other such building within the urban area of Shimla and hence rejected the eviction petition on this ground.</p><p>16. On a close analysis of the proviso to Section 14(3)(a)(i) of the Act it is clear that a landlord is not entitled to seek eviction of a tenant from residential building even in case of bona fide requirement if the landlord is occupying another residential building owned by him in the urban area concerned. One can read three essential ingredients in this proviso i.e. (i) that the landlord is in occupation of another residential building; (ii) that the said residential building is owned by him and (iii) that the said residential building is situated in the concerned urban area.</p><p>17. The question that arises is what is the impact of the landlord not making a disclosure in respect of premises which he is occupying but are not owned by him.</p><p>18. The Apex Court in Onkar Nath v. Ved Vyas ILR 1979 HP 1, held as follows:</p><p>It is common ground that there are three requirements to make out a cause of action for eviction under that provision, and indeed this is apparent from a bare reading of the sub-section. In the present case the finding is to the effect that the landlord requires the residential building for his own occupation. But, the legislation has taken care to insist upon two more conditions, namely; (a) that the landlord is not occupying any other residential building in the area concerned; and (b) that he has not vacated such a building without sufficient cause. There is not a scintilla of evidence nor indeed there is any averment in compliance with these latter conditions. The necessary consequence follows that not merely is there inadequacy of pleadings sufficient to make out a cause of action but total absence of proof of two vital requirements....</p><p>The Supreme Court also said that:.The statute benignly designed to protect tenants from unreasonable evictions has taken case to put restrictions which must be rigorously construed to fulfil the purpose of the statute.</p><p>19. Following the aforesaid judgment and other pronouncements of the Apex Court, a learned Single Judge of this Court in Tara Chand Sharma v. Baij Nath and Ors. 1992 (2) R.C.J. 323, held as follows:</p><p>16. What appears as the legislative intent, in bold relief, is that the landlord, while seeking eviction of a tenant on the ground that he needs a residential building for his own occupation, must come out clearly and honestly with facts relating to the requirement that he is not occupying another residential building owned by him, in the urban area concerned and that he had not vacated such a building without sufficient cause within five years of the filing of the application, in the said urban area. The primal burden of making a clear disclosure would lie upon the landlord, for, the true facts would be in his special knowledge. An order in his favour by the Rent Controller would depend upon the satisfaction of the Rent Controller in regard not only to the claim that the landlord requires the accommodation, from which he wishes to evict a tenant, for his own occupation but also that he was not occupying another residential building owned by him nor had he vacated such building without sufficient cause within five years of the filing of the application in the application in the urban area concerned....</p><p>It was further held as under:</p><p>18. That the landlord should make a full disclosure of the relevant facts, pertaining to the requirements of Sub-section (3)(a)(i) and the two provisos, becomes all the more necessary because the satisfaction of the Rent Controller in regard thereto is the condition precedent for the making of an order in favour of the landlord....</p><p>20. The aforesaid judgment has been followed in a number of other cases including Vijay Kapoor v. Maya Ram 1997 (2) RCR 437, wherein another learned single Judge of this Court following the aforesaid judgment held that the landlord must make complete and proper disclosure of all the material facts.</p><p>21. On the other hand Sh. Ramakant Sharma has relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in Ram Narain Arora v. Asha Rani 1998(2) RCR 268. In that case the Rent Controller came to the conclusion that the landlord had suppressed material information and had not disclosed the fact that he was already in occupation of a house in Subji Mandi. Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act reads as follows:</p><p>Section 14(1)(e). That the premises let for residential purposes are required bona fide by the landlord for occupation as a residence for himself or for any member of his family dependent on him, if he is the owner thereof, or for any person for whose benefit the premises are held and that the landlord or such person has no other reasonably suitable residential accommodation.</p><p>22. The difference between Delhi Act and the present Act is that under the Delhi Act the only requirement is that the landlord has no other reasonably suitable accommodation whereas under the Himachal Act the residential premises are required to be owned by the landlord. The Apex Court in Rama Narain Arora's case (supra) held that the nondisclosure of the fact that the landlord was in occupation of certain premises in Subji Mandi was.not a ground to non-suit the landlord in view of the facts and circumstances of the case. The Apex Court held as follows:</p><p>9. In making a claim that the suit premises is required bona fide for his own occupation as a residence for himself and other members of his family dependent on him and that he has no other reasonably suitable accommodation is a requirement of law before the Court can state whether the landlord requires the premises bona fide for his use and occupation. In doing so, the Court must also find out whether the landlord or such other person for whose benefit the premises is required has no other reasonably suitable residential accommodation. It cannot be said that the requirement of the landlord is not intermixed with the question of finding out whether he has any other reasonably suitable accommodation. If he has other reasonably suitable accommodation, ihen necessarily it would mean that he does not require the suit premises and his requirement may not be bona fide. In such circumstances further inquiry would be whether that premises is more suitable than the suit premises. Therefore, the questions raised before the Court would not necessarily depend upon only the pleadings. It could be a good defence that the landlord has other reasonably suitable residential accommodation and thereby defend the claim of the landlord.</p><p>10. There cannot be a pedantic or a dogmatic approach in the matter of analysis of pleadings or of the evidence adduced thereto. It is no doubt true that if the pleadings are clearly set out, it would be easy for the Court to decide the matters. But if the pleadings are lacking or vague and if both parties have understood what was the case pleaded and put forth with reference to requirement of law and placed such material before the Court, neither party is prejudiced. If we analyse from this angle, we do not think that the High Court was not justified in interfering with the order made by the Rent Controller.</p><p>23. From the perusal of the judgment of the Apex Court it is apparent that the Rent Controller must approach the matter in a practical manner. In case the non-disclosure is such as that it goes to the very root of the case the Rent Controller would be justified in non-suiting the landlord. However, if the non-disclosure is such that it would not prejudice the rights of the respondent then the landlord should not be non-suited only on this ground.</p><p>24. The decisions of this Court cited hereinabove were delivered prior to the judgment delivered by the Apex Court in Ram Nar'ain Arora's case. Further more both in Tara Chand Sharma's case and Vijay Kapoor's case decided by this Court, no averment had been made ixi respect of other residential buildings owned by a landlord. There was complete non-disclosure as to whether any such residential building owned by the landlord was in his possession or not. In the present case, as I have held above, the residential premises at 31, The Mall, Shimla was not owned by the landlord and hence these two earlier judgments of this Court are distinguishable on facts also.</p><p>25. In the present case, the landlord has been non-suited only on the ground that he did not disclose the fact that he was in occupation of certain premises on the Mall Road. Under law he was not required to disclose this fact. He was only required to disclose the factum of occupying another residential building owned by him in the urban area concerned. True it may be, that it would have been better if the landlord had disclosed all the facts but non-disclosure of a fact which he was not under law required to disclose could not in my opinion be a ground to dismiss his eviction petition.</p><p>26. However, what are the premises in his occupation even as a tenant can be taken into consideration while deciding the question whether he bona fide requires the demised premises for his personal use or occupation or not.</p><p>27. Lastly comes the question with regard to the bona fide requirement of the landlord. The landlord has no children. According to the landlord as well as his other witnesses i.e. his brother-in-law PW-2 and his wife PW-3, the wife now wants to come back and settle in Shimla. There is no reason to disbelieve their statements. Even according to the evidence led by the tenant the accommodation in possession of the landlord consists of two rooms, kitchen, bath room etc. Admittedly, the landlord is also having his office as an Architect in this building. The landlord belongs to the middle class of the Society. It cannot be expected of a landlord who owns sufficient property to reside in a two room set wherein he also runs his office.</p><p>28. The law by now is well settled that the landlord is the best judge of the suitability of the accommodation required by him. This suitability has however to be judged in the context of reasonable expectations. The landlord and his wife who are both well educated can reasonably be expected to entertain guests and they will have visitors to their house. They would obviously require a drawing room, a bed room and a spare bed room for guests. Even at his residence the landlord may require another room for his professional work. This is the minimum accommodation which they would require. Even if the accommodation possessed by the landlord, though not owned by him, at 31, the Mall, Shimla is taken into consideration such accommodation is not sufficient to meet his requirements since admittedly the landlord is running his profession of Architect from some portion of his these premises.</p><p>29. Keeping in view the entire facts and circumstances, I am of the considered view that the learned Appellate Authority gravely erred in rejecting the eviction petition of the landlord solely on the ground that he had not disclosed the factum of being in possession of the premises at 31, the Mall Shimla. Even though I have held that the said premises are residential premises, in view of the above discussion I hold that the landlord cannot be non-suited only on the ground of his being in possession of such premises since same were not owned by him.</p><p>30. In view of the above discussion, the Revision Petition is allowed, the order of the learned Appellate Authority dated 6.5.2003 is seaside and the order of the Rent Controller dated 22.8.2001 is restored.</p><p>31. Keeping in view the fact that the tenant has been in possession of the premises for a long period he is granted time up to 31st October, 2008 to vacate the premises.</p><p>32. No order as to costs.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '2008(2)ShimLC491',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'Shri S.L. Srivastava',
		'sub' => 'Tenancy',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'shri-arun-bhanwara-vs-s-l-srivastava'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '891084',
	(int) 1 => 'shri-arun-bhanwara-vs-s-l-srivastava'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/891084/shri-arun-bhanwara-vs-s-l-srivastava'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$caseref = 'Ram Narain Arora v. Asha Rani<br>'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>Deepak Gupta, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. This Revision Petition under Section 25(5) of the H.P. Urban Rent Control Act, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) is directed against the order of the learned Appellate Authority, Shimla in CMA No. 60-S/14 of 2001 whereby the appeal filed by the respondent (hereinafter referred to as the tenant) has been allowed, the order of the Rent Controller has been set-aside and the petition for eviction filed by the present petitioner (hereinafter referred to as the Landlord) on the ground of personal bona fide requirement has been set-aside.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. The undisputed facts are that the landlord is owner of the demised premises situated in building known as Tunnel View, Sanjauli, Shimla-6 consisting of two bed rooms with attached bath room and latrine, drawing-cum-dining room, kitchen and balcony. These premises were purchased by the landlord in the year 1986. Thereafter, the landlord had rented out the premises to one Sh. B.K. Chauhan. According to the landlord, when he got married he requested Sh. B.K. Chauhan to vacate the said premises. Sh. Chauhan vacated the said premises but admittedly the landlord did not occupy the same but rented out the same to the tenant in the year 1990.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. In the year 1997 the landlord filed a petition for eviction of the tenant on two grounds; firstly that the tenant is in arrears of rent from 1.11.1990 to 31.7.1997 and secondly that the premises are bona fide required by the landlord for the use and occupation of himself and his family.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>4. This petition was contested by the tenant. After trial, the Rent Controller ordered the eviction of the tenant on two grounds; (i) that the tenant was in arrears of rent from November, 1999 till date of order i.e. 22nd August, 2001 and (ii) that the landlord required the premises for his own use and occupation.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>5. The tenant deposited the rent within the time prescribed. He also filed an appeal challenging the finding on the issue of bona fide requirement. The learned Appellate Authority came to the conclusion that the landlord had not made a proper and full disclosure of facts as required under the provisions of the Act and had withheld material facts from the Court viz. that the landlord was in occupation of residential premises on 31, Mall Road in the urban area of Shimla and as such rejected this petition on this short ground.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>6. Aggrieved by the said order, the landlord has filed the present Revision Petition.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>7. I have heard Sh. Ramakant Sharma, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sh. Bhupinder Gupta, learned senior Counsel for the tenant.',
	(int) 8 => '<p>8. It has been urged on behalf of the landlord that the building which is alleged to be in possession of the landlord i.e. 31, the Mall Shimla is not a residential building and secondly that the building is not owned by him.',
	(int) 9 => '<p>9. On the other hand Sh. Bhupinder Gupta, learned Counsel of the tenant has strenuously urged that the landlord in para 18 has not stated anything about any building being owned by him and has only made an averment that he does not own or possess any other such building within the urban area Shimla. It is contended by Sh. Bhupinder Gupta that the landlord of his own volition did not state anything about the ownership of the building and since he has kept silent about the building which he is in occupation he has made a false averment and therefore his petition for eviction has rightly been rejected.',
	(int) 10 => '<p>10. I am not at all in agreement with the contention of the landlord that the premises known as 31, the Mall Shimla which are admittedly in the occupation of the landlord are commercial premises only and not being used by him for his residence. As pointed out above, the landlord purchased the demised premises in 1986. They fell vacant when he got married despite that he did not occupy the same and rented out the same to the tenant in the year 1990. The question that arises is where was the landlord living for this entire period. According to the landlord after the year 1994 he has been living with his brother-in-law Rajan (wife's brother) PW-2, since the year 1994. Prior to 1994 the landlord will have this Court to believe that he was living off and on with one friend or the other. This story is impossible to believe. The landlord was married in the year 1999. He is an Architect by profession. His wife is a law graduate. It is not believable that such a person would have no permanent abode and would continue to live as a guest with his friends for almost 5 years after his marriage. Even the story that he has been living with his brother-in-law after the year 1994 does not inspire confidence. It stands proved on record that the brother-in-law PW-2 Rajan lives with his own family i.e. wife and children. From the evidence it is also clear that the parents of the brother-in-law also reside with him, His flat consists of only two rooms. The flat in possession of the landlord at 31, the Mall Shimla, also consists of two rooms, kitchen and bath room. Even assuming that he was running an office in the part of the flat it cannot be believed that he would not live on his own flat on the Mall Road and reside with his brother-in-law in cramped premises. Even in the electoral list the landlord is shown to be a resident of 31, The Mall, Shimla. Therefore, I am of the considered view that the building 31, the Mall, Shimla was also being used as a residence by the landlord.',
	(int) 11 => '<p>11. Having held so, the question that arises is whether the landlord can be non-suited only on the ground that he has not made any disclosure about the residential accommodation available with him which premises were admittedly not owned by him.',
	(int) 12 => '<p>12. The short question which arises for decision in this petition is whether the landlord was guilty of suppressing and withholding such relevant facts which would disentitle him from seeking eviction of the tenant. To appreciate these contentions it would be necessary to refer to relevant portion of Section 14(3) of the Act:',
	(int) 13 => '<p>Section 14:',
	(int) 14 => '<p>1 and 2 xxxxxxxxxxx',
	(int) 15 => '<p>(3) A landlord may apply to the Controller for an order directing the tenant to put the landlord in possession-',
	(int) 16 => '<p>(a) in case of residential building, if',
	(int) 17 => '<p>(i) he required it for his own occupation:',
	(int) 18 => '<p>Provided that he is not occupying another residential building owned by him, in the urban area concerned:',
	(int) 19 => '<p>Provided further that he has not vacated such a building without sufficient cause within five years of the filing of the application, in the said urban area....',
	(int) 20 => '<p>13. A perusal of the bare provisions of the Act makes it clear that there are certain essential ingredients which the landlord must satisfy before seeking eviction of the tenant under the Act. Not only must he prove that the residential building is bona fide required by him for his own use and occupation but he must also plead and prove that he is not occupying any other residential building owned by him in the urban area concerned and further that he has not vacated such a building without sufficient cause within 5 years of the filing of the application.',
	(int) 21 => '<p>14. Reference may now be made to the relevant allegations made in para 18 of the eviction petition:',
	(int) 22 => '<p>(ii) That the petitioner bona fide requires the premises for his own use and occupation and also for the use and occupation of his family.',
	(int) 23 => '<p>The petitioner does not own or possess any other such building within the urban area of Simla nor the petitioner has vacated any such premises within five years of the filing of this petition.',
	(int) 24 => '<p>The family of the petitioner presently consists of himself and his wife. Due to paucity of accommodation the petitioner has not been able to keep his wife with himself at Simla, where he is working as an Engineer and she has been residing at Chandigarh since 1991 but on account of her ill health she has been brought to Simla by the petitioner. The petitioner at present is seeking temporary shelter, from time to time, with his relations.',
	(int) 25 => '<p>15. The learned Appellate Authority came to the conclusion that the landlord had falsely pleaded that he does not own or possess any other such building within the urban area of Shimla and hence rejected the eviction petition on this ground.',
	(int) 26 => '<p>16. On a close analysis of the proviso to Section 14(3)(a)(i) of the Act it is clear that a landlord is not entitled to seek eviction of a tenant from residential building even in case of bona fide requirement if the landlord is occupying another residential building owned by him in the urban area concerned. One can read three essential ingredients in this proviso i.e. (i) that the landlord is in occupation of another residential building; (ii) that the said residential building is owned by him and (iii) that the said residential building is situated in the concerned urban area.',
	(int) 27 => '<p>17. The question that arises is what is the impact of the landlord not making a disclosure in respect of premises which he is occupying but are not owned by him.',
	(int) 28 => '<p>18. The Apex Court in Onkar Nath v. Ved Vyas ILR 1979 HP 1, held as follows:',
	(int) 29 => '<p>It is common ground that there are three requirements to make out a cause of action for eviction under that provision, and indeed this is apparent from a bare reading of the sub-section. In the present case the finding is to the effect that the landlord requires the residential building for his own occupation. But, the legislation has taken care to insist upon two more conditions, namely; (a) that the landlord is not occupying any other residential building in the area concerned; and (b) that he has not vacated such a building without sufficient cause. There is not a scintilla of evidence nor indeed there is any averment in compliance with these latter conditions. The necessary consequence follows that not merely is there inadequacy of pleadings sufficient to make out a cause of action but total absence of proof of two vital requirements....',
	(int) 30 => '<p>The Supreme Court also said that:.The statute benignly designed to protect tenants from unreasonable evictions has taken case to put restrictions which must be rigorously construed to fulfil the purpose of the statute.',
	(int) 31 => '<p>19. Following the aforesaid judgment and other pronouncements of the Apex Court, a learned Single Judge of this Court in Tara Chand Sharma v. Baij Nath and Ors. 1992 (2) R.C.J. 323, held as follows:',
	(int) 32 => '<p>16. What appears as the legislative intent, in bold relief, is that the landlord, while seeking eviction of a tenant on the ground that he needs a residential building for his own occupation, must come out clearly and honestly with facts relating to the requirement that he is not occupying another residential building owned by him, in the urban area concerned and that he had not vacated such a building without sufficient cause within five years of the filing of the application, in the said urban area. The primal burden of making a clear disclosure would lie upon the landlord, for, the true facts would be in his special knowledge. An order in his favour by the Rent Controller would depend upon the satisfaction of the Rent Controller in regard not only to the claim that the landlord requires the accommodation, from which he wishes to evict a tenant, for his own occupation but also that he was not occupying another residential building owned by him nor had he vacated such building without sufficient cause within five years of the filing of the application in the application in the urban area concerned....',
	(int) 33 => '<p>It was further held as under:',
	(int) 34 => '<p>18. That the landlord should make a full disclosure of the relevant facts, pertaining to the requirements of Sub-section (3)(a)(i) and the two provisos, becomes all the more necessary because the satisfaction of the Rent Controller in regard thereto is the condition precedent for the making of an order in favour of the landlord....',
	(int) 35 => '<p>20. The aforesaid judgment has been followed in a number of other cases including Vijay Kapoor v. Maya Ram 1997 (2) RCR 437, wherein another learned single Judge of this Court following the aforesaid judgment held that the landlord must make complete and proper disclosure of all the material facts.',
	(int) 36 => '<p>21. On the other hand Sh. Ramakant Sharma has relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in Ram Narain Arora v. Asha Rani 1998(2) RCR 268. In that case the Rent Controller came to the conclusion that the landlord had suppressed material information and had not disclosed the fact that he was already in occupation of a house in Subji Mandi. Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act reads as follows:',
	(int) 37 => '<p>Section 14(1)(e). That the premises let for residential purposes are required bona fide by the landlord for occupation as a residence for himself or for any member of his family dependent on him, if he is the owner thereof, or for any person for whose benefit the premises are held and that the landlord or such person has no other reasonably suitable residential accommodation.',
	(int) 38 => '<p>22. The difference between Delhi Act and the present Act is that under the Delhi Act the only requirement is that the landlord has no other reasonably suitable accommodation whereas under the Himachal Act the residential premises are required to be owned by the landlord. The Apex Court in Rama Narain Arora's case (supra) held that the nondisclosure of the fact that the landlord was in occupation of certain premises in Subji Mandi was.not a ground to non-suit the landlord in view of the facts and circumstances of the case. The Apex Court held as follows:',
	(int) 39 => '<p>9. In making a claim that the suit premises is required bona fide for his own occupation as a residence for himself and other members of his family dependent on him and that he has no other reasonably suitable accommodation is a requirement of law before the Court can state whether the landlord requires the premises bona fide for his use and occupation. In doing so, the Court must also find out whether the landlord or such other person for whose benefit the premises is required has no other reasonably suitable residential accommodation. It cannot be said that the requirement of the landlord is not intermixed with the question of finding out whether he has any other reasonably suitable accommodation. If he has other reasonably suitable accommodation, ihen necessarily it would mean that he does not require the suit premises and his requirement may not be bona fide. In such circumstances further inquiry would be whether that premises is more suitable than the suit premises. Therefore, the questions raised before the Court would not necessarily depend upon only the pleadings. It could be a good defence that the landlord has other reasonably suitable residential accommodation and thereby defend the claim of the landlord.',
	(int) 40 => '<p>10. There cannot be a pedantic or a dogmatic approach in the matter of analysis of pleadings or of the evidence adduced thereto. It is no doubt true that if the pleadings are clearly set out, it would be easy for the Court to decide the matters. But if the pleadings are lacking or vague and if both parties have understood what was the case pleaded and put forth with reference to requirement of law and placed such material before the Court, neither party is prejudiced. If we analyse from this angle, we do not think that the High Court was not justified in interfering with the order made by the Rent Controller.',
	(int) 41 => '<p>23. From the perusal of the judgment of the Apex Court it is apparent that the Rent Controller must approach the matter in a practical manner. In case the non-disclosure is such as that it goes to the very root of the case the Rent Controller would be justified in non-suiting the landlord. However, if the non-disclosure is such that it would not prejudice the rights of the respondent then the landlord should not be non-suited only on this ground.',
	(int) 42 => '<p>24. The decisions of this Court cited hereinabove were delivered prior to the judgment delivered by the Apex Court in Ram Nar'ain Arora's case. Further more both in Tara Chand Sharma's case and Vijay Kapoor's case decided by this Court, no averment had been made ixi respect of other residential buildings owned by a landlord. There was complete non-disclosure as to whether any such residential building owned by the landlord was in his possession or not. In the present case, as I have held above, the residential premises at 31, The Mall, Shimla was not owned by the landlord and hence these two earlier judgments of this Court are distinguishable on facts also.',
	(int) 43 => '<p>25. In the present case, the landlord has been non-suited only on the ground that he did not disclose the fact that he was in occupation of certain premises on the Mall Road. Under law he was not required to disclose this fact. He was only required to disclose the factum of occupying another residential building owned by him in the urban area concerned. True it may be, that it would have been better if the landlord had disclosed all the facts but non-disclosure of a fact which he was not under law required to disclose could not in my opinion be a ground to dismiss his eviction petition.',
	(int) 44 => '<p>26. However, what are the premises in his occupation even as a tenant can be taken into consideration while deciding the question whether he bona fide requires the demised premises for his personal use or occupation or not.',
	(int) 45 => '<p>27. Lastly comes the question with regard to the bona fide requirement of the landlord. The landlord has no children. According to the landlord as well as his other witnesses i.e. his brother-in-law PW-2 and his wife PW-3, the wife now wants to come back and settle in Shimla. There is no reason to disbelieve their statements. Even according to the evidence led by the tenant the accommodation in possession of the landlord consists of two rooms, kitchen, bath room etc. Admittedly, the landlord is also having his office as an Architect in this building. The landlord belongs to the middle class of the Society. It cannot be expected of a landlord who owns sufficient property to reside in a two room set wherein he also runs his office.',
	(int) 46 => '<p>28. The law by now is well settled that the landlord is the best judge of the suitability of the accommodation required by him. This suitability has however to be judged in the context of reasonable expectations. The landlord and his wife who are both well educated can reasonably be expected to entertain guests and they will have visitors to their house. They would obviously require a drawing room, a bed room and a spare bed room for guests. Even at his residence the landlord may require another room for his professional work. This is the minimum accommodation which they would require. Even if the accommodation possessed by the landlord, though not owned by him, at 31, the Mall, Shimla is taken into consideration such accommodation is not sufficient to meet his requirements since admittedly the landlord is running his profession of Architect from some portion of his these premises.',
	(int) 47 => '<p>29. Keeping in view the entire facts and circumstances, I am of the considered view that the learned Appellate Authority gravely erred in rejecting the eviction petition of the landlord solely on the ground that he had not disclosed the factum of being in possession of the premises at 31, the Mall Shimla. Even though I have held that the said premises are residential premises, in view of the above discussion I hold that the landlord cannot be non-suited only on the ground of his being in possession of such premises since same were not owned by him.',
	(int) 48 => '<p>30. In view of the above discussion, the Revision Petition is allowed, the order of the learned Appellate Authority dated 6.5.2003 is seaside and the order of the Rent Controller dated 22.8.2001 is restored.',
	(int) 49 => '<p>31. Keeping in view the fact that the tenant has been in possession of the premises for a long period he is granted time up to 31st October, 2008 to vacate the premises.',
	(int) 50 => '<p>32. No order as to costs.<p>',
	(int) 51 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 52
$i = (int) 11
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

11. Having held so, the question that arises is whether the landlord can be non-suited only on the ground that he has not made any disclosure about the residential accommodation available with him which premises were admittedly not owned by him.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Shri Arun Bhanwara Vs Shri S L Srivastava - Citation 891084 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '891084',
			'acts' => '',
			'appealno' => '',
			'appellant' => 'Shri Arun Bhanwara',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Shri Arun Bhanwara Vs. Shri S.L. Srivastava',
			'casenote' => ' - CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908.[C.A. No. 5/1908]. Order 14, Rule 2 [As amended by Amending Act of 1976]: [V.K. Gupta, CJ, Deepak Gupta & Surjit Singh, JJ] Preliminary issue of law and fact  Court framing all issues both of law and facts together and also  tried all the issues together, including the issue relating to jurisdiction of Court  Held, Except in situations perceived or warranted under sub-rule (2) of Rule 2 of Order 14 where a  Court in fact frames only issues of law in the first instance and postpones settlement of other issues, clearly and explicitly in situations where the Court has framed all issues together, both of law as well as facts and has also tried all these issues together, it is not open to the Court to adopt the principle of severability and proceed to decide issues of law first, without taking up simultaneously other issues for decision. This course of action is not available to a Court because sub-rule (1) does not permit the  Court to adopt any such principle of severability and to dispose of a suit only on preliminary issues, or what can be termed as issues of law. Sub-rule (1)  clearly mandates that in a situation contemplated under it, where all the issues have been together and have also been taken up for adjudication during the course of the trial, these must be decided together and the judgment in the suit as a whole must be pronounced by the Court covering all the issues framed in the suit.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => 'Ram Narain Arora v. Asha Rani;',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => '',
			'counseldef' => '',
			'court' => 'Himachal Pradesh',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2008-07-31',
			'deposition' => 'Petition allowed',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => ' Deepak Gupta, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">Deepak Gupta, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. This Revision Petition under Section 25(5) of the H.P. Urban Rent Control Act, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) is directed against the order of the learned Appellate Authority, Shimla in CMA No. 60-S/14 of 2001 whereby the appeal filed by the respondent (hereinafter referred to as the tenant) has been allowed, the order of the Rent Controller has been set-aside and the petition for eviction filed by the present petitioner (hereinafter referred to as the Landlord) on the ground of personal bona fide requirement has been set-aside.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The undisputed facts are that the landlord is owner of the demised premises situated in building known as Tunnel View, Sanjauli, Shimla-6 consisting of two bed rooms with attached bath room and latrine, drawing-cum-dining room, kitchen and balcony. These premises were purchased by the landlord in the year 1986. Thereafter, the landlord had rented out the premises to one Sh. B.K. Chauhan. According to the landlord, when he got married he requested Sh. B.K. Chauhan to vacate the said premises. Sh. Chauhan vacated the said premises but admittedly the landlord did not occupy the same but rented out the same to the tenant in the year 1990.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. In the year 1997 the landlord filed a petition for eviction of the tenant on two grounds; firstly that the tenant is in arrears of rent from 1.11.1990 to 31.7.1997 and secondly that the premises are bona fide required by the landlord for the use and occupation of himself and his family.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. This petition was contested by the tenant. After trial, the Rent Controller ordered the eviction of the tenant on two grounds; (i) that the tenant was in arrears of rent from November, 1999 till date of order i.e. 22nd August, 2001 and (ii) that the landlord required the premises for his own use and occupation.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. The tenant deposited the rent within the time prescribed. He also filed an appeal challenging the finding on the issue of bona fide requirement. The learned Appellate Authority came to the conclusion that the landlord had not made a proper and full disclosure of facts as required under the provisions of the Act and had withheld material facts from the Court viz. that the landlord was in occupation of residential premises on 31, Mall Road in the urban area of Shimla and as such rejected this petition on this short ground.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. Aggrieved by the said order, the landlord has filed the present Revision Petition.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. I have heard Sh. Ramakant Sharma, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sh. Bhupinder Gupta, learned senior Counsel for the tenant.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. It has been urged on behalf of the landlord that the building which is alleged to be in possession of the landlord i.e. 31, the Mall Shimla is not a residential building and secondly that the building is not owned by him.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. On the other hand Sh. Bhupinder Gupta, learned Counsel of the tenant has strenuously urged that the landlord in para 18 has not stated anything about any building being owned by him and has only made an averment that he does not own or possess any other such building within the urban area Shimla. It is contended by Sh. Bhupinder Gupta that the landlord of his own volition did not state anything about the ownership of the building and since he has kept silent about the building which he is in occupation he has made a false averment and therefore his petition for eviction has rightly been rejected.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. I am not at all in agreement with the contention of the landlord that the premises known as 31, the Mall Shimla which are admittedly in the occupation of the landlord are commercial premises only and not being used by him for his residence. As pointed out above, the landlord purchased the demised premises in 1986. They fell vacant when he got married despite that he did not occupy the same and rented out the same to the tenant in the year 1990. The question that arises is where was the landlord living for this entire period. According to the landlord after the year 1994 he has been living with his brother-in-law Rajan (wife's brother) PW-2, since the year 1994. Prior to 1994 the landlord will have this Court to believe that he was living off and on with one friend or the other. This story is impossible to believe. The landlord was married in the year 1999. He is an Architect by profession. His wife is a law graduate. It is not believable that such a person would have no permanent abode and would continue to live as a guest with his friends for almost 5 years after his marriage. Even the story that he has been living with his brother-in-law after the year 1994 does not inspire confidence. It stands proved on record that the brother-in-law PW-2 Rajan lives with his own family i.e. wife and children. From the evidence it is also clear that the parents of the brother-in-law also reside with him, His flat consists of only two rooms. The flat in possession of the landlord at 31, the Mall Shimla, also consists of two rooms, kitchen and bath room. Even assuming that he was running an office in the part of the flat it cannot be believed that he would not live on his own flat on the Mall Road and reside with his brother-in-law in cramped premises. Even in the electoral list the landlord is shown to be a resident of 31, The Mall, Shimla. Therefore, I am of the considered view that the building 31, the Mall, Shimla was also being used as a residence by the landlord.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. Having held so, the question that arises is whether the landlord can be non-suited only on the ground that he has not made any disclosure about the residential accommodation available with him which premises were admittedly not owned by him.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. The short question which arises for decision in this petition is whether the landlord was guilty of suppressing and withholding such relevant facts which would disentitle him from seeking eviction of the tenant. To appreciate these contentions it would be necessary to refer to relevant portion of Section 14(3) of the Act:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Section 14:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1 and 2 xxxxxxxxxxx</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(3) A landlord may apply to the Controller for an order directing the tenant to put the landlord in possession-</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(a) in case of residential building, if</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(i) he required it for his own occupation:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Provided that he is not occupying another residential building owned by him, in the urban area concerned:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Provided further that he has not vacated such a building without sufficient cause within five years of the filing of the application, in the said urban area....</p><p style="text-align: justify;">13. A perusal of the bare provisions of the Act makes it clear that there are certain essential ingredients which the landlord must satisfy before seeking eviction of the tenant under the Act. Not only must he prove that the residential building is bona fide required by him for his own use and occupation but he must also plead and prove that he is not occupying any other residential building owned by him in the urban area concerned and further that he has not vacated such a building without sufficient cause within 5 years of the filing of the application.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">14. Reference may now be made to the relevant allegations made in para 18 of the eviction petition:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(ii) That the petitioner bona fide requires the premises for his own use and occupation and also for the use and occupation of his family.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The petitioner does not own or possess any other such building within the urban area of Simla nor the petitioner has vacated any such premises within five years of the filing of this petition.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The family of the petitioner presently consists of himself and his wife. Due to paucity of accommodation the petitioner has not been able to keep his wife with himself at Simla, where he is working as an Engineer and she has been residing at Chandigarh since 1991 but on account of her ill health she has been brought to Simla by the petitioner. The petitioner at present is seeking temporary shelter, from time to time, with his relations.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">15. The learned Appellate Authority came to the conclusion that the landlord had falsely pleaded that he does not own or possess any other such building within the urban area of Shimla and hence rejected the eviction petition on this ground.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">16. On a close analysis of the proviso to Section 14(3)(a)(i) of the Act it is clear that a landlord is not entitled to seek eviction of a tenant from residential building even in case of bona fide requirement if the landlord is occupying another residential building owned by him in the urban area concerned. One can read three essential ingredients in this proviso i.e. (i) that the landlord is in occupation of another residential building; (ii) that the said residential building is owned by him and (iii) that the said residential building is situated in the concerned urban area.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">17. The question that arises is what is the impact of the landlord not making a disclosure in respect of premises which he is occupying but are not owned by him.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">18. The Apex Court in Onkar Nath v. Ved Vyas ILR 1979 HP 1, held as follows:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">It is common ground that there are three requirements to make out a cause of action for eviction under that provision, and indeed this is apparent from a bare reading of the sub-section. In the present case the finding is to the effect that the landlord requires the residential building for his own occupation. But, the legislation has taken care to insist upon two more conditions, namely; (a) that the landlord is not occupying any other residential building in the area concerned; and (b) that he has not vacated such a building without sufficient cause. There is not a scintilla of evidence nor indeed there is any averment in compliance with these latter conditions. The necessary consequence follows that not merely is there inadequacy of pleadings sufficient to make out a cause of action but total absence of proof of two vital requirements....</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The Supreme Court also said that:.The statute benignly designed to protect tenants from unreasonable evictions has taken case to put restrictions which must be rigorously construed to fulfil the purpose of the statute.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">19. Following the aforesaid judgment and other pronouncements of the Apex Court, a learned Single Judge of this Court in Tara Chand Sharma v. Baij Nath and Ors. 1992 (2) R.C.J. 323, held as follows:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">16. What appears as the legislative intent, in bold relief, is that the landlord, while seeking eviction of a tenant on the ground that he needs a residential building for his own occupation, must come out clearly and honestly with facts relating to the requirement that he is not occupying another residential building owned by him, in the urban area concerned and that he had not vacated such a building without sufficient cause within five years of the filing of the application, in the said urban area. The primal burden of making a clear disclosure would lie upon the landlord, for, the true facts would be in his special knowledge. An order in his favour by the Rent Controller would depend upon the satisfaction of the Rent Controller in regard not only to the claim that the landlord requires the accommodation, from which he wishes to evict a tenant, for his own occupation but also that he was not occupying another residential building owned by him nor had he vacated such building without sufficient cause within five years of the filing of the application in the application in the urban area concerned....</p><p style="text-align: justify;">It was further held as under:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">18. That the landlord should make a full disclosure of the relevant facts, pertaining to the requirements of Sub-section (3)(a)(i) and the two provisos, becomes all the more necessary because the satisfaction of the Rent Controller in regard thereto is the condition precedent for the making of an order in favour of the landlord....</p><p style="text-align: justify;">20. The aforesaid judgment has been followed in a number of other cases including Vijay Kapoor v. Maya Ram 1997 (2) RCR 437, wherein another learned single Judge of this Court following the aforesaid judgment held that the landlord must make complete and proper disclosure of all the material facts.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">21. On the other hand Sh. Ramakant Sharma has relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in Ram Narain Arora v. Asha Rani 1998(2) RCR 268. In that case the Rent Controller came to the conclusion that the landlord had suppressed material information and had not disclosed the fact that he was already in occupation of a house in Subji Mandi. Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act reads as follows:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Section 14(1)(e). That the premises let for residential purposes are required bona fide by the landlord for occupation as a residence for himself or for any member of his family dependent on him, if he is the owner thereof, or for any person for whose benefit the premises are held and that the landlord or such person has no other reasonably suitable residential accommodation.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">22. The difference between Delhi Act and the present Act is that under the Delhi Act the only requirement is that the landlord has no other reasonably suitable accommodation whereas under the Himachal Act the residential premises are required to be owned by the landlord. The Apex Court in Rama Narain Arora's case (supra) held that the nondisclosure of the fact that the landlord was in occupation of certain premises in Subji Mandi was.not a ground to non-suit the landlord in view of the facts and circumstances of the case. The Apex Court held as follows:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. In making a claim that the suit premises is required bona fide for his own occupation as a residence for himself and other members of his family dependent on him and that he has no other reasonably suitable accommodation is a requirement of law before the Court can state whether the landlord requires the premises bona fide for his use and occupation. In doing so, the Court must also find out whether the landlord or such other person for whose benefit the premises is required has no other reasonably suitable residential accommodation. It cannot be said that the requirement of the landlord is not intermixed with the question of finding out whether he has any other reasonably suitable accommodation. If he has other reasonably suitable accommodation, ihen necessarily it would mean that he does not require the suit premises and his requirement may not be bona fide. In such circumstances further inquiry would be whether that premises is more suitable than the suit premises. Therefore, the questions raised before the Court would not necessarily depend upon only the pleadings. It could be a good defence that the landlord has other reasonably suitable residential accommodation and thereby defend the claim of the landlord.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. There cannot be a pedantic or a dogmatic approach in the matter of analysis of pleadings or of the evidence adduced thereto. It is no doubt true that if the pleadings are clearly set out, it would be easy for the Court to decide the matters. But if the pleadings are lacking or vague and if both parties have understood what was the case pleaded and put forth with reference to requirement of law and placed such material before the Court, neither party is prejudiced. If we analyse from this angle, we do not think that the High Court was not justified in interfering with the order made by the Rent Controller.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">23. From the perusal of the judgment of the Apex Court it is apparent that the Rent Controller must approach the matter in a practical manner. In case the non-disclosure is such as that it goes to the very root of the case the Rent Controller would be justified in non-suiting the landlord. However, if the non-disclosure is such that it would not prejudice the rights of the respondent then the landlord should not be non-suited only on this ground.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">24. The decisions of this Court cited hereinabove were delivered prior to the judgment delivered by the Apex Court in Ram Nar'ain Arora's case. Further more both in Tara Chand Sharma's case and Vijay Kapoor's case decided by this Court, no averment had been made ixi respect of other residential buildings owned by a landlord. There was complete non-disclosure as to whether any such residential building owned by the landlord was in his possession or not. In the present case, as I have held above, the residential premises at 31, The Mall, Shimla was not owned by the landlord and hence these two earlier judgments of this Court are distinguishable on facts also.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">25. In the present case, the landlord has been non-suited only on the ground that he did not disclose the fact that he was in occupation of certain premises on the Mall Road. Under law he was not required to disclose this fact. He was only required to disclose the factum of occupying another residential building owned by him in the urban area concerned. True it may be, that it would have been better if the landlord had disclosed all the facts but non-disclosure of a fact which he was not under law required to disclose could not in my opinion be a ground to dismiss his eviction petition.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">26. However, what are the premises in his occupation even as a tenant can be taken into consideration while deciding the question whether he bona fide requires the demised premises for his personal use or occupation or not.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">27. Lastly comes the question with regard to the bona fide requirement of the landlord. The landlord has no children. According to the landlord as well as his other witnesses i.e. his brother-in-law PW-2 and his wife PW-3, the wife now wants to come back and settle in Shimla. There is no reason to disbelieve their statements. Even according to the evidence led by the tenant the accommodation in possession of the landlord consists of two rooms, kitchen, bath room etc. Admittedly, the landlord is also having his office as an Architect in this building. The landlord belongs to the middle class of the Society. It cannot be expected of a landlord who owns sufficient property to reside in a two room set wherein he also runs his office.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">28. The law by now is well settled that the landlord is the best judge of the suitability of the accommodation required by him. This suitability has however to be judged in the context of reasonable expectations. The landlord and his wife who are both well educated can reasonably be expected to entertain guests and they will have visitors to their house. They would obviously require a drawing room, a bed room and a spare bed room for guests. Even at his residence the landlord may require another room for his professional work. This is the minimum accommodation which they would require. Even if the accommodation possessed by the landlord, though not owned by him, at 31, the Mall, Shimla is taken into consideration such accommodation is not sufficient to meet his requirements since admittedly the landlord is running his profession of Architect from some portion of his these premises.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">29. Keeping in view the entire facts and circumstances, I am of the considered view that the learned Appellate Authority gravely erred in rejecting the eviction petition of the landlord solely on the ground that he had not disclosed the factum of being in possession of the premises at 31, the Mall Shimla. Even though I have held that the said premises are residential premises, in view of the above discussion I hold that the landlord cannot be non-suited only on the ground of his being in possession of such premises since same were not owned by him.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">30. In view of the above discussion, the Revision Petition is allowed, the order of the learned Appellate Authority dated 6.5.2003 is seaside and the order of the Rent Controller dated 22.8.2001 is restored.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">31. Keeping in view the fact that the tenant has been in possession of the premises for a long period he is granted time up to 31st October, 2008 to vacate the premises.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">32. No order as to costs.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '2008(2)ShimLC491',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'Shri S.L. Srivastava',
			'sub' => 'Tenancy',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'shri-arun-bhanwara-vs-s-l-srivastava',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '891084',
		(int) 1 => 'shri-arun-bhanwara-vs-s-l-srivastava'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Shri Arun Bhanwara Vs Shri S L Srivastava - Citation 891084 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '891084',
		'acts' => '',
		'appealno' => '',
		'appellant' => 'Shri Arun Bhanwara',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Shri Arun Bhanwara Vs. Shri S.L. Srivastava',
		'casenote' => ' - CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908.[C.A. No. 5/1908]. Order 14, Rule 2 [As amended by Amending Act of 1976]: [V.K. Gupta, CJ, Deepak Gupta & Surjit Singh, JJ] Preliminary issue of law and fact  Court framing all issues both of law and facts together and also  tried all the issues together, including the issue relating to jurisdiction of Court  Held, Except in situations perceived or warranted under sub-rule (2) of Rule 2 of Order 14 where a  Court in fact frames only issues of law in the first instance and postpones settlement of other issues, clearly and explicitly in situations where the Court has framed all issues together, both of law as well as facts and has also tried all these issues together, it is not open to the Court to adopt the principle of severability and proceed to decide issues of law first, without taking up simultaneously other issues for decision. This course of action is not available to a Court because sub-rule (1) does not permit the  Court to adopt any such principle of severability and to dispose of a suit only on preliminary issues, or what can be termed as issues of law. Sub-rule (1)  clearly mandates that in a situation contemplated under it, where all the issues have been together and have also been taken up for adjudication during the course of the trial, these must be decided together and the judgment in the suit as a whole must be pronounced by the Court covering all the issues framed in the suit.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => 'Ram Narain Arora v. Asha Rani;',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => '',
		'counseldef' => '',
		'court' => 'Himachal Pradesh',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2008-07-31',
		'deposition' => 'Petition allowed',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => ' Deepak Gupta, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>Deepak Gupta, J.</p><p>1. This Revision Petition under Section 25(5) of the H.P. Urban Rent Control Act, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) is directed against the order of the learned Appellate Authority, Shimla in CMA No. 60-S/14 of 2001 whereby the appeal filed by the respondent (hereinafter referred to as the tenant) has been allowed, the order of the Rent Controller has been set-aside and the petition for eviction filed by the present petitioner (hereinafter referred to as the Landlord) on the ground of personal bona fide requirement has been set-aside.</p><p>2. The undisputed facts are that the landlord is owner of the demised premises situated in building known as Tunnel View, Sanjauli, Shimla-6 consisting of two bed rooms with attached bath room and latrine, drawing-cum-dining room, kitchen and balcony. These premises were purchased by the landlord in the year 1986. Thereafter, the landlord had rented out the premises to one Sh. B.K. Chauhan. According to the landlord, when he got married he requested Sh. B.K. Chauhan to vacate the said premises. Sh. Chauhan vacated the said premises but admittedly the landlord did not occupy the same but rented out the same to the tenant in the year 1990.</p><p>3. In the year 1997 the landlord filed a petition for eviction of the tenant on two grounds; firstly that the tenant is in arrears of rent from 1.11.1990 to 31.7.1997 and secondly that the premises are bona fide required by the landlord for the use and occupation of himself and his family.</p><p>4. This petition was contested by the tenant. After trial, the Rent Controller ordered the eviction of the tenant on two grounds; (i) that the tenant was in arrears of rent from November, 1999 till date of order i.e. 22nd August, 2001 and (ii) that the landlord required the premises for his own use and occupation.</p><p>5. The tenant deposited the rent within the time prescribed. He also filed an appeal challenging the finding on the issue of bona fide requirement. The learned Appellate Authority came to the conclusion that the landlord had not made a proper and full disclosure of facts as required under the provisions of the Act and had withheld material facts from the Court viz. that the landlord was in occupation of residential premises on 31, Mall Road in the urban area of Shimla and as such rejected this petition on this short ground.</p><p>6. Aggrieved by the said order, the landlord has filed the present Revision Petition.</p><p>7. I have heard Sh. Ramakant Sharma, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sh. Bhupinder Gupta, learned senior Counsel for the tenant.</p><p>8. It has been urged on behalf of the landlord that the building which is alleged to be in possession of the landlord i.e. 31, the Mall Shimla is not a residential building and secondly that the building is not owned by him.</p><p>9. On the other hand Sh. Bhupinder Gupta, learned Counsel of the tenant has strenuously urged that the landlord in para 18 has not stated anything about any building being owned by him and has only made an averment that he does not own or possess any other such building within the urban area Shimla. It is contended by Sh. Bhupinder Gupta that the landlord of his own volition did not state anything about the ownership of the building and since he has kept silent about the building which he is in occupation he has made a false averment and therefore his petition for eviction has rightly been rejected.</p><p>10. I am not at all in agreement with the contention of the landlord that the premises known as 31, the Mall Shimla which are admittedly in the occupation of the landlord are commercial premises only and not being used by him for his residence. As pointed out above, the landlord purchased the demised premises in 1986. They fell vacant when he got married despite that he did not occupy the same and rented out the same to the tenant in the year 1990. The question that arises is where was the landlord living for this entire period. According to the landlord after the year 1994 he has been living with his brother-in-law Rajan (wife's brother) PW-2, since the year 1994. Prior to 1994 the landlord will have this Court to believe that he was living off and on with one friend or the other. This story is impossible to believe. The landlord was married in the year 1999. He is an Architect by profession. His wife is a law graduate. It is not believable that such a person would have no permanent abode and would continue to live as a guest with his friends for almost 5 years after his marriage. Even the story that he has been living with his brother-in-law after the year 1994 does not inspire confidence. It stands proved on record that the brother-in-law PW-2 Rajan lives with his own family i.e. wife and children. From the evidence it is also clear that the parents of the brother-in-law also reside with him, His flat consists of only two rooms. The flat in possession of the landlord at 31, the Mall Shimla, also consists of two rooms, kitchen and bath room. Even assuming that he was running an office in the part of the flat it cannot be believed that he would not live on his own flat on the Mall Road and reside with his brother-in-law in cramped premises. Even in the electoral list the landlord is shown to be a resident of 31, The Mall, Shimla. Therefore, I am of the considered view that the building 31, the Mall, Shimla was also being used as a residence by the landlord.</p><p>11. Having held so, the question that arises is whether the landlord can be non-suited only on the ground that he has not made any disclosure about the residential accommodation available with him which premises were admittedly not owned by him.</p><p>12. The short question which arises for decision in this petition is whether the landlord was guilty of suppressing and withholding such relevant facts which would disentitle him from seeking eviction of the tenant. To appreciate these contentions it would be necessary to refer to relevant portion of Section 14(3) of the Act:</p><p>Section 14:</p><p>1 and 2 xxxxxxxxxxx</p><p>(3) A landlord may apply to the Controller for an order directing the tenant to put the landlord in possession-</p><p>(a) in case of residential building, if</p><p>(i) he required it for his own occupation:</p><p>Provided that he is not occupying another residential building owned by him, in the urban area concerned:</p><p>Provided further that he has not vacated such a building without sufficient cause within five years of the filing of the application, in the said urban area....</p><p>13. A perusal of the bare provisions of the Act makes it clear that there are certain essential ingredients which the landlord must satisfy before seeking eviction of the tenant under the Act. Not only must he prove that the residential building is bona fide required by him for his own use and occupation but he must also plead and prove that he is not occupying any other residential building owned by him in the urban area concerned and further that he has not vacated such a building without sufficient cause within 5 years of the filing of the application.</p><p>14. Reference may now be made to the relevant allegations made in para 18 of the eviction petition:</p><p>(ii) That the petitioner bona fide requires the premises for his own use and occupation and also for the use and occupation of his family.</p><p>The petitioner does not own or possess any other such building within the urban area of Simla nor the petitioner has vacated any such premises within five years of the filing of this petition.</p><p>The family of the petitioner presently consists of himself and his wife. Due to paucity of accommodation the petitioner has not been able to keep his wife with himself at Simla, where he is working as an Engineer and she has been residing at Chandigarh since 1991 but on account of her ill health she has been brought to Simla by the petitioner. The petitioner at present is seeking temporary shelter, from time to time, with his relations.</p><p>15. The learned Appellate Authority came to the conclusion that the landlord had falsely pleaded that he does not own or possess any other such building within the urban area of Shimla and hence rejected the eviction petition on this ground.</p><p>16. On a close analysis of the proviso to Section 14(3)(a)(i) of the Act it is clear that a landlord is not entitled to seek eviction of a tenant from residential building even in case of bona fide requirement if the landlord is occupying another residential building owned by him in the urban area concerned. One can read three essential ingredients in this proviso i.e. (i) that the landlord is in occupation of another residential building; (ii) that the said residential building is owned by him and (iii) that the said residential building is situated in the concerned urban area.</p><p>17. The question that arises is what is the impact of the landlord not making a disclosure in respect of premises which he is occupying but are not owned by him.</p><p>18. The Apex Court in Onkar Nath v. Ved Vyas ILR 1979 HP 1, held as follows:</p><p>It is common ground that there are three requirements to make out a cause of action for eviction under that provision, and indeed this is apparent from a bare reading of the sub-section. In the present case the finding is to the effect that the landlord requires the residential building for his own occupation. But, the legislation has taken care to insist upon two more conditions, namely; (a) that the landlord is not occupying any other residential building in the area concerned; and (b) that he has not vacated such a building without sufficient cause. There is not a scintilla of evidence nor indeed there is any averment in compliance with these latter conditions. The necessary consequence follows that not merely is there inadequacy of pleadings sufficient to make out a cause of action but total absence of proof of two vital requirements....</p><p>The Supreme Court also said that:.The statute benignly designed to protect tenants from unreasonable evictions has taken case to put restrictions which must be rigorously construed to fulfil the purpose of the statute.</p><p>19. Following the aforesaid judgment and other pronouncements of the Apex Court, a learned Single Judge of this Court in Tara Chand Sharma v. Baij Nath and Ors. 1992 (2) R.C.J. 323, held as follows:</p><p>16. What appears as the legislative intent, in bold relief, is that the landlord, while seeking eviction of a tenant on the ground that he needs a residential building for his own occupation, must come out clearly and honestly with facts relating to the requirement that he is not occupying another residential building owned by him, in the urban area concerned and that he had not vacated such a building without sufficient cause within five years of the filing of the application, in the said urban area. The primal burden of making a clear disclosure would lie upon the landlord, for, the true facts would be in his special knowledge. An order in his favour by the Rent Controller would depend upon the satisfaction of the Rent Controller in regard not only to the claim that the landlord requires the accommodation, from which he wishes to evict a tenant, for his own occupation but also that he was not occupying another residential building owned by him nor had he vacated such building without sufficient cause within five years of the filing of the application in the application in the urban area concerned....</p><p>It was further held as under:</p><p>18. That the landlord should make a full disclosure of the relevant facts, pertaining to the requirements of Sub-section (3)(a)(i) and the two provisos, becomes all the more necessary because the satisfaction of the Rent Controller in regard thereto is the condition precedent for the making of an order in favour of the landlord....</p><p>20. The aforesaid judgment has been followed in a number of other cases including Vijay Kapoor v. Maya Ram 1997 (2) RCR 437, wherein another learned single Judge of this Court following the aforesaid judgment held that the landlord must make complete and proper disclosure of all the material facts.</p><p>21. On the other hand Sh. Ramakant Sharma has relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in Ram Narain Arora v. Asha Rani 1998(2) RCR 268. In that case the Rent Controller came to the conclusion that the landlord had suppressed material information and had not disclosed the fact that he was already in occupation of a house in Subji Mandi. Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act reads as follows:</p><p>Section 14(1)(e). That the premises let for residential purposes are required bona fide by the landlord for occupation as a residence for himself or for any member of his family dependent on him, if he is the owner thereof, or for any person for whose benefit the premises are held and that the landlord or such person has no other reasonably suitable residential accommodation.</p><p>22. The difference between Delhi Act and the present Act is that under the Delhi Act the only requirement is that the landlord has no other reasonably suitable accommodation whereas under the Himachal Act the residential premises are required to be owned by the landlord. The Apex Court in Rama Narain Arora's case (supra) held that the nondisclosure of the fact that the landlord was in occupation of certain premises in Subji Mandi was.not a ground to non-suit the landlord in view of the facts and circumstances of the case. The Apex Court held as follows:</p><p>9. In making a claim that the suit premises is required bona fide for his own occupation as a residence for himself and other members of his family dependent on him and that he has no other reasonably suitable accommodation is a requirement of law before the Court can state whether the landlord requires the premises bona fide for his use and occupation. In doing so, the Court must also find out whether the landlord or such other person for whose benefit the premises is required has no other reasonably suitable residential accommodation. It cannot be said that the requirement of the landlord is not intermixed with the question of finding out whether he has any other reasonably suitable accommodation. If he has other reasonably suitable accommodation, ihen necessarily it would mean that he does not require the suit premises and his requirement may not be bona fide. In such circumstances further inquiry would be whether that premises is more suitable than the suit premises. Therefore, the questions raised before the Court would not necessarily depend upon only the pleadings. It could be a good defence that the landlord has other reasonably suitable residential accommodation and thereby defend the claim of the landlord.</p><p>10. There cannot be a pedantic or a dogmatic approach in the matter of analysis of pleadings or of the evidence adduced thereto. It is no doubt true that if the pleadings are clearly set out, it would be easy for the Court to decide the matters. But if the pleadings are lacking or vague and if both parties have understood what was the case pleaded and put forth with reference to requirement of law and placed such material before the Court, neither party is prejudiced. If we analyse from this angle, we do not think that the High Court was not justified in interfering with the order made by the Rent Controller.</p><p>23. From the perusal of the judgment of the Apex Court it is apparent that the Rent Controller must approach the matter in a practical manner. In case the non-disclosure is such as that it goes to the very root of the case the Rent Controller would be justified in non-suiting the landlord. However, if the non-disclosure is such that it would not prejudice the rights of the respondent then the landlord should not be non-suited only on this ground.</p><p>24. The decisions of this Court cited hereinabove were delivered prior to the judgment delivered by the Apex Court in Ram Nar'ain Arora's case. Further more both in Tara Chand Sharma's case and Vijay Kapoor's case decided by this Court, no averment had been made ixi respect of other residential buildings owned by a landlord. There was complete non-disclosure as to whether any such residential building owned by the landlord was in his possession or not. In the present case, as I have held above, the residential premises at 31, The Mall, Shimla was not owned by the landlord and hence these two earlier judgments of this Court are distinguishable on facts also.</p><p>25. In the present case, the landlord has been non-suited only on the ground that he did not disclose the fact that he was in occupation of certain premises on the Mall Road. Under law he was not required to disclose this fact. He was only required to disclose the factum of occupying another residential building owned by him in the urban area concerned. True it may be, that it would have been better if the landlord had disclosed all the facts but non-disclosure of a fact which he was not under law required to disclose could not in my opinion be a ground to dismiss his eviction petition.</p><p>26. However, what are the premises in his occupation even as a tenant can be taken into consideration while deciding the question whether he bona fide requires the demised premises for his personal use or occupation or not.</p><p>27. Lastly comes the question with regard to the bona fide requirement of the landlord. The landlord has no children. According to the landlord as well as his other witnesses i.e. his brother-in-law PW-2 and his wife PW-3, the wife now wants to come back and settle in Shimla. There is no reason to disbelieve their statements. Even according to the evidence led by the tenant the accommodation in possession of the landlord consists of two rooms, kitchen, bath room etc. Admittedly, the landlord is also having his office as an Architect in this building. The landlord belongs to the middle class of the Society. It cannot be expected of a landlord who owns sufficient property to reside in a two room set wherein he also runs his office.</p><p>28. The law by now is well settled that the landlord is the best judge of the suitability of the accommodation required by him. This suitability has however to be judged in the context of reasonable expectations. The landlord and his wife who are both well educated can reasonably be expected to entertain guests and they will have visitors to their house. They would obviously require a drawing room, a bed room and a spare bed room for guests. Even at his residence the landlord may require another room for his professional work. This is the minimum accommodation which they would require. Even if the accommodation possessed by the landlord, though not owned by him, at 31, the Mall, Shimla is taken into consideration such accommodation is not sufficient to meet his requirements since admittedly the landlord is running his profession of Architect from some portion of his these premises.</p><p>29. Keeping in view the entire facts and circumstances, I am of the considered view that the learned Appellate Authority gravely erred in rejecting the eviction petition of the landlord solely on the ground that he had not disclosed the factum of being in possession of the premises at 31, the Mall Shimla. Even though I have held that the said premises are residential premises, in view of the above discussion I hold that the landlord cannot be non-suited only on the ground of his being in possession of such premises since same were not owned by him.</p><p>30. In view of the above discussion, the Revision Petition is allowed, the order of the learned Appellate Authority dated 6.5.2003 is seaside and the order of the Rent Controller dated 22.8.2001 is restored.</p><p>31. Keeping in view the fact that the tenant has been in possession of the premises for a long period he is granted time up to 31st October, 2008 to vacate the premises.</p><p>32. No order as to costs.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '2008(2)ShimLC491',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'Shri S.L. Srivastava',
		'sub' => 'Tenancy',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'shri-arun-bhanwara-vs-s-l-srivastava'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '891084',
	(int) 1 => 'shri-arun-bhanwara-vs-s-l-srivastava'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/891084/shri-arun-bhanwara-vs-s-l-srivastava'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$caseref = 'Ram Narain Arora v. Asha Rani<br>'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>Deepak Gupta, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. This Revision Petition under Section 25(5) of the H.P. Urban Rent Control Act, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) is directed against the order of the learned Appellate Authority, Shimla in CMA No. 60-S/14 of 2001 whereby the appeal filed by the respondent (hereinafter referred to as the tenant) has been allowed, the order of the Rent Controller has been set-aside and the petition for eviction filed by the present petitioner (hereinafter referred to as the Landlord) on the ground of personal bona fide requirement has been set-aside.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. The undisputed facts are that the landlord is owner of the demised premises situated in building known as Tunnel View, Sanjauli, Shimla-6 consisting of two bed rooms with attached bath room and latrine, drawing-cum-dining room, kitchen and balcony. These premises were purchased by the landlord in the year 1986. Thereafter, the landlord had rented out the premises to one Sh. B.K. Chauhan. According to the landlord, when he got married he requested Sh. B.K. Chauhan to vacate the said premises. Sh. Chauhan vacated the said premises but admittedly the landlord did not occupy the same but rented out the same to the tenant in the year 1990.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. In the year 1997 the landlord filed a petition for eviction of the tenant on two grounds; firstly that the tenant is in arrears of rent from 1.11.1990 to 31.7.1997 and secondly that the premises are bona fide required by the landlord for the use and occupation of himself and his family.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>4. This petition was contested by the tenant. After trial, the Rent Controller ordered the eviction of the tenant on two grounds; (i) that the tenant was in arrears of rent from November, 1999 till date of order i.e. 22nd August, 2001 and (ii) that the landlord required the premises for his own use and occupation.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>5. The tenant deposited the rent within the time prescribed. He also filed an appeal challenging the finding on the issue of bona fide requirement. The learned Appellate Authority came to the conclusion that the landlord had not made a proper and full disclosure of facts as required under the provisions of the Act and had withheld material facts from the Court viz. that the landlord was in occupation of residential premises on 31, Mall Road in the urban area of Shimla and as such rejected this petition on this short ground.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>6. Aggrieved by the said order, the landlord has filed the present Revision Petition.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>7. I have heard Sh. Ramakant Sharma, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sh. Bhupinder Gupta, learned senior Counsel for the tenant.',
	(int) 8 => '<p>8. It has been urged on behalf of the landlord that the building which is alleged to be in possession of the landlord i.e. 31, the Mall Shimla is not a residential building and secondly that the building is not owned by him.',
	(int) 9 => '<p>9. On the other hand Sh. Bhupinder Gupta, learned Counsel of the tenant has strenuously urged that the landlord in para 18 has not stated anything about any building being owned by him and has only made an averment that he does not own or possess any other such building within the urban area Shimla. It is contended by Sh. Bhupinder Gupta that the landlord of his own volition did not state anything about the ownership of the building and since he has kept silent about the building which he is in occupation he has made a false averment and therefore his petition for eviction has rightly been rejected.',
	(int) 10 => '<p>10. I am not at all in agreement with the contention of the landlord that the premises known as 31, the Mall Shimla which are admittedly in the occupation of the landlord are commercial premises only and not being used by him for his residence. As pointed out above, the landlord purchased the demised premises in 1986. They fell vacant when he got married despite that he did not occupy the same and rented out the same to the tenant in the year 1990. The question that arises is where was the landlord living for this entire period. According to the landlord after the year 1994 he has been living with his brother-in-law Rajan (wife's brother) PW-2, since the year 1994. Prior to 1994 the landlord will have this Court to believe that he was living off and on with one friend or the other. This story is impossible to believe. The landlord was married in the year 1999. He is an Architect by profession. His wife is a law graduate. It is not believable that such a person would have no permanent abode and would continue to live as a guest with his friends for almost 5 years after his marriage. Even the story that he has been living with his brother-in-law after the year 1994 does not inspire confidence. It stands proved on record that the brother-in-law PW-2 Rajan lives with his own family i.e. wife and children. From the evidence it is also clear that the parents of the brother-in-law also reside with him, His flat consists of only two rooms. The flat in possession of the landlord at 31, the Mall Shimla, also consists of two rooms, kitchen and bath room. Even assuming that he was running an office in the part of the flat it cannot be believed that he would not live on his own flat on the Mall Road and reside with his brother-in-law in cramped premises. Even in the electoral list the landlord is shown to be a resident of 31, The Mall, Shimla. Therefore, I am of the considered view that the building 31, the Mall, Shimla was also being used as a residence by the landlord.',
	(int) 11 => '<p>11. Having held so, the question that arises is whether the landlord can be non-suited only on the ground that he has not made any disclosure about the residential accommodation available with him which premises were admittedly not owned by him.',
	(int) 12 => '<p>12. The short question which arises for decision in this petition is whether the landlord was guilty of suppressing and withholding such relevant facts which would disentitle him from seeking eviction of the tenant. To appreciate these contentions it would be necessary to refer to relevant portion of Section 14(3) of the Act:',
	(int) 13 => '<p>Section 14:',
	(int) 14 => '<p>1 and 2 xxxxxxxxxxx',
	(int) 15 => '<p>(3) A landlord may apply to the Controller for an order directing the tenant to put the landlord in possession-',
	(int) 16 => '<p>(a) in case of residential building, if',
	(int) 17 => '<p>(i) he required it for his own occupation:',
	(int) 18 => '<p>Provided that he is not occupying another residential building owned by him, in the urban area concerned:',
	(int) 19 => '<p>Provided further that he has not vacated such a building without sufficient cause within five years of the filing of the application, in the said urban area....',
	(int) 20 => '<p>13. A perusal of the bare provisions of the Act makes it clear that there are certain essential ingredients which the landlord must satisfy before seeking eviction of the tenant under the Act. Not only must he prove that the residential building is bona fide required by him for his own use and occupation but he must also plead and prove that he is not occupying any other residential building owned by him in the urban area concerned and further that he has not vacated such a building without sufficient cause within 5 years of the filing of the application.',
	(int) 21 => '<p>14. Reference may now be made to the relevant allegations made in para 18 of the eviction petition:',
	(int) 22 => '<p>(ii) That the petitioner bona fide requires the premises for his own use and occupation and also for the use and occupation of his family.',
	(int) 23 => '<p>The petitioner does not own or possess any other such building within the urban area of Simla nor the petitioner has vacated any such premises within five years of the filing of this petition.',
	(int) 24 => '<p>The family of the petitioner presently consists of himself and his wife. Due to paucity of accommodation the petitioner has not been able to keep his wife with himself at Simla, where he is working as an Engineer and she has been residing at Chandigarh since 1991 but on account of her ill health she has been brought to Simla by the petitioner. The petitioner at present is seeking temporary shelter, from time to time, with his relations.',
	(int) 25 => '<p>15. The learned Appellate Authority came to the conclusion that the landlord had falsely pleaded that he does not own or possess any other such building within the urban area of Shimla and hence rejected the eviction petition on this ground.',
	(int) 26 => '<p>16. On a close analysis of the proviso to Section 14(3)(a)(i) of the Act it is clear that a landlord is not entitled to seek eviction of a tenant from residential building even in case of bona fide requirement if the landlord is occupying another residential building owned by him in the urban area concerned. One can read three essential ingredients in this proviso i.e. (i) that the landlord is in occupation of another residential building; (ii) that the said residential building is owned by him and (iii) that the said residential building is situated in the concerned urban area.',
	(int) 27 => '<p>17. The question that arises is what is the impact of the landlord not making a disclosure in respect of premises which he is occupying but are not owned by him.',
	(int) 28 => '<p>18. The Apex Court in Onkar Nath v. Ved Vyas ILR 1979 HP 1, held as follows:',
	(int) 29 => '<p>It is common ground that there are three requirements to make out a cause of action for eviction under that provision, and indeed this is apparent from a bare reading of the sub-section. In the present case the finding is to the effect that the landlord requires the residential building for his own occupation. But, the legislation has taken care to insist upon two more conditions, namely; (a) that the landlord is not occupying any other residential building in the area concerned; and (b) that he has not vacated such a building without sufficient cause. There is not a scintilla of evidence nor indeed there is any averment in compliance with these latter conditions. The necessary consequence follows that not merely is there inadequacy of pleadings sufficient to make out a cause of action but total absence of proof of two vital requirements....',
	(int) 30 => '<p>The Supreme Court also said that:.The statute benignly designed to protect tenants from unreasonable evictions has taken case to put restrictions which must be rigorously construed to fulfil the purpose of the statute.',
	(int) 31 => '<p>19. Following the aforesaid judgment and other pronouncements of the Apex Court, a learned Single Judge of this Court in Tara Chand Sharma v. Baij Nath and Ors. 1992 (2) R.C.J. 323, held as follows:',
	(int) 32 => '<p>16. What appears as the legislative intent, in bold relief, is that the landlord, while seeking eviction of a tenant on the ground that he needs a residential building for his own occupation, must come out clearly and honestly with facts relating to the requirement that he is not occupying another residential building owned by him, in the urban area concerned and that he had not vacated such a building without sufficient cause within five years of the filing of the application, in the said urban area. The primal burden of making a clear disclosure would lie upon the landlord, for, the true facts would be in his special knowledge. An order in his favour by the Rent Controller would depend upon the satisfaction of the Rent Controller in regard not only to the claim that the landlord requires the accommodation, from which he wishes to evict a tenant, for his own occupation but also that he was not occupying another residential building owned by him nor had he vacated such building without sufficient cause within five years of the filing of the application in the application in the urban area concerned....',
	(int) 33 => '<p>It was further held as under:',
	(int) 34 => '<p>18. That the landlord should make a full disclosure of the relevant facts, pertaining to the requirements of Sub-section (3)(a)(i) and the two provisos, becomes all the more necessary because the satisfaction of the Rent Controller in regard thereto is the condition precedent for the making of an order in favour of the landlord....',
	(int) 35 => '<p>20. The aforesaid judgment has been followed in a number of other cases including Vijay Kapoor v. Maya Ram 1997 (2) RCR 437, wherein another learned single Judge of this Court following the aforesaid judgment held that the landlord must make complete and proper disclosure of all the material facts.',
	(int) 36 => '<p>21. On the other hand Sh. Ramakant Sharma has relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in Ram Narain Arora v. Asha Rani 1998(2) RCR 268. In that case the Rent Controller came to the conclusion that the landlord had suppressed material information and had not disclosed the fact that he was already in occupation of a house in Subji Mandi. Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act reads as follows:',
	(int) 37 => '<p>Section 14(1)(e). That the premises let for residential purposes are required bona fide by the landlord for occupation as a residence for himself or for any member of his family dependent on him, if he is the owner thereof, or for any person for whose benefit the premises are held and that the landlord or such person has no other reasonably suitable residential accommodation.',
	(int) 38 => '<p>22. The difference between Delhi Act and the present Act is that under the Delhi Act the only requirement is that the landlord has no other reasonably suitable accommodation whereas under the Himachal Act the residential premises are required to be owned by the landlord. The Apex Court in Rama Narain Arora's case (supra) held that the nondisclosure of the fact that the landlord was in occupation of certain premises in Subji Mandi was.not a ground to non-suit the landlord in view of the facts and circumstances of the case. The Apex Court held as follows:',
	(int) 39 => '<p>9. In making a claim that the suit premises is required bona fide for his own occupation as a residence for himself and other members of his family dependent on him and that he has no other reasonably suitable accommodation is a requirement of law before the Court can state whether the landlord requires the premises bona fide for his use and occupation. In doing so, the Court must also find out whether the landlord or such other person for whose benefit the premises is required has no other reasonably suitable residential accommodation. It cannot be said that the requirement of the landlord is not intermixed with the question of finding out whether he has any other reasonably suitable accommodation. If he has other reasonably suitable accommodation, ihen necessarily it would mean that he does not require the suit premises and his requirement may not be bona fide. In such circumstances further inquiry would be whether that premises is more suitable than the suit premises. Therefore, the questions raised before the Court would not necessarily depend upon only the pleadings. It could be a good defence that the landlord has other reasonably suitable residential accommodation and thereby defend the claim of the landlord.',
	(int) 40 => '<p>10. There cannot be a pedantic or a dogmatic approach in the matter of analysis of pleadings or of the evidence adduced thereto. It is no doubt true that if the pleadings are clearly set out, it would be easy for the Court to decide the matters. But if the pleadings are lacking or vague and if both parties have understood what was the case pleaded and put forth with reference to requirement of law and placed such material before the Court, neither party is prejudiced. If we analyse from this angle, we do not think that the High Court was not justified in interfering with the order made by the Rent Controller.',
	(int) 41 => '<p>23. From the perusal of the judgment of the Apex Court it is apparent that the Rent Controller must approach the matter in a practical manner. In case the non-disclosure is such as that it goes to the very root of the case the Rent Controller would be justified in non-suiting the landlord. However, if the non-disclosure is such that it would not prejudice the rights of the respondent then the landlord should not be non-suited only on this ground.',
	(int) 42 => '<p>24. The decisions of this Court cited hereinabove were delivered prior to the judgment delivered by the Apex Court in Ram Nar'ain Arora's case. Further more both in Tara Chand Sharma's case and Vijay Kapoor's case decided by this Court, no averment had been made ixi respect of other residential buildings owned by a landlord. There was complete non-disclosure as to whether any such residential building owned by the landlord was in his possession or not. In the present case, as I have held above, the residential premises at 31, The Mall, Shimla was not owned by the landlord and hence these two earlier judgments of this Court are distinguishable on facts also.',
	(int) 43 => '<p>25. In the present case, the landlord has been non-suited only on the ground that he did not disclose the fact that he was in occupation of certain premises on the Mall Road. Under law he was not required to disclose this fact. He was only required to disclose the factum of occupying another residential building owned by him in the urban area concerned. True it may be, that it would have been better if the landlord had disclosed all the facts but non-disclosure of a fact which he was not under law required to disclose could not in my opinion be a ground to dismiss his eviction petition.',
	(int) 44 => '<p>26. However, what are the premises in his occupation even as a tenant can be taken into consideration while deciding the question whether he bona fide requires the demised premises for his personal use or occupation or not.',
	(int) 45 => '<p>27. Lastly comes the question with regard to the bona fide requirement of the landlord. The landlord has no children. According to the landlord as well as his other witnesses i.e. his brother-in-law PW-2 and his wife PW-3, the wife now wants to come back and settle in Shimla. There is no reason to disbelieve their statements. Even according to the evidence led by the tenant the accommodation in possession of the landlord consists of two rooms, kitchen, bath room etc. Admittedly, the landlord is also having his office as an Architect in this building. The landlord belongs to the middle class of the Society. It cannot be expected of a landlord who owns sufficient property to reside in a two room set wherein he also runs his office.',
	(int) 46 => '<p>28. The law by now is well settled that the landlord is the best judge of the suitability of the accommodation required by him. This suitability has however to be judged in the context of reasonable expectations. The landlord and his wife who are both well educated can reasonably be expected to entertain guests and they will have visitors to their house. They would obviously require a drawing room, a bed room and a spare bed room for guests. Even at his residence the landlord may require another room for his professional work. This is the minimum accommodation which they would require. Even if the accommodation possessed by the landlord, though not owned by him, at 31, the Mall, Shimla is taken into consideration such accommodation is not sufficient to meet his requirements since admittedly the landlord is running his profession of Architect from some portion of his these premises.',
	(int) 47 => '<p>29. Keeping in view the entire facts and circumstances, I am of the considered view that the learned Appellate Authority gravely erred in rejecting the eviction petition of the landlord solely on the ground that he had not disclosed the factum of being in possession of the premises at 31, the Mall Shimla. Even though I have held that the said premises are residential premises, in view of the above discussion I hold that the landlord cannot be non-suited only on the ground of his being in possession of such premises since same were not owned by him.',
	(int) 48 => '<p>30. In view of the above discussion, the Revision Petition is allowed, the order of the learned Appellate Authority dated 6.5.2003 is seaside and the order of the Rent Controller dated 22.8.2001 is restored.',
	(int) 49 => '<p>31. Keeping in view the fact that the tenant has been in possession of the premises for a long period he is granted time up to 31st October, 2008 to vacate the premises.',
	(int) 50 => '<p>32. No order as to costs.<p>',
	(int) 51 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 52
$i = (int) 12
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

12. The short question which arises for decision in this petition is whether the landlord was guilty of suppressing and withholding such relevant facts which would disentitle him from seeking eviction of the tenant. To appreciate these contentions it would be necessary to refer to relevant portion of Section 14(3) of the Act:

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Shri Arun Bhanwara Vs Shri S L Srivastava - Citation 891084 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '891084',
			'acts' => '',
			'appealno' => '',
			'appellant' => 'Shri Arun Bhanwara',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Shri Arun Bhanwara Vs. Shri S.L. Srivastava',
			'casenote' => ' - CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908.[C.A. No. 5/1908]. Order 14, Rule 2 [As amended by Amending Act of 1976]: [V.K. Gupta, CJ, Deepak Gupta & Surjit Singh, JJ] Preliminary issue of law and fact  Court framing all issues both of law and facts together and also  tried all the issues together, including the issue relating to jurisdiction of Court  Held, Except in situations perceived or warranted under sub-rule (2) of Rule 2 of Order 14 where a  Court in fact frames only issues of law in the first instance and postpones settlement of other issues, clearly and explicitly in situations where the Court has framed all issues together, both of law as well as facts and has also tried all these issues together, it is not open to the Court to adopt the principle of severability and proceed to decide issues of law first, without taking up simultaneously other issues for decision. This course of action is not available to a Court because sub-rule (1) does not permit the  Court to adopt any such principle of severability and to dispose of a suit only on preliminary issues, or what can be termed as issues of law. Sub-rule (1)  clearly mandates that in a situation contemplated under it, where all the issues have been together and have also been taken up for adjudication during the course of the trial, these must be decided together and the judgment in the suit as a whole must be pronounced by the Court covering all the issues framed in the suit.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => 'Ram Narain Arora v. Asha Rani;',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => '',
			'counseldef' => '',
			'court' => 'Himachal Pradesh',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2008-07-31',
			'deposition' => 'Petition allowed',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => ' Deepak Gupta, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">Deepak Gupta, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. This Revision Petition under Section 25(5) of the H.P. Urban Rent Control Act, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) is directed against the order of the learned Appellate Authority, Shimla in CMA No. 60-S/14 of 2001 whereby the appeal filed by the respondent (hereinafter referred to as the tenant) has been allowed, the order of the Rent Controller has been set-aside and the petition for eviction filed by the present petitioner (hereinafter referred to as the Landlord) on the ground of personal bona fide requirement has been set-aside.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The undisputed facts are that the landlord is owner of the demised premises situated in building known as Tunnel View, Sanjauli, Shimla-6 consisting of two bed rooms with attached bath room and latrine, drawing-cum-dining room, kitchen and balcony. These premises were purchased by the landlord in the year 1986. Thereafter, the landlord had rented out the premises to one Sh. B.K. Chauhan. According to the landlord, when he got married he requested Sh. B.K. Chauhan to vacate the said premises. Sh. Chauhan vacated the said premises but admittedly the landlord did not occupy the same but rented out the same to the tenant in the year 1990.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. In the year 1997 the landlord filed a petition for eviction of the tenant on two grounds; firstly that the tenant is in arrears of rent from 1.11.1990 to 31.7.1997 and secondly that the premises are bona fide required by the landlord for the use and occupation of himself and his family.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. This petition was contested by the tenant. After trial, the Rent Controller ordered the eviction of the tenant on two grounds; (i) that the tenant was in arrears of rent from November, 1999 till date of order i.e. 22nd August, 2001 and (ii) that the landlord required the premises for his own use and occupation.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. The tenant deposited the rent within the time prescribed. He also filed an appeal challenging the finding on the issue of bona fide requirement. The learned Appellate Authority came to the conclusion that the landlord had not made a proper and full disclosure of facts as required under the provisions of the Act and had withheld material facts from the Court viz. that the landlord was in occupation of residential premises on 31, Mall Road in the urban area of Shimla and as such rejected this petition on this short ground.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. Aggrieved by the said order, the landlord has filed the present Revision Petition.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. I have heard Sh. Ramakant Sharma, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sh. Bhupinder Gupta, learned senior Counsel for the tenant.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. It has been urged on behalf of the landlord that the building which is alleged to be in possession of the landlord i.e. 31, the Mall Shimla is not a residential building and secondly that the building is not owned by him.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. On the other hand Sh. Bhupinder Gupta, learned Counsel of the tenant has strenuously urged that the landlord in para 18 has not stated anything about any building being owned by him and has only made an averment that he does not own or possess any other such building within the urban area Shimla. It is contended by Sh. Bhupinder Gupta that the landlord of his own volition did not state anything about the ownership of the building and since he has kept silent about the building which he is in occupation he has made a false averment and therefore his petition for eviction has rightly been rejected.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. I am not at all in agreement with the contention of the landlord that the premises known as 31, the Mall Shimla which are admittedly in the occupation of the landlord are commercial premises only and not being used by him for his residence. As pointed out above, the landlord purchased the demised premises in 1986. They fell vacant when he got married despite that he did not occupy the same and rented out the same to the tenant in the year 1990. The question that arises is where was the landlord living for this entire period. According to the landlord after the year 1994 he has been living with his brother-in-law Rajan (wife's brother) PW-2, since the year 1994. Prior to 1994 the landlord will have this Court to believe that he was living off and on with one friend or the other. This story is impossible to believe. The landlord was married in the year 1999. He is an Architect by profession. His wife is a law graduate. It is not believable that such a person would have no permanent abode and would continue to live as a guest with his friends for almost 5 years after his marriage. Even the story that he has been living with his brother-in-law after the year 1994 does not inspire confidence. It stands proved on record that the brother-in-law PW-2 Rajan lives with his own family i.e. wife and children. From the evidence it is also clear that the parents of the brother-in-law also reside with him, His flat consists of only two rooms. The flat in possession of the landlord at 31, the Mall Shimla, also consists of two rooms, kitchen and bath room. Even assuming that he was running an office in the part of the flat it cannot be believed that he would not live on his own flat on the Mall Road and reside with his brother-in-law in cramped premises. Even in the electoral list the landlord is shown to be a resident of 31, The Mall, Shimla. Therefore, I am of the considered view that the building 31, the Mall, Shimla was also being used as a residence by the landlord.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. Having held so, the question that arises is whether the landlord can be non-suited only on the ground that he has not made any disclosure about the residential accommodation available with him which premises were admittedly not owned by him.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. The short question which arises for decision in this petition is whether the landlord was guilty of suppressing and withholding such relevant facts which would disentitle him from seeking eviction of the tenant. To appreciate these contentions it would be necessary to refer to relevant portion of Section 14(3) of the Act:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Section 14:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1 and 2 xxxxxxxxxxx</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(3) A landlord may apply to the Controller for an order directing the tenant to put the landlord in possession-</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(a) in case of residential building, if</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(i) he required it for his own occupation:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Provided that he is not occupying another residential building owned by him, in the urban area concerned:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Provided further that he has not vacated such a building without sufficient cause within five years of the filing of the application, in the said urban area....</p><p style="text-align: justify;">13. A perusal of the bare provisions of the Act makes it clear that there are certain essential ingredients which the landlord must satisfy before seeking eviction of the tenant under the Act. Not only must he prove that the residential building is bona fide required by him for his own use and occupation but he must also plead and prove that he is not occupying any other residential building owned by him in the urban area concerned and further that he has not vacated such a building without sufficient cause within 5 years of the filing of the application.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">14. Reference may now be made to the relevant allegations made in para 18 of the eviction petition:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(ii) That the petitioner bona fide requires the premises for his own use and occupation and also for the use and occupation of his family.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The petitioner does not own or possess any other such building within the urban area of Simla nor the petitioner has vacated any such premises within five years of the filing of this petition.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The family of the petitioner presently consists of himself and his wife. Due to paucity of accommodation the petitioner has not been able to keep his wife with himself at Simla, where he is working as an Engineer and she has been residing at Chandigarh since 1991 but on account of her ill health she has been brought to Simla by the petitioner. The petitioner at present is seeking temporary shelter, from time to time, with his relations.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">15. The learned Appellate Authority came to the conclusion that the landlord had falsely pleaded that he does not own or possess any other such building within the urban area of Shimla and hence rejected the eviction petition on this ground.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">16. On a close analysis of the proviso to Section 14(3)(a)(i) of the Act it is clear that a landlord is not entitled to seek eviction of a tenant from residential building even in case of bona fide requirement if the landlord is occupying another residential building owned by him in the urban area concerned. One can read three essential ingredients in this proviso i.e. (i) that the landlord is in occupation of another residential building; (ii) that the said residential building is owned by him and (iii) that the said residential building is situated in the concerned urban area.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">17. The question that arises is what is the impact of the landlord not making a disclosure in respect of premises which he is occupying but are not owned by him.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">18. The Apex Court in Onkar Nath v. Ved Vyas ILR 1979 HP 1, held as follows:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">It is common ground that there are three requirements to make out a cause of action for eviction under that provision, and indeed this is apparent from a bare reading of the sub-section. In the present case the finding is to the effect that the landlord requires the residential building for his own occupation. But, the legislation has taken care to insist upon two more conditions, namely; (a) that the landlord is not occupying any other residential building in the area concerned; and (b) that he has not vacated such a building without sufficient cause. There is not a scintilla of evidence nor indeed there is any averment in compliance with these latter conditions. The necessary consequence follows that not merely is there inadequacy of pleadings sufficient to make out a cause of action but total absence of proof of two vital requirements....</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The Supreme Court also said that:.The statute benignly designed to protect tenants from unreasonable evictions has taken case to put restrictions which must be rigorously construed to fulfil the purpose of the statute.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">19. Following the aforesaid judgment and other pronouncements of the Apex Court, a learned Single Judge of this Court in Tara Chand Sharma v. Baij Nath and Ors. 1992 (2) R.C.J. 323, held as follows:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">16. What appears as the legislative intent, in bold relief, is that the landlord, while seeking eviction of a tenant on the ground that he needs a residential building for his own occupation, must come out clearly and honestly with facts relating to the requirement that he is not occupying another residential building owned by him, in the urban area concerned and that he had not vacated such a building without sufficient cause within five years of the filing of the application, in the said urban area. The primal burden of making a clear disclosure would lie upon the landlord, for, the true facts would be in his special knowledge. An order in his favour by the Rent Controller would depend upon the satisfaction of the Rent Controller in regard not only to the claim that the landlord requires the accommodation, from which he wishes to evict a tenant, for his own occupation but also that he was not occupying another residential building owned by him nor had he vacated such building without sufficient cause within five years of the filing of the application in the application in the urban area concerned....</p><p style="text-align: justify;">It was further held as under:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">18. That the landlord should make a full disclosure of the relevant facts, pertaining to the requirements of Sub-section (3)(a)(i) and the two provisos, becomes all the more necessary because the satisfaction of the Rent Controller in regard thereto is the condition precedent for the making of an order in favour of the landlord....</p><p style="text-align: justify;">20. The aforesaid judgment has been followed in a number of other cases including Vijay Kapoor v. Maya Ram 1997 (2) RCR 437, wherein another learned single Judge of this Court following the aforesaid judgment held that the landlord must make complete and proper disclosure of all the material facts.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">21. On the other hand Sh. Ramakant Sharma has relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in Ram Narain Arora v. Asha Rani 1998(2) RCR 268. In that case the Rent Controller came to the conclusion that the landlord had suppressed material information and had not disclosed the fact that he was already in occupation of a house in Subji Mandi. Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act reads as follows:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Section 14(1)(e). That the premises let for residential purposes are required bona fide by the landlord for occupation as a residence for himself or for any member of his family dependent on him, if he is the owner thereof, or for any person for whose benefit the premises are held and that the landlord or such person has no other reasonably suitable residential accommodation.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">22. The difference between Delhi Act and the present Act is that under the Delhi Act the only requirement is that the landlord has no other reasonably suitable accommodation whereas under the Himachal Act the residential premises are required to be owned by the landlord. The Apex Court in Rama Narain Arora's case (supra) held that the nondisclosure of the fact that the landlord was in occupation of certain premises in Subji Mandi was.not a ground to non-suit the landlord in view of the facts and circumstances of the case. The Apex Court held as follows:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. In making a claim that the suit premises is required bona fide for his own occupation as a residence for himself and other members of his family dependent on him and that he has no other reasonably suitable accommodation is a requirement of law before the Court can state whether the landlord requires the premises bona fide for his use and occupation. In doing so, the Court must also find out whether the landlord or such other person for whose benefit the premises is required has no other reasonably suitable residential accommodation. It cannot be said that the requirement of the landlord is not intermixed with the question of finding out whether he has any other reasonably suitable accommodation. If he has other reasonably suitable accommodation, ihen necessarily it would mean that he does not require the suit premises and his requirement may not be bona fide. In such circumstances further inquiry would be whether that premises is more suitable than the suit premises. Therefore, the questions raised before the Court would not necessarily depend upon only the pleadings. It could be a good defence that the landlord has other reasonably suitable residential accommodation and thereby defend the claim of the landlord.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. There cannot be a pedantic or a dogmatic approach in the matter of analysis of pleadings or of the evidence adduced thereto. It is no doubt true that if the pleadings are clearly set out, it would be easy for the Court to decide the matters. But if the pleadings are lacking or vague and if both parties have understood what was the case pleaded and put forth with reference to requirement of law and placed such material before the Court, neither party is prejudiced. If we analyse from this angle, we do not think that the High Court was not justified in interfering with the order made by the Rent Controller.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">23. From the perusal of the judgment of the Apex Court it is apparent that the Rent Controller must approach the matter in a practical manner. In case the non-disclosure is such as that it goes to the very root of the case the Rent Controller would be justified in non-suiting the landlord. However, if the non-disclosure is such that it would not prejudice the rights of the respondent then the landlord should not be non-suited only on this ground.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">24. The decisions of this Court cited hereinabove were delivered prior to the judgment delivered by the Apex Court in Ram Nar'ain Arora's case. Further more both in Tara Chand Sharma's case and Vijay Kapoor's case decided by this Court, no averment had been made ixi respect of other residential buildings owned by a landlord. There was complete non-disclosure as to whether any such residential building owned by the landlord was in his possession or not. In the present case, as I have held above, the residential premises at 31, The Mall, Shimla was not owned by the landlord and hence these two earlier judgments of this Court are distinguishable on facts also.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">25. In the present case, the landlord has been non-suited only on the ground that he did not disclose the fact that he was in occupation of certain premises on the Mall Road. Under law he was not required to disclose this fact. He was only required to disclose the factum of occupying another residential building owned by him in the urban area concerned. True it may be, that it would have been better if the landlord had disclosed all the facts but non-disclosure of a fact which he was not under law required to disclose could not in my opinion be a ground to dismiss his eviction petition.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">26. However, what are the premises in his occupation even as a tenant can be taken into consideration while deciding the question whether he bona fide requires the demised premises for his personal use or occupation or not.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">27. Lastly comes the question with regard to the bona fide requirement of the landlord. The landlord has no children. According to the landlord as well as his other witnesses i.e. his brother-in-law PW-2 and his wife PW-3, the wife now wants to come back and settle in Shimla. There is no reason to disbelieve their statements. Even according to the evidence led by the tenant the accommodation in possession of the landlord consists of two rooms, kitchen, bath room etc. Admittedly, the landlord is also having his office as an Architect in this building. The landlord belongs to the middle class of the Society. It cannot be expected of a landlord who owns sufficient property to reside in a two room set wherein he also runs his office.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">28. The law by now is well settled that the landlord is the best judge of the suitability of the accommodation required by him. This suitability has however to be judged in the context of reasonable expectations. The landlord and his wife who are both well educated can reasonably be expected to entertain guests and they will have visitors to their house. They would obviously require a drawing room, a bed room and a spare bed room for guests. Even at his residence the landlord may require another room for his professional work. This is the minimum accommodation which they would require. Even if the accommodation possessed by the landlord, though not owned by him, at 31, the Mall, Shimla is taken into consideration such accommodation is not sufficient to meet his requirements since admittedly the landlord is running his profession of Architect from some portion of his these premises.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">29. Keeping in view the entire facts and circumstances, I am of the considered view that the learned Appellate Authority gravely erred in rejecting the eviction petition of the landlord solely on the ground that he had not disclosed the factum of being in possession of the premises at 31, the Mall Shimla. Even though I have held that the said premises are residential premises, in view of the above discussion I hold that the landlord cannot be non-suited only on the ground of his being in possession of such premises since same were not owned by him.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">30. In view of the above discussion, the Revision Petition is allowed, the order of the learned Appellate Authority dated 6.5.2003 is seaside and the order of the Rent Controller dated 22.8.2001 is restored.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">31. Keeping in view the fact that the tenant has been in possession of the premises for a long period he is granted time up to 31st October, 2008 to vacate the premises.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">32. No order as to costs.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '2008(2)ShimLC491',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'Shri S.L. Srivastava',
			'sub' => 'Tenancy',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'shri-arun-bhanwara-vs-s-l-srivastava',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '891084',
		(int) 1 => 'shri-arun-bhanwara-vs-s-l-srivastava'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Shri Arun Bhanwara Vs Shri S L Srivastava - Citation 891084 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '891084',
		'acts' => '',
		'appealno' => '',
		'appellant' => 'Shri Arun Bhanwara',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Shri Arun Bhanwara Vs. Shri S.L. Srivastava',
		'casenote' => ' - CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908.[C.A. No. 5/1908]. Order 14, Rule 2 [As amended by Amending Act of 1976]: [V.K. Gupta, CJ, Deepak Gupta & Surjit Singh, JJ] Preliminary issue of law and fact  Court framing all issues both of law and facts together and also  tried all the issues together, including the issue relating to jurisdiction of Court  Held, Except in situations perceived or warranted under sub-rule (2) of Rule 2 of Order 14 where a  Court in fact frames only issues of law in the first instance and postpones settlement of other issues, clearly and explicitly in situations where the Court has framed all issues together, both of law as well as facts and has also tried all these issues together, it is not open to the Court to adopt the principle of severability and proceed to decide issues of law first, without taking up simultaneously other issues for decision. This course of action is not available to a Court because sub-rule (1) does not permit the  Court to adopt any such principle of severability and to dispose of a suit only on preliminary issues, or what can be termed as issues of law. Sub-rule (1)  clearly mandates that in a situation contemplated under it, where all the issues have been together and have also been taken up for adjudication during the course of the trial, these must be decided together and the judgment in the suit as a whole must be pronounced by the Court covering all the issues framed in the suit.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => 'Ram Narain Arora v. Asha Rani;',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => '',
		'counseldef' => '',
		'court' => 'Himachal Pradesh',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2008-07-31',
		'deposition' => 'Petition allowed',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => ' Deepak Gupta, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>Deepak Gupta, J.</p><p>1. This Revision Petition under Section 25(5) of the H.P. Urban Rent Control Act, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) is directed against the order of the learned Appellate Authority, Shimla in CMA No. 60-S/14 of 2001 whereby the appeal filed by the respondent (hereinafter referred to as the tenant) has been allowed, the order of the Rent Controller has been set-aside and the petition for eviction filed by the present petitioner (hereinafter referred to as the Landlord) on the ground of personal bona fide requirement has been set-aside.</p><p>2. The undisputed facts are that the landlord is owner of the demised premises situated in building known as Tunnel View, Sanjauli, Shimla-6 consisting of two bed rooms with attached bath room and latrine, drawing-cum-dining room, kitchen and balcony. These premises were purchased by the landlord in the year 1986. Thereafter, the landlord had rented out the premises to one Sh. B.K. Chauhan. According to the landlord, when he got married he requested Sh. B.K. Chauhan to vacate the said premises. Sh. Chauhan vacated the said premises but admittedly the landlord did not occupy the same but rented out the same to the tenant in the year 1990.</p><p>3. In the year 1997 the landlord filed a petition for eviction of the tenant on two grounds; firstly that the tenant is in arrears of rent from 1.11.1990 to 31.7.1997 and secondly that the premises are bona fide required by the landlord for the use and occupation of himself and his family.</p><p>4. This petition was contested by the tenant. After trial, the Rent Controller ordered the eviction of the tenant on two grounds; (i) that the tenant was in arrears of rent from November, 1999 till date of order i.e. 22nd August, 2001 and (ii) that the landlord required the premises for his own use and occupation.</p><p>5. The tenant deposited the rent within the time prescribed. He also filed an appeal challenging the finding on the issue of bona fide requirement. The learned Appellate Authority came to the conclusion that the landlord had not made a proper and full disclosure of facts as required under the provisions of the Act and had withheld material facts from the Court viz. that the landlord was in occupation of residential premises on 31, Mall Road in the urban area of Shimla and as such rejected this petition on this short ground.</p><p>6. Aggrieved by the said order, the landlord has filed the present Revision Petition.</p><p>7. I have heard Sh. Ramakant Sharma, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sh. Bhupinder Gupta, learned senior Counsel for the tenant.</p><p>8. It has been urged on behalf of the landlord that the building which is alleged to be in possession of the landlord i.e. 31, the Mall Shimla is not a residential building and secondly that the building is not owned by him.</p><p>9. On the other hand Sh. Bhupinder Gupta, learned Counsel of the tenant has strenuously urged that the landlord in para 18 has not stated anything about any building being owned by him and has only made an averment that he does not own or possess any other such building within the urban area Shimla. It is contended by Sh. Bhupinder Gupta that the landlord of his own volition did not state anything about the ownership of the building and since he has kept silent about the building which he is in occupation he has made a false averment and therefore his petition for eviction has rightly been rejected.</p><p>10. I am not at all in agreement with the contention of the landlord that the premises known as 31, the Mall Shimla which are admittedly in the occupation of the landlord are commercial premises only and not being used by him for his residence. As pointed out above, the landlord purchased the demised premises in 1986. They fell vacant when he got married despite that he did not occupy the same and rented out the same to the tenant in the year 1990. The question that arises is where was the landlord living for this entire period. According to the landlord after the year 1994 he has been living with his brother-in-law Rajan (wife's brother) PW-2, since the year 1994. Prior to 1994 the landlord will have this Court to believe that he was living off and on with one friend or the other. This story is impossible to believe. The landlord was married in the year 1999. He is an Architect by profession. His wife is a law graduate. It is not believable that such a person would have no permanent abode and would continue to live as a guest with his friends for almost 5 years after his marriage. Even the story that he has been living with his brother-in-law after the year 1994 does not inspire confidence. It stands proved on record that the brother-in-law PW-2 Rajan lives with his own family i.e. wife and children. From the evidence it is also clear that the parents of the brother-in-law also reside with him, His flat consists of only two rooms. The flat in possession of the landlord at 31, the Mall Shimla, also consists of two rooms, kitchen and bath room. Even assuming that he was running an office in the part of the flat it cannot be believed that he would not live on his own flat on the Mall Road and reside with his brother-in-law in cramped premises. Even in the electoral list the landlord is shown to be a resident of 31, The Mall, Shimla. Therefore, I am of the considered view that the building 31, the Mall, Shimla was also being used as a residence by the landlord.</p><p>11. Having held so, the question that arises is whether the landlord can be non-suited only on the ground that he has not made any disclosure about the residential accommodation available with him which premises were admittedly not owned by him.</p><p>12. The short question which arises for decision in this petition is whether the landlord was guilty of suppressing and withholding such relevant facts which would disentitle him from seeking eviction of the tenant. To appreciate these contentions it would be necessary to refer to relevant portion of Section 14(3) of the Act:</p><p>Section 14:</p><p>1 and 2 xxxxxxxxxxx</p><p>(3) A landlord may apply to the Controller for an order directing the tenant to put the landlord in possession-</p><p>(a) in case of residential building, if</p><p>(i) he required it for his own occupation:</p><p>Provided that he is not occupying another residential building owned by him, in the urban area concerned:</p><p>Provided further that he has not vacated such a building without sufficient cause within five years of the filing of the application, in the said urban area....</p><p>13. A perusal of the bare provisions of the Act makes it clear that there are certain essential ingredients which the landlord must satisfy before seeking eviction of the tenant under the Act. Not only must he prove that the residential building is bona fide required by him for his own use and occupation but he must also plead and prove that he is not occupying any other residential building owned by him in the urban area concerned and further that he has not vacated such a building without sufficient cause within 5 years of the filing of the application.</p><p>14. Reference may now be made to the relevant allegations made in para 18 of the eviction petition:</p><p>(ii) That the petitioner bona fide requires the premises for his own use and occupation and also for the use and occupation of his family.</p><p>The petitioner does not own or possess any other such building within the urban area of Simla nor the petitioner has vacated any such premises within five years of the filing of this petition.</p><p>The family of the petitioner presently consists of himself and his wife. Due to paucity of accommodation the petitioner has not been able to keep his wife with himself at Simla, where he is working as an Engineer and she has been residing at Chandigarh since 1991 but on account of her ill health she has been brought to Simla by the petitioner. The petitioner at present is seeking temporary shelter, from time to time, with his relations.</p><p>15. The learned Appellate Authority came to the conclusion that the landlord had falsely pleaded that he does not own or possess any other such building within the urban area of Shimla and hence rejected the eviction petition on this ground.</p><p>16. On a close analysis of the proviso to Section 14(3)(a)(i) of the Act it is clear that a landlord is not entitled to seek eviction of a tenant from residential building even in case of bona fide requirement if the landlord is occupying another residential building owned by him in the urban area concerned. One can read three essential ingredients in this proviso i.e. (i) that the landlord is in occupation of another residential building; (ii) that the said residential building is owned by him and (iii) that the said residential building is situated in the concerned urban area.</p><p>17. The question that arises is what is the impact of the landlord not making a disclosure in respect of premises which he is occupying but are not owned by him.</p><p>18. The Apex Court in Onkar Nath v. Ved Vyas ILR 1979 HP 1, held as follows:</p><p>It is common ground that there are three requirements to make out a cause of action for eviction under that provision, and indeed this is apparent from a bare reading of the sub-section. In the present case the finding is to the effect that the landlord requires the residential building for his own occupation. But, the legislation has taken care to insist upon two more conditions, namely; (a) that the landlord is not occupying any other residential building in the area concerned; and (b) that he has not vacated such a building without sufficient cause. There is not a scintilla of evidence nor indeed there is any averment in compliance with these latter conditions. The necessary consequence follows that not merely is there inadequacy of pleadings sufficient to make out a cause of action but total absence of proof of two vital requirements....</p><p>The Supreme Court also said that:.The statute benignly designed to protect tenants from unreasonable evictions has taken case to put restrictions which must be rigorously construed to fulfil the purpose of the statute.</p><p>19. Following the aforesaid judgment and other pronouncements of the Apex Court, a learned Single Judge of this Court in Tara Chand Sharma v. Baij Nath and Ors. 1992 (2) R.C.J. 323, held as follows:</p><p>16. What appears as the legislative intent, in bold relief, is that the landlord, while seeking eviction of a tenant on the ground that he needs a residential building for his own occupation, must come out clearly and honestly with facts relating to the requirement that he is not occupying another residential building owned by him, in the urban area concerned and that he had not vacated such a building without sufficient cause within five years of the filing of the application, in the said urban area. The primal burden of making a clear disclosure would lie upon the landlord, for, the true facts would be in his special knowledge. An order in his favour by the Rent Controller would depend upon the satisfaction of the Rent Controller in regard not only to the claim that the landlord requires the accommodation, from which he wishes to evict a tenant, for his own occupation but also that he was not occupying another residential building owned by him nor had he vacated such building without sufficient cause within five years of the filing of the application in the application in the urban area concerned....</p><p>It was further held as under:</p><p>18. That the landlord should make a full disclosure of the relevant facts, pertaining to the requirements of Sub-section (3)(a)(i) and the two provisos, becomes all the more necessary because the satisfaction of the Rent Controller in regard thereto is the condition precedent for the making of an order in favour of the landlord....</p><p>20. The aforesaid judgment has been followed in a number of other cases including Vijay Kapoor v. Maya Ram 1997 (2) RCR 437, wherein another learned single Judge of this Court following the aforesaid judgment held that the landlord must make complete and proper disclosure of all the material facts.</p><p>21. On the other hand Sh. Ramakant Sharma has relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in Ram Narain Arora v. Asha Rani 1998(2) RCR 268. In that case the Rent Controller came to the conclusion that the landlord had suppressed material information and had not disclosed the fact that he was already in occupation of a house in Subji Mandi. Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act reads as follows:</p><p>Section 14(1)(e). That the premises let for residential purposes are required bona fide by the landlord for occupation as a residence for himself or for any member of his family dependent on him, if he is the owner thereof, or for any person for whose benefit the premises are held and that the landlord or such person has no other reasonably suitable residential accommodation.</p><p>22. The difference between Delhi Act and the present Act is that under the Delhi Act the only requirement is that the landlord has no other reasonably suitable accommodation whereas under the Himachal Act the residential premises are required to be owned by the landlord. The Apex Court in Rama Narain Arora's case (supra) held that the nondisclosure of the fact that the landlord was in occupation of certain premises in Subji Mandi was.not a ground to non-suit the landlord in view of the facts and circumstances of the case. The Apex Court held as follows:</p><p>9. In making a claim that the suit premises is required bona fide for his own occupation as a residence for himself and other members of his family dependent on him and that he has no other reasonably suitable accommodation is a requirement of law before the Court can state whether the landlord requires the premises bona fide for his use and occupation. In doing so, the Court must also find out whether the landlord or such other person for whose benefit the premises is required has no other reasonably suitable residential accommodation. It cannot be said that the requirement of the landlord is not intermixed with the question of finding out whether he has any other reasonably suitable accommodation. If he has other reasonably suitable accommodation, ihen necessarily it would mean that he does not require the suit premises and his requirement may not be bona fide. In such circumstances further inquiry would be whether that premises is more suitable than the suit premises. Therefore, the questions raised before the Court would not necessarily depend upon only the pleadings. It could be a good defence that the landlord has other reasonably suitable residential accommodation and thereby defend the claim of the landlord.</p><p>10. There cannot be a pedantic or a dogmatic approach in the matter of analysis of pleadings or of the evidence adduced thereto. It is no doubt true that if the pleadings are clearly set out, it would be easy for the Court to decide the matters. But if the pleadings are lacking or vague and if both parties have understood what was the case pleaded and put forth with reference to requirement of law and placed such material before the Court, neither party is prejudiced. If we analyse from this angle, we do not think that the High Court was not justified in interfering with the order made by the Rent Controller.</p><p>23. From the perusal of the judgment of the Apex Court it is apparent that the Rent Controller must approach the matter in a practical manner. In case the non-disclosure is such as that it goes to the very root of the case the Rent Controller would be justified in non-suiting the landlord. However, if the non-disclosure is such that it would not prejudice the rights of the respondent then the landlord should not be non-suited only on this ground.</p><p>24. The decisions of this Court cited hereinabove were delivered prior to the judgment delivered by the Apex Court in Ram Nar'ain Arora's case. Further more both in Tara Chand Sharma's case and Vijay Kapoor's case decided by this Court, no averment had been made ixi respect of other residential buildings owned by a landlord. There was complete non-disclosure as to whether any such residential building owned by the landlord was in his possession or not. In the present case, as I have held above, the residential premises at 31, The Mall, Shimla was not owned by the landlord and hence these two earlier judgments of this Court are distinguishable on facts also.</p><p>25. In the present case, the landlord has been non-suited only on the ground that he did not disclose the fact that he was in occupation of certain premises on the Mall Road. Under law he was not required to disclose this fact. He was only required to disclose the factum of occupying another residential building owned by him in the urban area concerned. True it may be, that it would have been better if the landlord had disclosed all the facts but non-disclosure of a fact which he was not under law required to disclose could not in my opinion be a ground to dismiss his eviction petition.</p><p>26. However, what are the premises in his occupation even as a tenant can be taken into consideration while deciding the question whether he bona fide requires the demised premises for his personal use or occupation or not.</p><p>27. Lastly comes the question with regard to the bona fide requirement of the landlord. The landlord has no children. According to the landlord as well as his other witnesses i.e. his brother-in-law PW-2 and his wife PW-3, the wife now wants to come back and settle in Shimla. There is no reason to disbelieve their statements. Even according to the evidence led by the tenant the accommodation in possession of the landlord consists of two rooms, kitchen, bath room etc. Admittedly, the landlord is also having his office as an Architect in this building. The landlord belongs to the middle class of the Society. It cannot be expected of a landlord who owns sufficient property to reside in a two room set wherein he also runs his office.</p><p>28. The law by now is well settled that the landlord is the best judge of the suitability of the accommodation required by him. This suitability has however to be judged in the context of reasonable expectations. The landlord and his wife who are both well educated can reasonably be expected to entertain guests and they will have visitors to their house. They would obviously require a drawing room, a bed room and a spare bed room for guests. Even at his residence the landlord may require another room for his professional work. This is the minimum accommodation which they would require. Even if the accommodation possessed by the landlord, though not owned by him, at 31, the Mall, Shimla is taken into consideration such accommodation is not sufficient to meet his requirements since admittedly the landlord is running his profession of Architect from some portion of his these premises.</p><p>29. Keeping in view the entire facts and circumstances, I am of the considered view that the learned Appellate Authority gravely erred in rejecting the eviction petition of the landlord solely on the ground that he had not disclosed the factum of being in possession of the premises at 31, the Mall Shimla. Even though I have held that the said premises are residential premises, in view of the above discussion I hold that the landlord cannot be non-suited only on the ground of his being in possession of such premises since same were not owned by him.</p><p>30. In view of the above discussion, the Revision Petition is allowed, the order of the learned Appellate Authority dated 6.5.2003 is seaside and the order of the Rent Controller dated 22.8.2001 is restored.</p><p>31. Keeping in view the fact that the tenant has been in possession of the premises for a long period he is granted time up to 31st October, 2008 to vacate the premises.</p><p>32. No order as to costs.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '2008(2)ShimLC491',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'Shri S.L. Srivastava',
		'sub' => 'Tenancy',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'shri-arun-bhanwara-vs-s-l-srivastava'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '891084',
	(int) 1 => 'shri-arun-bhanwara-vs-s-l-srivastava'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/891084/shri-arun-bhanwara-vs-s-l-srivastava'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$caseref = 'Ram Narain Arora v. Asha Rani<br>'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>Deepak Gupta, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. This Revision Petition under Section 25(5) of the H.P. Urban Rent Control Act, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) is directed against the order of the learned Appellate Authority, Shimla in CMA No. 60-S/14 of 2001 whereby the appeal filed by the respondent (hereinafter referred to as the tenant) has been allowed, the order of the Rent Controller has been set-aside and the petition for eviction filed by the present petitioner (hereinafter referred to as the Landlord) on the ground of personal bona fide requirement has been set-aside.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. The undisputed facts are that the landlord is owner of the demised premises situated in building known as Tunnel View, Sanjauli, Shimla-6 consisting of two bed rooms with attached bath room and latrine, drawing-cum-dining room, kitchen and balcony. These premises were purchased by the landlord in the year 1986. Thereafter, the landlord had rented out the premises to one Sh. B.K. Chauhan. According to the landlord, when he got married he requested Sh. B.K. Chauhan to vacate the said premises. Sh. Chauhan vacated the said premises but admittedly the landlord did not occupy the same but rented out the same to the tenant in the year 1990.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. In the year 1997 the landlord filed a petition for eviction of the tenant on two grounds; firstly that the tenant is in arrears of rent from 1.11.1990 to 31.7.1997 and secondly that the premises are bona fide required by the landlord for the use and occupation of himself and his family.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>4. This petition was contested by the tenant. After trial, the Rent Controller ordered the eviction of the tenant on two grounds; (i) that the tenant was in arrears of rent from November, 1999 till date of order i.e. 22nd August, 2001 and (ii) that the landlord required the premises for his own use and occupation.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>5. The tenant deposited the rent within the time prescribed. He also filed an appeal challenging the finding on the issue of bona fide requirement. The learned Appellate Authority came to the conclusion that the landlord had not made a proper and full disclosure of facts as required under the provisions of the Act and had withheld material facts from the Court viz. that the landlord was in occupation of residential premises on 31, Mall Road in the urban area of Shimla and as such rejected this petition on this short ground.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>6. Aggrieved by the said order, the landlord has filed the present Revision Petition.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>7. I have heard Sh. Ramakant Sharma, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sh. Bhupinder Gupta, learned senior Counsel for the tenant.',
	(int) 8 => '<p>8. It has been urged on behalf of the landlord that the building which is alleged to be in possession of the landlord i.e. 31, the Mall Shimla is not a residential building and secondly that the building is not owned by him.',
	(int) 9 => '<p>9. On the other hand Sh. Bhupinder Gupta, learned Counsel of the tenant has strenuously urged that the landlord in para 18 has not stated anything about any building being owned by him and has only made an averment that he does not own or possess any other such building within the urban area Shimla. It is contended by Sh. Bhupinder Gupta that the landlord of his own volition did not state anything about the ownership of the building and since he has kept silent about the building which he is in occupation he has made a false averment and therefore his petition for eviction has rightly been rejected.',
	(int) 10 => '<p>10. I am not at all in agreement with the contention of the landlord that the premises known as 31, the Mall Shimla which are admittedly in the occupation of the landlord are commercial premises only and not being used by him for his residence. As pointed out above, the landlord purchased the demised premises in 1986. They fell vacant when he got married despite that he did not occupy the same and rented out the same to the tenant in the year 1990. The question that arises is where was the landlord living for this entire period. According to the landlord after the year 1994 he has been living with his brother-in-law Rajan (wife's brother) PW-2, since the year 1994. Prior to 1994 the landlord will have this Court to believe that he was living off and on with one friend or the other. This story is impossible to believe. The landlord was married in the year 1999. He is an Architect by profession. His wife is a law graduate. It is not believable that such a person would have no permanent abode and would continue to live as a guest with his friends for almost 5 years after his marriage. Even the story that he has been living with his brother-in-law after the year 1994 does not inspire confidence. It stands proved on record that the brother-in-law PW-2 Rajan lives with his own family i.e. wife and children. From the evidence it is also clear that the parents of the brother-in-law also reside with him, His flat consists of only two rooms. The flat in possession of the landlord at 31, the Mall Shimla, also consists of two rooms, kitchen and bath room. Even assuming that he was running an office in the part of the flat it cannot be believed that he would not live on his own flat on the Mall Road and reside with his brother-in-law in cramped premises. Even in the electoral list the landlord is shown to be a resident of 31, The Mall, Shimla. Therefore, I am of the considered view that the building 31, the Mall, Shimla was also being used as a residence by the landlord.',
	(int) 11 => '<p>11. Having held so, the question that arises is whether the landlord can be non-suited only on the ground that he has not made any disclosure about the residential accommodation available with him which premises were admittedly not owned by him.',
	(int) 12 => '<p>12. The short question which arises for decision in this petition is whether the landlord was guilty of suppressing and withholding such relevant facts which would disentitle him from seeking eviction of the tenant. To appreciate these contentions it would be necessary to refer to relevant portion of Section 14(3) of the Act:',
	(int) 13 => '<p>Section 14:',
	(int) 14 => '<p>1 and 2 xxxxxxxxxxx',
	(int) 15 => '<p>(3) A landlord may apply to the Controller for an order directing the tenant to put the landlord in possession-',
	(int) 16 => '<p>(a) in case of residential building, if',
	(int) 17 => '<p>(i) he required it for his own occupation:',
	(int) 18 => '<p>Provided that he is not occupying another residential building owned by him, in the urban area concerned:',
	(int) 19 => '<p>Provided further that he has not vacated such a building without sufficient cause within five years of the filing of the application, in the said urban area....',
	(int) 20 => '<p>13. A perusal of the bare provisions of the Act makes it clear that there are certain essential ingredients which the landlord must satisfy before seeking eviction of the tenant under the Act. Not only must he prove that the residential building is bona fide required by him for his own use and occupation but he must also plead and prove that he is not occupying any other residential building owned by him in the urban area concerned and further that he has not vacated such a building without sufficient cause within 5 years of the filing of the application.',
	(int) 21 => '<p>14. Reference may now be made to the relevant allegations made in para 18 of the eviction petition:',
	(int) 22 => '<p>(ii) That the petitioner bona fide requires the premises for his own use and occupation and also for the use and occupation of his family.',
	(int) 23 => '<p>The petitioner does not own or possess any other such building within the urban area of Simla nor the petitioner has vacated any such premises within five years of the filing of this petition.',
	(int) 24 => '<p>The family of the petitioner presently consists of himself and his wife. Due to paucity of accommodation the petitioner has not been able to keep his wife with himself at Simla, where he is working as an Engineer and she has been residing at Chandigarh since 1991 but on account of her ill health she has been brought to Simla by the petitioner. The petitioner at present is seeking temporary shelter, from time to time, with his relations.',
	(int) 25 => '<p>15. The learned Appellate Authority came to the conclusion that the landlord had falsely pleaded that he does not own or possess any other such building within the urban area of Shimla and hence rejected the eviction petition on this ground.',
	(int) 26 => '<p>16. On a close analysis of the proviso to Section 14(3)(a)(i) of the Act it is clear that a landlord is not entitled to seek eviction of a tenant from residential building even in case of bona fide requirement if the landlord is occupying another residential building owned by him in the urban area concerned. One can read three essential ingredients in this proviso i.e. (i) that the landlord is in occupation of another residential building; (ii) that the said residential building is owned by him and (iii) that the said residential building is situated in the concerned urban area.',
	(int) 27 => '<p>17. The question that arises is what is the impact of the landlord not making a disclosure in respect of premises which he is occupying but are not owned by him.',
	(int) 28 => '<p>18. The Apex Court in Onkar Nath v. Ved Vyas ILR 1979 HP 1, held as follows:',
	(int) 29 => '<p>It is common ground that there are three requirements to make out a cause of action for eviction under that provision, and indeed this is apparent from a bare reading of the sub-section. In the present case the finding is to the effect that the landlord requires the residential building for his own occupation. But, the legislation has taken care to insist upon two more conditions, namely; (a) that the landlord is not occupying any other residential building in the area concerned; and (b) that he has not vacated such a building without sufficient cause. There is not a scintilla of evidence nor indeed there is any averment in compliance with these latter conditions. The necessary consequence follows that not merely is there inadequacy of pleadings sufficient to make out a cause of action but total absence of proof of two vital requirements....',
	(int) 30 => '<p>The Supreme Court also said that:.The statute benignly designed to protect tenants from unreasonable evictions has taken case to put restrictions which must be rigorously construed to fulfil the purpose of the statute.',
	(int) 31 => '<p>19. Following the aforesaid judgment and other pronouncements of the Apex Court, a learned Single Judge of this Court in Tara Chand Sharma v. Baij Nath and Ors. 1992 (2) R.C.J. 323, held as follows:',
	(int) 32 => '<p>16. What appears as the legislative intent, in bold relief, is that the landlord, while seeking eviction of a tenant on the ground that he needs a residential building for his own occupation, must come out clearly and honestly with facts relating to the requirement that he is not occupying another residential building owned by him, in the urban area concerned and that he had not vacated such a building without sufficient cause within five years of the filing of the application, in the said urban area. The primal burden of making a clear disclosure would lie upon the landlord, for, the true facts would be in his special knowledge. An order in his favour by the Rent Controller would depend upon the satisfaction of the Rent Controller in regard not only to the claim that the landlord requires the accommodation, from which he wishes to evict a tenant, for his own occupation but also that he was not occupying another residential building owned by him nor had he vacated such building without sufficient cause within five years of the filing of the application in the application in the urban area concerned....',
	(int) 33 => '<p>It was further held as under:',
	(int) 34 => '<p>18. That the landlord should make a full disclosure of the relevant facts, pertaining to the requirements of Sub-section (3)(a)(i) and the two provisos, becomes all the more necessary because the satisfaction of the Rent Controller in regard thereto is the condition precedent for the making of an order in favour of the landlord....',
	(int) 35 => '<p>20. The aforesaid judgment has been followed in a number of other cases including Vijay Kapoor v. Maya Ram 1997 (2) RCR 437, wherein another learned single Judge of this Court following the aforesaid judgment held that the landlord must make complete and proper disclosure of all the material facts.',
	(int) 36 => '<p>21. On the other hand Sh. Ramakant Sharma has relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in Ram Narain Arora v. Asha Rani 1998(2) RCR 268. In that case the Rent Controller came to the conclusion that the landlord had suppressed material information and had not disclosed the fact that he was already in occupation of a house in Subji Mandi. Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act reads as follows:',
	(int) 37 => '<p>Section 14(1)(e). That the premises let for residential purposes are required bona fide by the landlord for occupation as a residence for himself or for any member of his family dependent on him, if he is the owner thereof, or for any person for whose benefit the premises are held and that the landlord or such person has no other reasonably suitable residential accommodation.',
	(int) 38 => '<p>22. The difference between Delhi Act and the present Act is that under the Delhi Act the only requirement is that the landlord has no other reasonably suitable accommodation whereas under the Himachal Act the residential premises are required to be owned by the landlord. The Apex Court in Rama Narain Arora's case (supra) held that the nondisclosure of the fact that the landlord was in occupation of certain premises in Subji Mandi was.not a ground to non-suit the landlord in view of the facts and circumstances of the case. The Apex Court held as follows:',
	(int) 39 => '<p>9. In making a claim that the suit premises is required bona fide for his own occupation as a residence for himself and other members of his family dependent on him and that he has no other reasonably suitable accommodation is a requirement of law before the Court can state whether the landlord requires the premises bona fide for his use and occupation. In doing so, the Court must also find out whether the landlord or such other person for whose benefit the premises is required has no other reasonably suitable residential accommodation. It cannot be said that the requirement of the landlord is not intermixed with the question of finding out whether he has any other reasonably suitable accommodation. If he has other reasonably suitable accommodation, ihen necessarily it would mean that he does not require the suit premises and his requirement may not be bona fide. In such circumstances further inquiry would be whether that premises is more suitable than the suit premises. Therefore, the questions raised before the Court would not necessarily depend upon only the pleadings. It could be a good defence that the landlord has other reasonably suitable residential accommodation and thereby defend the claim of the landlord.',
	(int) 40 => '<p>10. There cannot be a pedantic or a dogmatic approach in the matter of analysis of pleadings or of the evidence adduced thereto. It is no doubt true that if the pleadings are clearly set out, it would be easy for the Court to decide the matters. But if the pleadings are lacking or vague and if both parties have understood what was the case pleaded and put forth with reference to requirement of law and placed such material before the Court, neither party is prejudiced. If we analyse from this angle, we do not think that the High Court was not justified in interfering with the order made by the Rent Controller.',
	(int) 41 => '<p>23. From the perusal of the judgment of the Apex Court it is apparent that the Rent Controller must approach the matter in a practical manner. In case the non-disclosure is such as that it goes to the very root of the case the Rent Controller would be justified in non-suiting the landlord. However, if the non-disclosure is such that it would not prejudice the rights of the respondent then the landlord should not be non-suited only on this ground.',
	(int) 42 => '<p>24. The decisions of this Court cited hereinabove were delivered prior to the judgment delivered by the Apex Court in Ram Nar'ain Arora's case. Further more both in Tara Chand Sharma's case and Vijay Kapoor's case decided by this Court, no averment had been made ixi respect of other residential buildings owned by a landlord. There was complete non-disclosure as to whether any such residential building owned by the landlord was in his possession or not. In the present case, as I have held above, the residential premises at 31, The Mall, Shimla was not owned by the landlord and hence these two earlier judgments of this Court are distinguishable on facts also.',
	(int) 43 => '<p>25. In the present case, the landlord has been non-suited only on the ground that he did not disclose the fact that he was in occupation of certain premises on the Mall Road. Under law he was not required to disclose this fact. He was only required to disclose the factum of occupying another residential building owned by him in the urban area concerned. True it may be, that it would have been better if the landlord had disclosed all the facts but non-disclosure of a fact which he was not under law required to disclose could not in my opinion be a ground to dismiss his eviction petition.',
	(int) 44 => '<p>26. However, what are the premises in his occupation even as a tenant can be taken into consideration while deciding the question whether he bona fide requires the demised premises for his personal use or occupation or not.',
	(int) 45 => '<p>27. Lastly comes the question with regard to the bona fide requirement of the landlord. The landlord has no children. According to the landlord as well as his other witnesses i.e. his brother-in-law PW-2 and his wife PW-3, the wife now wants to come back and settle in Shimla. There is no reason to disbelieve their statements. Even according to the evidence led by the tenant the accommodation in possession of the landlord consists of two rooms, kitchen, bath room etc. Admittedly, the landlord is also having his office as an Architect in this building. The landlord belongs to the middle class of the Society. It cannot be expected of a landlord who owns sufficient property to reside in a two room set wherein he also runs his office.',
	(int) 46 => '<p>28. The law by now is well settled that the landlord is the best judge of the suitability of the accommodation required by him. This suitability has however to be judged in the context of reasonable expectations. The landlord and his wife who are both well educated can reasonably be expected to entertain guests and they will have visitors to their house. They would obviously require a drawing room, a bed room and a spare bed room for guests. Even at his residence the landlord may require another room for his professional work. This is the minimum accommodation which they would require. Even if the accommodation possessed by the landlord, though not owned by him, at 31, the Mall, Shimla is taken into consideration such accommodation is not sufficient to meet his requirements since admittedly the landlord is running his profession of Architect from some portion of his these premises.',
	(int) 47 => '<p>29. Keeping in view the entire facts and circumstances, I am of the considered view that the learned Appellate Authority gravely erred in rejecting the eviction petition of the landlord solely on the ground that he had not disclosed the factum of being in possession of the premises at 31, the Mall Shimla. Even though I have held that the said premises are residential premises, in view of the above discussion I hold that the landlord cannot be non-suited only on the ground of his being in possession of such premises since same were not owned by him.',
	(int) 48 => '<p>30. In view of the above discussion, the Revision Petition is allowed, the order of the learned Appellate Authority dated 6.5.2003 is seaside and the order of the Rent Controller dated 22.8.2001 is restored.',
	(int) 49 => '<p>31. Keeping in view the fact that the tenant has been in possession of the premises for a long period he is granted time up to 31st October, 2008 to vacate the premises.',
	(int) 50 => '<p>32. No order as to costs.<p>',
	(int) 51 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 52
$i = (int) 13
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

Section 14:

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Shri Arun Bhanwara Vs Shri S L Srivastava - Citation 891084 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '891084',
			'acts' => '',
			'appealno' => '',
			'appellant' => 'Shri Arun Bhanwara',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Shri Arun Bhanwara Vs. Shri S.L. Srivastava',
			'casenote' => ' - CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908.[C.A. No. 5/1908]. Order 14, Rule 2 [As amended by Amending Act of 1976]: [V.K. Gupta, CJ, Deepak Gupta & Surjit Singh, JJ] Preliminary issue of law and fact  Court framing all issues both of law and facts together and also  tried all the issues together, including the issue relating to jurisdiction of Court  Held, Except in situations perceived or warranted under sub-rule (2) of Rule 2 of Order 14 where a  Court in fact frames only issues of law in the first instance and postpones settlement of other issues, clearly and explicitly in situations where the Court has framed all issues together, both of law as well as facts and has also tried all these issues together, it is not open to the Court to adopt the principle of severability and proceed to decide issues of law first, without taking up simultaneously other issues for decision. This course of action is not available to a Court because sub-rule (1) does not permit the  Court to adopt any such principle of severability and to dispose of a suit only on preliminary issues, or what can be termed as issues of law. Sub-rule (1)  clearly mandates that in a situation contemplated under it, where all the issues have been together and have also been taken up for adjudication during the course of the trial, these must be decided together and the judgment in the suit as a whole must be pronounced by the Court covering all the issues framed in the suit.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => 'Ram Narain Arora v. Asha Rani;',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => '',
			'counseldef' => '',
			'court' => 'Himachal Pradesh',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2008-07-31',
			'deposition' => 'Petition allowed',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => ' Deepak Gupta, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">Deepak Gupta, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. This Revision Petition under Section 25(5) of the H.P. Urban Rent Control Act, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) is directed against the order of the learned Appellate Authority, Shimla in CMA No. 60-S/14 of 2001 whereby the appeal filed by the respondent (hereinafter referred to as the tenant) has been allowed, the order of the Rent Controller has been set-aside and the petition for eviction filed by the present petitioner (hereinafter referred to as the Landlord) on the ground of personal bona fide requirement has been set-aside.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The undisputed facts are that the landlord is owner of the demised premises situated in building known as Tunnel View, Sanjauli, Shimla-6 consisting of two bed rooms with attached bath room and latrine, drawing-cum-dining room, kitchen and balcony. These premises were purchased by the landlord in the year 1986. Thereafter, the landlord had rented out the premises to one Sh. B.K. Chauhan. According to the landlord, when he got married he requested Sh. B.K. Chauhan to vacate the said premises. Sh. Chauhan vacated the said premises but admittedly the landlord did not occupy the same but rented out the same to the tenant in the year 1990.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. In the year 1997 the landlord filed a petition for eviction of the tenant on two grounds; firstly that the tenant is in arrears of rent from 1.11.1990 to 31.7.1997 and secondly that the premises are bona fide required by the landlord for the use and occupation of himself and his family.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. This petition was contested by the tenant. After trial, the Rent Controller ordered the eviction of the tenant on two grounds; (i) that the tenant was in arrears of rent from November, 1999 till date of order i.e. 22nd August, 2001 and (ii) that the landlord required the premises for his own use and occupation.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. The tenant deposited the rent within the time prescribed. He also filed an appeal challenging the finding on the issue of bona fide requirement. The learned Appellate Authority came to the conclusion that the landlord had not made a proper and full disclosure of facts as required under the provisions of the Act and had withheld material facts from the Court viz. that the landlord was in occupation of residential premises on 31, Mall Road in the urban area of Shimla and as such rejected this petition on this short ground.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. Aggrieved by the said order, the landlord has filed the present Revision Petition.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. I have heard Sh. Ramakant Sharma, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sh. Bhupinder Gupta, learned senior Counsel for the tenant.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. It has been urged on behalf of the landlord that the building which is alleged to be in possession of the landlord i.e. 31, the Mall Shimla is not a residential building and secondly that the building is not owned by him.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. On the other hand Sh. Bhupinder Gupta, learned Counsel of the tenant has strenuously urged that the landlord in para 18 has not stated anything about any building being owned by him and has only made an averment that he does not own or possess any other such building within the urban area Shimla. It is contended by Sh. Bhupinder Gupta that the landlord of his own volition did not state anything about the ownership of the building and since he has kept silent about the building which he is in occupation he has made a false averment and therefore his petition for eviction has rightly been rejected.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. I am not at all in agreement with the contention of the landlord that the premises known as 31, the Mall Shimla which are admittedly in the occupation of the landlord are commercial premises only and not being used by him for his residence. As pointed out above, the landlord purchased the demised premises in 1986. They fell vacant when he got married despite that he did not occupy the same and rented out the same to the tenant in the year 1990. The question that arises is where was the landlord living for this entire period. According to the landlord after the year 1994 he has been living with his brother-in-law Rajan (wife's brother) PW-2, since the year 1994. Prior to 1994 the landlord will have this Court to believe that he was living off and on with one friend or the other. This story is impossible to believe. The landlord was married in the year 1999. He is an Architect by profession. His wife is a law graduate. It is not believable that such a person would have no permanent abode and would continue to live as a guest with his friends for almost 5 years after his marriage. Even the story that he has been living with his brother-in-law after the year 1994 does not inspire confidence. It stands proved on record that the brother-in-law PW-2 Rajan lives with his own family i.e. wife and children. From the evidence it is also clear that the parents of the brother-in-law also reside with him, His flat consists of only two rooms. The flat in possession of the landlord at 31, the Mall Shimla, also consists of two rooms, kitchen and bath room. Even assuming that he was running an office in the part of the flat it cannot be believed that he would not live on his own flat on the Mall Road and reside with his brother-in-law in cramped premises. Even in the electoral list the landlord is shown to be a resident of 31, The Mall, Shimla. Therefore, I am of the considered view that the building 31, the Mall, Shimla was also being used as a residence by the landlord.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. Having held so, the question that arises is whether the landlord can be non-suited only on the ground that he has not made any disclosure about the residential accommodation available with him which premises were admittedly not owned by him.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. The short question which arises for decision in this petition is whether the landlord was guilty of suppressing and withholding such relevant facts which would disentitle him from seeking eviction of the tenant. To appreciate these contentions it would be necessary to refer to relevant portion of Section 14(3) of the Act:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Section 14:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1 and 2 xxxxxxxxxxx</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(3) A landlord may apply to the Controller for an order directing the tenant to put the landlord in possession-</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(a) in case of residential building, if</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(i) he required it for his own occupation:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Provided that he is not occupying another residential building owned by him, in the urban area concerned:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Provided further that he has not vacated such a building without sufficient cause within five years of the filing of the application, in the said urban area....</p><p style="text-align: justify;">13. A perusal of the bare provisions of the Act makes it clear that there are certain essential ingredients which the landlord must satisfy before seeking eviction of the tenant under the Act. Not only must he prove that the residential building is bona fide required by him for his own use and occupation but he must also plead and prove that he is not occupying any other residential building owned by him in the urban area concerned and further that he has not vacated such a building without sufficient cause within 5 years of the filing of the application.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">14. Reference may now be made to the relevant allegations made in para 18 of the eviction petition:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(ii) That the petitioner bona fide requires the premises for his own use and occupation and also for the use and occupation of his family.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The petitioner does not own or possess any other such building within the urban area of Simla nor the petitioner has vacated any such premises within five years of the filing of this petition.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The family of the petitioner presently consists of himself and his wife. Due to paucity of accommodation the petitioner has not been able to keep his wife with himself at Simla, where he is working as an Engineer and she has been residing at Chandigarh since 1991 but on account of her ill health she has been brought to Simla by the petitioner. The petitioner at present is seeking temporary shelter, from time to time, with his relations.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">15. The learned Appellate Authority came to the conclusion that the landlord had falsely pleaded that he does not own or possess any other such building within the urban area of Shimla and hence rejected the eviction petition on this ground.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">16. On a close analysis of the proviso to Section 14(3)(a)(i) of the Act it is clear that a landlord is not entitled to seek eviction of a tenant from residential building even in case of bona fide requirement if the landlord is occupying another residential building owned by him in the urban area concerned. One can read three essential ingredients in this proviso i.e. (i) that the landlord is in occupation of another residential building; (ii) that the said residential building is owned by him and (iii) that the said residential building is situated in the concerned urban area.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">17. The question that arises is what is the impact of the landlord not making a disclosure in respect of premises which he is occupying but are not owned by him.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">18. The Apex Court in Onkar Nath v. Ved Vyas ILR 1979 HP 1, held as follows:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">It is common ground that there are three requirements to make out a cause of action for eviction under that provision, and indeed this is apparent from a bare reading of the sub-section. In the present case the finding is to the effect that the landlord requires the residential building for his own occupation. But, the legislation has taken care to insist upon two more conditions, namely; (a) that the landlord is not occupying any other residential building in the area concerned; and (b) that he has not vacated such a building without sufficient cause. There is not a scintilla of evidence nor indeed there is any averment in compliance with these latter conditions. The necessary consequence follows that not merely is there inadequacy of pleadings sufficient to make out a cause of action but total absence of proof of two vital requirements....</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The Supreme Court also said that:.The statute benignly designed to protect tenants from unreasonable evictions has taken case to put restrictions which must be rigorously construed to fulfil the purpose of the statute.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">19. Following the aforesaid judgment and other pronouncements of the Apex Court, a learned Single Judge of this Court in Tara Chand Sharma v. Baij Nath and Ors. 1992 (2) R.C.J. 323, held as follows:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">16. What appears as the legislative intent, in bold relief, is that the landlord, while seeking eviction of a tenant on the ground that he needs a residential building for his own occupation, must come out clearly and honestly with facts relating to the requirement that he is not occupying another residential building owned by him, in the urban area concerned and that he had not vacated such a building without sufficient cause within five years of the filing of the application, in the said urban area. The primal burden of making a clear disclosure would lie upon the landlord, for, the true facts would be in his special knowledge. An order in his favour by the Rent Controller would depend upon the satisfaction of the Rent Controller in regard not only to the claim that the landlord requires the accommodation, from which he wishes to evict a tenant, for his own occupation but also that he was not occupying another residential building owned by him nor had he vacated such building without sufficient cause within five years of the filing of the application in the application in the urban area concerned....</p><p style="text-align: justify;">It was further held as under:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">18. That the landlord should make a full disclosure of the relevant facts, pertaining to the requirements of Sub-section (3)(a)(i) and the two provisos, becomes all the more necessary because the satisfaction of the Rent Controller in regard thereto is the condition precedent for the making of an order in favour of the landlord....</p><p style="text-align: justify;">20. The aforesaid judgment has been followed in a number of other cases including Vijay Kapoor v. Maya Ram 1997 (2) RCR 437, wherein another learned single Judge of this Court following the aforesaid judgment held that the landlord must make complete and proper disclosure of all the material facts.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">21. On the other hand Sh. Ramakant Sharma has relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in Ram Narain Arora v. Asha Rani 1998(2) RCR 268. In that case the Rent Controller came to the conclusion that the landlord had suppressed material information and had not disclosed the fact that he was already in occupation of a house in Subji Mandi. Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act reads as follows:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Section 14(1)(e). That the premises let for residential purposes are required bona fide by the landlord for occupation as a residence for himself or for any member of his family dependent on him, if he is the owner thereof, or for any person for whose benefit the premises are held and that the landlord or such person has no other reasonably suitable residential accommodation.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">22. The difference between Delhi Act and the present Act is that under the Delhi Act the only requirement is that the landlord has no other reasonably suitable accommodation whereas under the Himachal Act the residential premises are required to be owned by the landlord. The Apex Court in Rama Narain Arora's case (supra) held that the nondisclosure of the fact that the landlord was in occupation of certain premises in Subji Mandi was.not a ground to non-suit the landlord in view of the facts and circumstances of the case. The Apex Court held as follows:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. In making a claim that the suit premises is required bona fide for his own occupation as a residence for himself and other members of his family dependent on him and that he has no other reasonably suitable accommodation is a requirement of law before the Court can state whether the landlord requires the premises bona fide for his use and occupation. In doing so, the Court must also find out whether the landlord or such other person for whose benefit the premises is required has no other reasonably suitable residential accommodation. It cannot be said that the requirement of the landlord is not intermixed with the question of finding out whether he has any other reasonably suitable accommodation. If he has other reasonably suitable accommodation, ihen necessarily it would mean that he does not require the suit premises and his requirement may not be bona fide. In such circumstances further inquiry would be whether that premises is more suitable than the suit premises. Therefore, the questions raised before the Court would not necessarily depend upon only the pleadings. It could be a good defence that the landlord has other reasonably suitable residential accommodation and thereby defend the claim of the landlord.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. There cannot be a pedantic or a dogmatic approach in the matter of analysis of pleadings or of the evidence adduced thereto. It is no doubt true that if the pleadings are clearly set out, it would be easy for the Court to decide the matters. But if the pleadings are lacking or vague and if both parties have understood what was the case pleaded and put forth with reference to requirement of law and placed such material before the Court, neither party is prejudiced. If we analyse from this angle, we do not think that the High Court was not justified in interfering with the order made by the Rent Controller.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">23. From the perusal of the judgment of the Apex Court it is apparent that the Rent Controller must approach the matter in a practical manner. In case the non-disclosure is such as that it goes to the very root of the case the Rent Controller would be justified in non-suiting the landlord. However, if the non-disclosure is such that it would not prejudice the rights of the respondent then the landlord should not be non-suited only on this ground.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">24. The decisions of this Court cited hereinabove were delivered prior to the judgment delivered by the Apex Court in Ram Nar'ain Arora's case. Further more both in Tara Chand Sharma's case and Vijay Kapoor's case decided by this Court, no averment had been made ixi respect of other residential buildings owned by a landlord. There was complete non-disclosure as to whether any such residential building owned by the landlord was in his possession or not. In the present case, as I have held above, the residential premises at 31, The Mall, Shimla was not owned by the landlord and hence these two earlier judgments of this Court are distinguishable on facts also.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">25. In the present case, the landlord has been non-suited only on the ground that he did not disclose the fact that he was in occupation of certain premises on the Mall Road. Under law he was not required to disclose this fact. He was only required to disclose the factum of occupying another residential building owned by him in the urban area concerned. True it may be, that it would have been better if the landlord had disclosed all the facts but non-disclosure of a fact which he was not under law required to disclose could not in my opinion be a ground to dismiss his eviction petition.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">26. However, what are the premises in his occupation even as a tenant can be taken into consideration while deciding the question whether he bona fide requires the demised premises for his personal use or occupation or not.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">27. Lastly comes the question with regard to the bona fide requirement of the landlord. The landlord has no children. According to the landlord as well as his other witnesses i.e. his brother-in-law PW-2 and his wife PW-3, the wife now wants to come back and settle in Shimla. There is no reason to disbelieve their statements. Even according to the evidence led by the tenant the accommodation in possession of the landlord consists of two rooms, kitchen, bath room etc. Admittedly, the landlord is also having his office as an Architect in this building. The landlord belongs to the middle class of the Society. It cannot be expected of a landlord who owns sufficient property to reside in a two room set wherein he also runs his office.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">28. The law by now is well settled that the landlord is the best judge of the suitability of the accommodation required by him. This suitability has however to be judged in the context of reasonable expectations. The landlord and his wife who are both well educated can reasonably be expected to entertain guests and they will have visitors to their house. They would obviously require a drawing room, a bed room and a spare bed room for guests. Even at his residence the landlord may require another room for his professional work. This is the minimum accommodation which they would require. Even if the accommodation possessed by the landlord, though not owned by him, at 31, the Mall, Shimla is taken into consideration such accommodation is not sufficient to meet his requirements since admittedly the landlord is running his profession of Architect from some portion of his these premises.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">29. Keeping in view the entire facts and circumstances, I am of the considered view that the learned Appellate Authority gravely erred in rejecting the eviction petition of the landlord solely on the ground that he had not disclosed the factum of being in possession of the premises at 31, the Mall Shimla. Even though I have held that the said premises are residential premises, in view of the above discussion I hold that the landlord cannot be non-suited only on the ground of his being in possession of such premises since same were not owned by him.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">30. In view of the above discussion, the Revision Petition is allowed, the order of the learned Appellate Authority dated 6.5.2003 is seaside and the order of the Rent Controller dated 22.8.2001 is restored.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">31. Keeping in view the fact that the tenant has been in possession of the premises for a long period he is granted time up to 31st October, 2008 to vacate the premises.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">32. No order as to costs.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '2008(2)ShimLC491',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'Shri S.L. Srivastava',
			'sub' => 'Tenancy',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'shri-arun-bhanwara-vs-s-l-srivastava',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '891084',
		(int) 1 => 'shri-arun-bhanwara-vs-s-l-srivastava'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Shri Arun Bhanwara Vs Shri S L Srivastava - Citation 891084 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '891084',
		'acts' => '',
		'appealno' => '',
		'appellant' => 'Shri Arun Bhanwara',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Shri Arun Bhanwara Vs. Shri S.L. Srivastava',
		'casenote' => ' - CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908.[C.A. No. 5/1908]. Order 14, Rule 2 [As amended by Amending Act of 1976]: [V.K. Gupta, CJ, Deepak Gupta & Surjit Singh, JJ] Preliminary issue of law and fact  Court framing all issues both of law and facts together and also  tried all the issues together, including the issue relating to jurisdiction of Court  Held, Except in situations perceived or warranted under sub-rule (2) of Rule 2 of Order 14 where a  Court in fact frames only issues of law in the first instance and postpones settlement of other issues, clearly and explicitly in situations where the Court has framed all issues together, both of law as well as facts and has also tried all these issues together, it is not open to the Court to adopt the principle of severability and proceed to decide issues of law first, without taking up simultaneously other issues for decision. This course of action is not available to a Court because sub-rule (1) does not permit the  Court to adopt any such principle of severability and to dispose of a suit only on preliminary issues, or what can be termed as issues of law. Sub-rule (1)  clearly mandates that in a situation contemplated under it, where all the issues have been together and have also been taken up for adjudication during the course of the trial, these must be decided together and the judgment in the suit as a whole must be pronounced by the Court covering all the issues framed in the suit.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => 'Ram Narain Arora v. Asha Rani;',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => '',
		'counseldef' => '',
		'court' => 'Himachal Pradesh',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2008-07-31',
		'deposition' => 'Petition allowed',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => ' Deepak Gupta, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>Deepak Gupta, J.</p><p>1. This Revision Petition under Section 25(5) of the H.P. Urban Rent Control Act, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) is directed against the order of the learned Appellate Authority, Shimla in CMA No. 60-S/14 of 2001 whereby the appeal filed by the respondent (hereinafter referred to as the tenant) has been allowed, the order of the Rent Controller has been set-aside and the petition for eviction filed by the present petitioner (hereinafter referred to as the Landlord) on the ground of personal bona fide requirement has been set-aside.</p><p>2. The undisputed facts are that the landlord is owner of the demised premises situated in building known as Tunnel View, Sanjauli, Shimla-6 consisting of two bed rooms with attached bath room and latrine, drawing-cum-dining room, kitchen and balcony. These premises were purchased by the landlord in the year 1986. Thereafter, the landlord had rented out the premises to one Sh. B.K. Chauhan. According to the landlord, when he got married he requested Sh. B.K. Chauhan to vacate the said premises. Sh. Chauhan vacated the said premises but admittedly the landlord did not occupy the same but rented out the same to the tenant in the year 1990.</p><p>3. In the year 1997 the landlord filed a petition for eviction of the tenant on two grounds; firstly that the tenant is in arrears of rent from 1.11.1990 to 31.7.1997 and secondly that the premises are bona fide required by the landlord for the use and occupation of himself and his family.</p><p>4. This petition was contested by the tenant. After trial, the Rent Controller ordered the eviction of the tenant on two grounds; (i) that the tenant was in arrears of rent from November, 1999 till date of order i.e. 22nd August, 2001 and (ii) that the landlord required the premises for his own use and occupation.</p><p>5. The tenant deposited the rent within the time prescribed. He also filed an appeal challenging the finding on the issue of bona fide requirement. The learned Appellate Authority came to the conclusion that the landlord had not made a proper and full disclosure of facts as required under the provisions of the Act and had withheld material facts from the Court viz. that the landlord was in occupation of residential premises on 31, Mall Road in the urban area of Shimla and as such rejected this petition on this short ground.</p><p>6. Aggrieved by the said order, the landlord has filed the present Revision Petition.</p><p>7. I have heard Sh. Ramakant Sharma, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sh. Bhupinder Gupta, learned senior Counsel for the tenant.</p><p>8. It has been urged on behalf of the landlord that the building which is alleged to be in possession of the landlord i.e. 31, the Mall Shimla is not a residential building and secondly that the building is not owned by him.</p><p>9. On the other hand Sh. Bhupinder Gupta, learned Counsel of the tenant has strenuously urged that the landlord in para 18 has not stated anything about any building being owned by him and has only made an averment that he does not own or possess any other such building within the urban area Shimla. It is contended by Sh. Bhupinder Gupta that the landlord of his own volition did not state anything about the ownership of the building and since he has kept silent about the building which he is in occupation he has made a false averment and therefore his petition for eviction has rightly been rejected.</p><p>10. I am not at all in agreement with the contention of the landlord that the premises known as 31, the Mall Shimla which are admittedly in the occupation of the landlord are commercial premises only and not being used by him for his residence. As pointed out above, the landlord purchased the demised premises in 1986. They fell vacant when he got married despite that he did not occupy the same and rented out the same to the tenant in the year 1990. The question that arises is where was the landlord living for this entire period. According to the landlord after the year 1994 he has been living with his brother-in-law Rajan (wife's brother) PW-2, since the year 1994. Prior to 1994 the landlord will have this Court to believe that he was living off and on with one friend or the other. This story is impossible to believe. The landlord was married in the year 1999. He is an Architect by profession. His wife is a law graduate. It is not believable that such a person would have no permanent abode and would continue to live as a guest with his friends for almost 5 years after his marriage. Even the story that he has been living with his brother-in-law after the year 1994 does not inspire confidence. It stands proved on record that the brother-in-law PW-2 Rajan lives with his own family i.e. wife and children. From the evidence it is also clear that the parents of the brother-in-law also reside with him, His flat consists of only two rooms. The flat in possession of the landlord at 31, the Mall Shimla, also consists of two rooms, kitchen and bath room. Even assuming that he was running an office in the part of the flat it cannot be believed that he would not live on his own flat on the Mall Road and reside with his brother-in-law in cramped premises. Even in the electoral list the landlord is shown to be a resident of 31, The Mall, Shimla. Therefore, I am of the considered view that the building 31, the Mall, Shimla was also being used as a residence by the landlord.</p><p>11. Having held so, the question that arises is whether the landlord can be non-suited only on the ground that he has not made any disclosure about the residential accommodation available with him which premises were admittedly not owned by him.</p><p>12. The short question which arises for decision in this petition is whether the landlord was guilty of suppressing and withholding such relevant facts which would disentitle him from seeking eviction of the tenant. To appreciate these contentions it would be necessary to refer to relevant portion of Section 14(3) of the Act:</p><p>Section 14:</p><p>1 and 2 xxxxxxxxxxx</p><p>(3) A landlord may apply to the Controller for an order directing the tenant to put the landlord in possession-</p><p>(a) in case of residential building, if</p><p>(i) he required it for his own occupation:</p><p>Provided that he is not occupying another residential building owned by him, in the urban area concerned:</p><p>Provided further that he has not vacated such a building without sufficient cause within five years of the filing of the application, in the said urban area....</p><p>13. A perusal of the bare provisions of the Act makes it clear that there are certain essential ingredients which the landlord must satisfy before seeking eviction of the tenant under the Act. Not only must he prove that the residential building is bona fide required by him for his own use and occupation but he must also plead and prove that he is not occupying any other residential building owned by him in the urban area concerned and further that he has not vacated such a building without sufficient cause within 5 years of the filing of the application.</p><p>14. Reference may now be made to the relevant allegations made in para 18 of the eviction petition:</p><p>(ii) That the petitioner bona fide requires the premises for his own use and occupation and also for the use and occupation of his family.</p><p>The petitioner does not own or possess any other such building within the urban area of Simla nor the petitioner has vacated any such premises within five years of the filing of this petition.</p><p>The family of the petitioner presently consists of himself and his wife. Due to paucity of accommodation the petitioner has not been able to keep his wife with himself at Simla, where he is working as an Engineer and she has been residing at Chandigarh since 1991 but on account of her ill health she has been brought to Simla by the petitioner. The petitioner at present is seeking temporary shelter, from time to time, with his relations.</p><p>15. The learned Appellate Authority came to the conclusion that the landlord had falsely pleaded that he does not own or possess any other such building within the urban area of Shimla and hence rejected the eviction petition on this ground.</p><p>16. On a close analysis of the proviso to Section 14(3)(a)(i) of the Act it is clear that a landlord is not entitled to seek eviction of a tenant from residential building even in case of bona fide requirement if the landlord is occupying another residential building owned by him in the urban area concerned. One can read three essential ingredients in this proviso i.e. (i) that the landlord is in occupation of another residential building; (ii) that the said residential building is owned by him and (iii) that the said residential building is situated in the concerned urban area.</p><p>17. The question that arises is what is the impact of the landlord not making a disclosure in respect of premises which he is occupying but are not owned by him.</p><p>18. The Apex Court in Onkar Nath v. Ved Vyas ILR 1979 HP 1, held as follows:</p><p>It is common ground that there are three requirements to make out a cause of action for eviction under that provision, and indeed this is apparent from a bare reading of the sub-section. In the present case the finding is to the effect that the landlord requires the residential building for his own occupation. But, the legislation has taken care to insist upon two more conditions, namely; (a) that the landlord is not occupying any other residential building in the area concerned; and (b) that he has not vacated such a building without sufficient cause. There is not a scintilla of evidence nor indeed there is any averment in compliance with these latter conditions. The necessary consequence follows that not merely is there inadequacy of pleadings sufficient to make out a cause of action but total absence of proof of two vital requirements....</p><p>The Supreme Court also said that:.The statute benignly designed to protect tenants from unreasonable evictions has taken case to put restrictions which must be rigorously construed to fulfil the purpose of the statute.</p><p>19. Following the aforesaid judgment and other pronouncements of the Apex Court, a learned Single Judge of this Court in Tara Chand Sharma v. Baij Nath and Ors. 1992 (2) R.C.J. 323, held as follows:</p><p>16. What appears as the legislative intent, in bold relief, is that the landlord, while seeking eviction of a tenant on the ground that he needs a residential building for his own occupation, must come out clearly and honestly with facts relating to the requirement that he is not occupying another residential building owned by him, in the urban area concerned and that he had not vacated such a building without sufficient cause within five years of the filing of the application, in the said urban area. The primal burden of making a clear disclosure would lie upon the landlord, for, the true facts would be in his special knowledge. An order in his favour by the Rent Controller would depend upon the satisfaction of the Rent Controller in regard not only to the claim that the landlord requires the accommodation, from which he wishes to evict a tenant, for his own occupation but also that he was not occupying another residential building owned by him nor had he vacated such building without sufficient cause within five years of the filing of the application in the application in the urban area concerned....</p><p>It was further held as under:</p><p>18. That the landlord should make a full disclosure of the relevant facts, pertaining to the requirements of Sub-section (3)(a)(i) and the two provisos, becomes all the more necessary because the satisfaction of the Rent Controller in regard thereto is the condition precedent for the making of an order in favour of the landlord....</p><p>20. The aforesaid judgment has been followed in a number of other cases including Vijay Kapoor v. Maya Ram 1997 (2) RCR 437, wherein another learned single Judge of this Court following the aforesaid judgment held that the landlord must make complete and proper disclosure of all the material facts.</p><p>21. On the other hand Sh. Ramakant Sharma has relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in Ram Narain Arora v. Asha Rani 1998(2) RCR 268. In that case the Rent Controller came to the conclusion that the landlord had suppressed material information and had not disclosed the fact that he was already in occupation of a house in Subji Mandi. Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act reads as follows:</p><p>Section 14(1)(e). That the premises let for residential purposes are required bona fide by the landlord for occupation as a residence for himself or for any member of his family dependent on him, if he is the owner thereof, or for any person for whose benefit the premises are held and that the landlord or such person has no other reasonably suitable residential accommodation.</p><p>22. The difference between Delhi Act and the present Act is that under the Delhi Act the only requirement is that the landlord has no other reasonably suitable accommodation whereas under the Himachal Act the residential premises are required to be owned by the landlord. The Apex Court in Rama Narain Arora's case (supra) held that the nondisclosure of the fact that the landlord was in occupation of certain premises in Subji Mandi was.not a ground to non-suit the landlord in view of the facts and circumstances of the case. The Apex Court held as follows:</p><p>9. In making a claim that the suit premises is required bona fide for his own occupation as a residence for himself and other members of his family dependent on him and that he has no other reasonably suitable accommodation is a requirement of law before the Court can state whether the landlord requires the premises bona fide for his use and occupation. In doing so, the Court must also find out whether the landlord or such other person for whose benefit the premises is required has no other reasonably suitable residential accommodation. It cannot be said that the requirement of the landlord is not intermixed with the question of finding out whether he has any other reasonably suitable accommodation. If he has other reasonably suitable accommodation, ihen necessarily it would mean that he does not require the suit premises and his requirement may not be bona fide. In such circumstances further inquiry would be whether that premises is more suitable than the suit premises. Therefore, the questions raised before the Court would not necessarily depend upon only the pleadings. It could be a good defence that the landlord has other reasonably suitable residential accommodation and thereby defend the claim of the landlord.</p><p>10. There cannot be a pedantic or a dogmatic approach in the matter of analysis of pleadings or of the evidence adduced thereto. It is no doubt true that if the pleadings are clearly set out, it would be easy for the Court to decide the matters. But if the pleadings are lacking or vague and if both parties have understood what was the case pleaded and put forth with reference to requirement of law and placed such material before the Court, neither party is prejudiced. If we analyse from this angle, we do not think that the High Court was not justified in interfering with the order made by the Rent Controller.</p><p>23. From the perusal of the judgment of the Apex Court it is apparent that the Rent Controller must approach the matter in a practical manner. In case the non-disclosure is such as that it goes to the very root of the case the Rent Controller would be justified in non-suiting the landlord. However, if the non-disclosure is such that it would not prejudice the rights of the respondent then the landlord should not be non-suited only on this ground.</p><p>24. The decisions of this Court cited hereinabove were delivered prior to the judgment delivered by the Apex Court in Ram Nar'ain Arora's case. Further more both in Tara Chand Sharma's case and Vijay Kapoor's case decided by this Court, no averment had been made ixi respect of other residential buildings owned by a landlord. There was complete non-disclosure as to whether any such residential building owned by the landlord was in his possession or not. In the present case, as I have held above, the residential premises at 31, The Mall, Shimla was not owned by the landlord and hence these two earlier judgments of this Court are distinguishable on facts also.</p><p>25. In the present case, the landlord has been non-suited only on the ground that he did not disclose the fact that he was in occupation of certain premises on the Mall Road. Under law he was not required to disclose this fact. He was only required to disclose the factum of occupying another residential building owned by him in the urban area concerned. True it may be, that it would have been better if the landlord had disclosed all the facts but non-disclosure of a fact which he was not under law required to disclose could not in my opinion be a ground to dismiss his eviction petition.</p><p>26. However, what are the premises in his occupation even as a tenant can be taken into consideration while deciding the question whether he bona fide requires the demised premises for his personal use or occupation or not.</p><p>27. Lastly comes the question with regard to the bona fide requirement of the landlord. The landlord has no children. According to the landlord as well as his other witnesses i.e. his brother-in-law PW-2 and his wife PW-3, the wife now wants to come back and settle in Shimla. There is no reason to disbelieve their statements. Even according to the evidence led by the tenant the accommodation in possession of the landlord consists of two rooms, kitchen, bath room etc. Admittedly, the landlord is also having his office as an Architect in this building. The landlord belongs to the middle class of the Society. It cannot be expected of a landlord who owns sufficient property to reside in a two room set wherein he also runs his office.</p><p>28. The law by now is well settled that the landlord is the best judge of the suitability of the accommodation required by him. This suitability has however to be judged in the context of reasonable expectations. The landlord and his wife who are both well educated can reasonably be expected to entertain guests and they will have visitors to their house. They would obviously require a drawing room, a bed room and a spare bed room for guests. Even at his residence the landlord may require another room for his professional work. This is the minimum accommodation which they would require. Even if the accommodation possessed by the landlord, though not owned by him, at 31, the Mall, Shimla is taken into consideration such accommodation is not sufficient to meet his requirements since admittedly the landlord is running his profession of Architect from some portion of his these premises.</p><p>29. Keeping in view the entire facts and circumstances, I am of the considered view that the learned Appellate Authority gravely erred in rejecting the eviction petition of the landlord solely on the ground that he had not disclosed the factum of being in possession of the premises at 31, the Mall Shimla. Even though I have held that the said premises are residential premises, in view of the above discussion I hold that the landlord cannot be non-suited only on the ground of his being in possession of such premises since same were not owned by him.</p><p>30. In view of the above discussion, the Revision Petition is allowed, the order of the learned Appellate Authority dated 6.5.2003 is seaside and the order of the Rent Controller dated 22.8.2001 is restored.</p><p>31. Keeping in view the fact that the tenant has been in possession of the premises for a long period he is granted time up to 31st October, 2008 to vacate the premises.</p><p>32. No order as to costs.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '2008(2)ShimLC491',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'Shri S.L. Srivastava',
		'sub' => 'Tenancy',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'shri-arun-bhanwara-vs-s-l-srivastava'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '891084',
	(int) 1 => 'shri-arun-bhanwara-vs-s-l-srivastava'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/891084/shri-arun-bhanwara-vs-s-l-srivastava'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$caseref = 'Ram Narain Arora v. Asha Rani<br>'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>Deepak Gupta, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. This Revision Petition under Section 25(5) of the H.P. Urban Rent Control Act, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) is directed against the order of the learned Appellate Authority, Shimla in CMA No. 60-S/14 of 2001 whereby the appeal filed by the respondent (hereinafter referred to as the tenant) has been allowed, the order of the Rent Controller has been set-aside and the petition for eviction filed by the present petitioner (hereinafter referred to as the Landlord) on the ground of personal bona fide requirement has been set-aside.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. The undisputed facts are that the landlord is owner of the demised premises situated in building known as Tunnel View, Sanjauli, Shimla-6 consisting of two bed rooms with attached bath room and latrine, drawing-cum-dining room, kitchen and balcony. These premises were purchased by the landlord in the year 1986. Thereafter, the landlord had rented out the premises to one Sh. B.K. Chauhan. According to the landlord, when he got married he requested Sh. B.K. Chauhan to vacate the said premises. Sh. Chauhan vacated the said premises but admittedly the landlord did not occupy the same but rented out the same to the tenant in the year 1990.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. In the year 1997 the landlord filed a petition for eviction of the tenant on two grounds; firstly that the tenant is in arrears of rent from 1.11.1990 to 31.7.1997 and secondly that the premises are bona fide required by the landlord for the use and occupation of himself and his family.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>4. This petition was contested by the tenant. After trial, the Rent Controller ordered the eviction of the tenant on two grounds; (i) that the tenant was in arrears of rent from November, 1999 till date of order i.e. 22nd August, 2001 and (ii) that the landlord required the premises for his own use and occupation.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>5. The tenant deposited the rent within the time prescribed. He also filed an appeal challenging the finding on the issue of bona fide requirement. The learned Appellate Authority came to the conclusion that the landlord had not made a proper and full disclosure of facts as required under the provisions of the Act and had withheld material facts from the Court viz. that the landlord was in occupation of residential premises on 31, Mall Road in the urban area of Shimla and as such rejected this petition on this short ground.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>6. Aggrieved by the said order, the landlord has filed the present Revision Petition.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>7. I have heard Sh. Ramakant Sharma, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sh. Bhupinder Gupta, learned senior Counsel for the tenant.',
	(int) 8 => '<p>8. It has been urged on behalf of the landlord that the building which is alleged to be in possession of the landlord i.e. 31, the Mall Shimla is not a residential building and secondly that the building is not owned by him.',
	(int) 9 => '<p>9. On the other hand Sh. Bhupinder Gupta, learned Counsel of the tenant has strenuously urged that the landlord in para 18 has not stated anything about any building being owned by him and has only made an averment that he does not own or possess any other such building within the urban area Shimla. It is contended by Sh. Bhupinder Gupta that the landlord of his own volition did not state anything about the ownership of the building and since he has kept silent about the building which he is in occupation he has made a false averment and therefore his petition for eviction has rightly been rejected.',
	(int) 10 => '<p>10. I am not at all in agreement with the contention of the landlord that the premises known as 31, the Mall Shimla which are admittedly in the occupation of the landlord are commercial premises only and not being used by him for his residence. As pointed out above, the landlord purchased the demised premises in 1986. They fell vacant when he got married despite that he did not occupy the same and rented out the same to the tenant in the year 1990. The question that arises is where was the landlord living for this entire period. According to the landlord after the year 1994 he has been living with his brother-in-law Rajan (wife's brother) PW-2, since the year 1994. Prior to 1994 the landlord will have this Court to believe that he was living off and on with one friend or the other. This story is impossible to believe. The landlord was married in the year 1999. He is an Architect by profession. His wife is a law graduate. It is not believable that such a person would have no permanent abode and would continue to live as a guest with his friends for almost 5 years after his marriage. Even the story that he has been living with his brother-in-law after the year 1994 does not inspire confidence. It stands proved on record that the brother-in-law PW-2 Rajan lives with his own family i.e. wife and children. From the evidence it is also clear that the parents of the brother-in-law also reside with him, His flat consists of only two rooms. The flat in possession of the landlord at 31, the Mall Shimla, also consists of two rooms, kitchen and bath room. Even assuming that he was running an office in the part of the flat it cannot be believed that he would not live on his own flat on the Mall Road and reside with his brother-in-law in cramped premises. Even in the electoral list the landlord is shown to be a resident of 31, The Mall, Shimla. Therefore, I am of the considered view that the building 31, the Mall, Shimla was also being used as a residence by the landlord.',
	(int) 11 => '<p>11. Having held so, the question that arises is whether the landlord can be non-suited only on the ground that he has not made any disclosure about the residential accommodation available with him which premises were admittedly not owned by him.',
	(int) 12 => '<p>12. The short question which arises for decision in this petition is whether the landlord was guilty of suppressing and withholding such relevant facts which would disentitle him from seeking eviction of the tenant. To appreciate these contentions it would be necessary to refer to relevant portion of Section 14(3) of the Act:',
	(int) 13 => '<p>Section 14:',
	(int) 14 => '<p>1 and 2 xxxxxxxxxxx',
	(int) 15 => '<p>(3) A landlord may apply to the Controller for an order directing the tenant to put the landlord in possession-',
	(int) 16 => '<p>(a) in case of residential building, if',
	(int) 17 => '<p>(i) he required it for his own occupation:',
	(int) 18 => '<p>Provided that he is not occupying another residential building owned by him, in the urban area concerned:',
	(int) 19 => '<p>Provided further that he has not vacated such a building without sufficient cause within five years of the filing of the application, in the said urban area....',
	(int) 20 => '<p>13. A perusal of the bare provisions of the Act makes it clear that there are certain essential ingredients which the landlord must satisfy before seeking eviction of the tenant under the Act. Not only must he prove that the residential building is bona fide required by him for his own use and occupation but he must also plead and prove that he is not occupying any other residential building owned by him in the urban area concerned and further that he has not vacated such a building without sufficient cause within 5 years of the filing of the application.',
	(int) 21 => '<p>14. Reference may now be made to the relevant allegations made in para 18 of the eviction petition:',
	(int) 22 => '<p>(ii) That the petitioner bona fide requires the premises for his own use and occupation and also for the use and occupation of his family.',
	(int) 23 => '<p>The petitioner does not own or possess any other such building within the urban area of Simla nor the petitioner has vacated any such premises within five years of the filing of this petition.',
	(int) 24 => '<p>The family of the petitioner presently consists of himself and his wife. Due to paucity of accommodation the petitioner has not been able to keep his wife with himself at Simla, where he is working as an Engineer and she has been residing at Chandigarh since 1991 but on account of her ill health she has been brought to Simla by the petitioner. The petitioner at present is seeking temporary shelter, from time to time, with his relations.',
	(int) 25 => '<p>15. The learned Appellate Authority came to the conclusion that the landlord had falsely pleaded that he does not own or possess any other such building within the urban area of Shimla and hence rejected the eviction petition on this ground.',
	(int) 26 => '<p>16. On a close analysis of the proviso to Section 14(3)(a)(i) of the Act it is clear that a landlord is not entitled to seek eviction of a tenant from residential building even in case of bona fide requirement if the landlord is occupying another residential building owned by him in the urban area concerned. One can read three essential ingredients in this proviso i.e. (i) that the landlord is in occupation of another residential building; (ii) that the said residential building is owned by him and (iii) that the said residential building is situated in the concerned urban area.',
	(int) 27 => '<p>17. The question that arises is what is the impact of the landlord not making a disclosure in respect of premises which he is occupying but are not owned by him.',
	(int) 28 => '<p>18. The Apex Court in Onkar Nath v. Ved Vyas ILR 1979 HP 1, held as follows:',
	(int) 29 => '<p>It is common ground that there are three requirements to make out a cause of action for eviction under that provision, and indeed this is apparent from a bare reading of the sub-section. In the present case the finding is to the effect that the landlord requires the residential building for his own occupation. But, the legislation has taken care to insist upon two more conditions, namely; (a) that the landlord is not occupying any other residential building in the area concerned; and (b) that he has not vacated such a building without sufficient cause. There is not a scintilla of evidence nor indeed there is any averment in compliance with these latter conditions. The necessary consequence follows that not merely is there inadequacy of pleadings sufficient to make out a cause of action but total absence of proof of two vital requirements....',
	(int) 30 => '<p>The Supreme Court also said that:.The statute benignly designed to protect tenants from unreasonable evictions has taken case to put restrictions which must be rigorously construed to fulfil the purpose of the statute.',
	(int) 31 => '<p>19. Following the aforesaid judgment and other pronouncements of the Apex Court, a learned Single Judge of this Court in Tara Chand Sharma v. Baij Nath and Ors. 1992 (2) R.C.J. 323, held as follows:',
	(int) 32 => '<p>16. What appears as the legislative intent, in bold relief, is that the landlord, while seeking eviction of a tenant on the ground that he needs a residential building for his own occupation, must come out clearly and honestly with facts relating to the requirement that he is not occupying another residential building owned by him, in the urban area concerned and that he had not vacated such a building without sufficient cause within five years of the filing of the application, in the said urban area. The primal burden of making a clear disclosure would lie upon the landlord, for, the true facts would be in his special knowledge. An order in his favour by the Rent Controller would depend upon the satisfaction of the Rent Controller in regard not only to the claim that the landlord requires the accommodation, from which he wishes to evict a tenant, for his own occupation but also that he was not occupying another residential building owned by him nor had he vacated such building without sufficient cause within five years of the filing of the application in the application in the urban area concerned....',
	(int) 33 => '<p>It was further held as under:',
	(int) 34 => '<p>18. That the landlord should make a full disclosure of the relevant facts, pertaining to the requirements of Sub-section (3)(a)(i) and the two provisos, becomes all the more necessary because the satisfaction of the Rent Controller in regard thereto is the condition precedent for the making of an order in favour of the landlord....',
	(int) 35 => '<p>20. The aforesaid judgment has been followed in a number of other cases including Vijay Kapoor v. Maya Ram 1997 (2) RCR 437, wherein another learned single Judge of this Court following the aforesaid judgment held that the landlord must make complete and proper disclosure of all the material facts.',
	(int) 36 => '<p>21. On the other hand Sh. Ramakant Sharma has relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in Ram Narain Arora v. Asha Rani 1998(2) RCR 268. In that case the Rent Controller came to the conclusion that the landlord had suppressed material information and had not disclosed the fact that he was already in occupation of a house in Subji Mandi. Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act reads as follows:',
	(int) 37 => '<p>Section 14(1)(e). That the premises let for residential purposes are required bona fide by the landlord for occupation as a residence for himself or for any member of his family dependent on him, if he is the owner thereof, or for any person for whose benefit the premises are held and that the landlord or such person has no other reasonably suitable residential accommodation.',
	(int) 38 => '<p>22. The difference between Delhi Act and the present Act is that under the Delhi Act the only requirement is that the landlord has no other reasonably suitable accommodation whereas under the Himachal Act the residential premises are required to be owned by the landlord. The Apex Court in Rama Narain Arora's case (supra) held that the nondisclosure of the fact that the landlord was in occupation of certain premises in Subji Mandi was.not a ground to non-suit the landlord in view of the facts and circumstances of the case. The Apex Court held as follows:',
	(int) 39 => '<p>9. In making a claim that the suit premises is required bona fide for his own occupation as a residence for himself and other members of his family dependent on him and that he has no other reasonably suitable accommodation is a requirement of law before the Court can state whether the landlord requires the premises bona fide for his use and occupation. In doing so, the Court must also find out whether the landlord or such other person for whose benefit the premises is required has no other reasonably suitable residential accommodation. It cannot be said that the requirement of the landlord is not intermixed with the question of finding out whether he has any other reasonably suitable accommodation. If he has other reasonably suitable accommodation, ihen necessarily it would mean that he does not require the suit premises and his requirement may not be bona fide. In such circumstances further inquiry would be whether that premises is more suitable than the suit premises. Therefore, the questions raised before the Court would not necessarily depend upon only the pleadings. It could be a good defence that the landlord has other reasonably suitable residential accommodation and thereby defend the claim of the landlord.',
	(int) 40 => '<p>10. There cannot be a pedantic or a dogmatic approach in the matter of analysis of pleadings or of the evidence adduced thereto. It is no doubt true that if the pleadings are clearly set out, it would be easy for the Court to decide the matters. But if the pleadings are lacking or vague and if both parties have understood what was the case pleaded and put forth with reference to requirement of law and placed such material before the Court, neither party is prejudiced. If we analyse from this angle, we do not think that the High Court was not justified in interfering with the order made by the Rent Controller.',
	(int) 41 => '<p>23. From the perusal of the judgment of the Apex Court it is apparent that the Rent Controller must approach the matter in a practical manner. In case the non-disclosure is such as that it goes to the very root of the case the Rent Controller would be justified in non-suiting the landlord. However, if the non-disclosure is such that it would not prejudice the rights of the respondent then the landlord should not be non-suited only on this ground.',
	(int) 42 => '<p>24. The decisions of this Court cited hereinabove were delivered prior to the judgment delivered by the Apex Court in Ram Nar'ain Arora's case. Further more both in Tara Chand Sharma's case and Vijay Kapoor's case decided by this Court, no averment had been made ixi respect of other residential buildings owned by a landlord. There was complete non-disclosure as to whether any such residential building owned by the landlord was in his possession or not. In the present case, as I have held above, the residential premises at 31, The Mall, Shimla was not owned by the landlord and hence these two earlier judgments of this Court are distinguishable on facts also.',
	(int) 43 => '<p>25. In the present case, the landlord has been non-suited only on the ground that he did not disclose the fact that he was in occupation of certain premises on the Mall Road. Under law he was not required to disclose this fact. He was only required to disclose the factum of occupying another residential building owned by him in the urban area concerned. True it may be, that it would have been better if the landlord had disclosed all the facts but non-disclosure of a fact which he was not under law required to disclose could not in my opinion be a ground to dismiss his eviction petition.',
	(int) 44 => '<p>26. However, what are the premises in his occupation even as a tenant can be taken into consideration while deciding the question whether he bona fide requires the demised premises for his personal use or occupation or not.',
	(int) 45 => '<p>27. Lastly comes the question with regard to the bona fide requirement of the landlord. The landlord has no children. According to the landlord as well as his other witnesses i.e. his brother-in-law PW-2 and his wife PW-3, the wife now wants to come back and settle in Shimla. There is no reason to disbelieve their statements. Even according to the evidence led by the tenant the accommodation in possession of the landlord consists of two rooms, kitchen, bath room etc. Admittedly, the landlord is also having his office as an Architect in this building. The landlord belongs to the middle class of the Society. It cannot be expected of a landlord who owns sufficient property to reside in a two room set wherein he also runs his office.',
	(int) 46 => '<p>28. The law by now is well settled that the landlord is the best judge of the suitability of the accommodation required by him. This suitability has however to be judged in the context of reasonable expectations. The landlord and his wife who are both well educated can reasonably be expected to entertain guests and they will have visitors to their house. They would obviously require a drawing room, a bed room and a spare bed room for guests. Even at his residence the landlord may require another room for his professional work. This is the minimum accommodation which they would require. Even if the accommodation possessed by the landlord, though not owned by him, at 31, the Mall, Shimla is taken into consideration such accommodation is not sufficient to meet his requirements since admittedly the landlord is running his profession of Architect from some portion of his these premises.',
	(int) 47 => '<p>29. Keeping in view the entire facts and circumstances, I am of the considered view that the learned Appellate Authority gravely erred in rejecting the eviction petition of the landlord solely on the ground that he had not disclosed the factum of being in possession of the premises at 31, the Mall Shimla. Even though I have held that the said premises are residential premises, in view of the above discussion I hold that the landlord cannot be non-suited only on the ground of his being in possession of such premises since same were not owned by him.',
	(int) 48 => '<p>30. In view of the above discussion, the Revision Petition is allowed, the order of the learned Appellate Authority dated 6.5.2003 is seaside and the order of the Rent Controller dated 22.8.2001 is restored.',
	(int) 49 => '<p>31. Keeping in view the fact that the tenant has been in possession of the premises for a long period he is granted time up to 31st October, 2008 to vacate the premises.',
	(int) 50 => '<p>32. No order as to costs.<p>',
	(int) 51 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 52
$i = (int) 14
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

1 and 2 xxxxxxxxxxx

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Shri Arun Bhanwara Vs Shri S L Srivastava - Citation 891084 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '891084',
			'acts' => '',
			'appealno' => '',
			'appellant' => 'Shri Arun Bhanwara',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Shri Arun Bhanwara Vs. Shri S.L. Srivastava',
			'casenote' => ' - CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908.[C.A. No. 5/1908]. Order 14, Rule 2 [As amended by Amending Act of 1976]: [V.K. Gupta, CJ, Deepak Gupta & Surjit Singh, JJ] Preliminary issue of law and fact  Court framing all issues both of law and facts together and also  tried all the issues together, including the issue relating to jurisdiction of Court  Held, Except in situations perceived or warranted under sub-rule (2) of Rule 2 of Order 14 where a  Court in fact frames only issues of law in the first instance and postpones settlement of other issues, clearly and explicitly in situations where the Court has framed all issues together, both of law as well as facts and has also tried all these issues together, it is not open to the Court to adopt the principle of severability and proceed to decide issues of law first, without taking up simultaneously other issues for decision. This course of action is not available to a Court because sub-rule (1) does not permit the  Court to adopt any such principle of severability and to dispose of a suit only on preliminary issues, or what can be termed as issues of law. Sub-rule (1)  clearly mandates that in a situation contemplated under it, where all the issues have been together and have also been taken up for adjudication during the course of the trial, these must be decided together and the judgment in the suit as a whole must be pronounced by the Court covering all the issues framed in the suit.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => 'Ram Narain Arora v. Asha Rani;',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => '',
			'counseldef' => '',
			'court' => 'Himachal Pradesh',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2008-07-31',
			'deposition' => 'Petition allowed',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => ' Deepak Gupta, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">Deepak Gupta, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. This Revision Petition under Section 25(5) of the H.P. Urban Rent Control Act, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) is directed against the order of the learned Appellate Authority, Shimla in CMA No. 60-S/14 of 2001 whereby the appeal filed by the respondent (hereinafter referred to as the tenant) has been allowed, the order of the Rent Controller has been set-aside and the petition for eviction filed by the present petitioner (hereinafter referred to as the Landlord) on the ground of personal bona fide requirement has been set-aside.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The undisputed facts are that the landlord is owner of the demised premises situated in building known as Tunnel View, Sanjauli, Shimla-6 consisting of two bed rooms with attached bath room and latrine, drawing-cum-dining room, kitchen and balcony. These premises were purchased by the landlord in the year 1986. Thereafter, the landlord had rented out the premises to one Sh. B.K. Chauhan. According to the landlord, when he got married he requested Sh. B.K. Chauhan to vacate the said premises. Sh. Chauhan vacated the said premises but admittedly the landlord did not occupy the same but rented out the same to the tenant in the year 1990.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. In the year 1997 the landlord filed a petition for eviction of the tenant on two grounds; firstly that the tenant is in arrears of rent from 1.11.1990 to 31.7.1997 and secondly that the premises are bona fide required by the landlord for the use and occupation of himself and his family.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. This petition was contested by the tenant. After trial, the Rent Controller ordered the eviction of the tenant on two grounds; (i) that the tenant was in arrears of rent from November, 1999 till date of order i.e. 22nd August, 2001 and (ii) that the landlord required the premises for his own use and occupation.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. The tenant deposited the rent within the time prescribed. He also filed an appeal challenging the finding on the issue of bona fide requirement. The learned Appellate Authority came to the conclusion that the landlord had not made a proper and full disclosure of facts as required under the provisions of the Act and had withheld material facts from the Court viz. that the landlord was in occupation of residential premises on 31, Mall Road in the urban area of Shimla and as such rejected this petition on this short ground.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. Aggrieved by the said order, the landlord has filed the present Revision Petition.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. I have heard Sh. Ramakant Sharma, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sh. Bhupinder Gupta, learned senior Counsel for the tenant.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. It has been urged on behalf of the landlord that the building which is alleged to be in possession of the landlord i.e. 31, the Mall Shimla is not a residential building and secondly that the building is not owned by him.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. On the other hand Sh. Bhupinder Gupta, learned Counsel of the tenant has strenuously urged that the landlord in para 18 has not stated anything about any building being owned by him and has only made an averment that he does not own or possess any other such building within the urban area Shimla. It is contended by Sh. Bhupinder Gupta that the landlord of his own volition did not state anything about the ownership of the building and since he has kept silent about the building which he is in occupation he has made a false averment and therefore his petition for eviction has rightly been rejected.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. I am not at all in agreement with the contention of the landlord that the premises known as 31, the Mall Shimla which are admittedly in the occupation of the landlord are commercial premises only and not being used by him for his residence. As pointed out above, the landlord purchased the demised premises in 1986. They fell vacant when he got married despite that he did not occupy the same and rented out the same to the tenant in the year 1990. The question that arises is where was the landlord living for this entire period. According to the landlord after the year 1994 he has been living with his brother-in-law Rajan (wife's brother) PW-2, since the year 1994. Prior to 1994 the landlord will have this Court to believe that he was living off and on with one friend or the other. This story is impossible to believe. The landlord was married in the year 1999. He is an Architect by profession. His wife is a law graduate. It is not believable that such a person would have no permanent abode and would continue to live as a guest with his friends for almost 5 years after his marriage. Even the story that he has been living with his brother-in-law after the year 1994 does not inspire confidence. It stands proved on record that the brother-in-law PW-2 Rajan lives with his own family i.e. wife and children. From the evidence it is also clear that the parents of the brother-in-law also reside with him, His flat consists of only two rooms. The flat in possession of the landlord at 31, the Mall Shimla, also consists of two rooms, kitchen and bath room. Even assuming that he was running an office in the part of the flat it cannot be believed that he would not live on his own flat on the Mall Road and reside with his brother-in-law in cramped premises. Even in the electoral list the landlord is shown to be a resident of 31, The Mall, Shimla. Therefore, I am of the considered view that the building 31, the Mall, Shimla was also being used as a residence by the landlord.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. Having held so, the question that arises is whether the landlord can be non-suited only on the ground that he has not made any disclosure about the residential accommodation available with him which premises were admittedly not owned by him.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. The short question which arises for decision in this petition is whether the landlord was guilty of suppressing and withholding such relevant facts which would disentitle him from seeking eviction of the tenant. To appreciate these contentions it would be necessary to refer to relevant portion of Section 14(3) of the Act:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Section 14:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1 and 2 xxxxxxxxxxx</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(3) A landlord may apply to the Controller for an order directing the tenant to put the landlord in possession-</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(a) in case of residential building, if</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(i) he required it for his own occupation:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Provided that he is not occupying another residential building owned by him, in the urban area concerned:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Provided further that he has not vacated such a building without sufficient cause within five years of the filing of the application, in the said urban area....</p><p style="text-align: justify;">13. A perusal of the bare provisions of the Act makes it clear that there are certain essential ingredients which the landlord must satisfy before seeking eviction of the tenant under the Act. Not only must he prove that the residential building is bona fide required by him for his own use and occupation but he must also plead and prove that he is not occupying any other residential building owned by him in the urban area concerned and further that he has not vacated such a building without sufficient cause within 5 years of the filing of the application.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">14. Reference may now be made to the relevant allegations made in para 18 of the eviction petition:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(ii) That the petitioner bona fide requires the premises for his own use and occupation and also for the use and occupation of his family.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The petitioner does not own or possess any other such building within the urban area of Simla nor the petitioner has vacated any such premises within five years of the filing of this petition.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The family of the petitioner presently consists of himself and his wife. Due to paucity of accommodation the petitioner has not been able to keep his wife with himself at Simla, where he is working as an Engineer and she has been residing at Chandigarh since 1991 but on account of her ill health she has been brought to Simla by the petitioner. The petitioner at present is seeking temporary shelter, from time to time, with his relations.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">15. The learned Appellate Authority came to the conclusion that the landlord had falsely pleaded that he does not own or possess any other such building within the urban area of Shimla and hence rejected the eviction petition on this ground.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">16. On a close analysis of the proviso to Section 14(3)(a)(i) of the Act it is clear that a landlord is not entitled to seek eviction of a tenant from residential building even in case of bona fide requirement if the landlord is occupying another residential building owned by him in the urban area concerned. One can read three essential ingredients in this proviso i.e. (i) that the landlord is in occupation of another residential building; (ii) that the said residential building is owned by him and (iii) that the said residential building is situated in the concerned urban area.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">17. The question that arises is what is the impact of the landlord not making a disclosure in respect of premises which he is occupying but are not owned by him.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">18. The Apex Court in Onkar Nath v. Ved Vyas ILR 1979 HP 1, held as follows:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">It is common ground that there are three requirements to make out a cause of action for eviction under that provision, and indeed this is apparent from a bare reading of the sub-section. In the present case the finding is to the effect that the landlord requires the residential building for his own occupation. But, the legislation has taken care to insist upon two more conditions, namely; (a) that the landlord is not occupying any other residential building in the area concerned; and (b) that he has not vacated such a building without sufficient cause. There is not a scintilla of evidence nor indeed there is any averment in compliance with these latter conditions. The necessary consequence follows that not merely is there inadequacy of pleadings sufficient to make out a cause of action but total absence of proof of two vital requirements....</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The Supreme Court also said that:.The statute benignly designed to protect tenants from unreasonable evictions has taken case to put restrictions which must be rigorously construed to fulfil the purpose of the statute.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">19. Following the aforesaid judgment and other pronouncements of the Apex Court, a learned Single Judge of this Court in Tara Chand Sharma v. Baij Nath and Ors. 1992 (2) R.C.J. 323, held as follows:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">16. What appears as the legislative intent, in bold relief, is that the landlord, while seeking eviction of a tenant on the ground that he needs a residential building for his own occupation, must come out clearly and honestly with facts relating to the requirement that he is not occupying another residential building owned by him, in the urban area concerned and that he had not vacated such a building without sufficient cause within five years of the filing of the application, in the said urban area. The primal burden of making a clear disclosure would lie upon the landlord, for, the true facts would be in his special knowledge. An order in his favour by the Rent Controller would depend upon the satisfaction of the Rent Controller in regard not only to the claim that the landlord requires the accommodation, from which he wishes to evict a tenant, for his own occupation but also that he was not occupying another residential building owned by him nor had he vacated such building without sufficient cause within five years of the filing of the application in the application in the urban area concerned....</p><p style="text-align: justify;">It was further held as under:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">18. That the landlord should make a full disclosure of the relevant facts, pertaining to the requirements of Sub-section (3)(a)(i) and the two provisos, becomes all the more necessary because the satisfaction of the Rent Controller in regard thereto is the condition precedent for the making of an order in favour of the landlord....</p><p style="text-align: justify;">20. The aforesaid judgment has been followed in a number of other cases including Vijay Kapoor v. Maya Ram 1997 (2) RCR 437, wherein another learned single Judge of this Court following the aforesaid judgment held that the landlord must make complete and proper disclosure of all the material facts.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">21. On the other hand Sh. Ramakant Sharma has relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in Ram Narain Arora v. Asha Rani 1998(2) RCR 268. In that case the Rent Controller came to the conclusion that the landlord had suppressed material information and had not disclosed the fact that he was already in occupation of a house in Subji Mandi. Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act reads as follows:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Section 14(1)(e). That the premises let for residential purposes are required bona fide by the landlord for occupation as a residence for himself or for any member of his family dependent on him, if he is the owner thereof, or for any person for whose benefit the premises are held and that the landlord or such person has no other reasonably suitable residential accommodation.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">22. The difference between Delhi Act and the present Act is that under the Delhi Act the only requirement is that the landlord has no other reasonably suitable accommodation whereas under the Himachal Act the residential premises are required to be owned by the landlord. The Apex Court in Rama Narain Arora's case (supra) held that the nondisclosure of the fact that the landlord was in occupation of certain premises in Subji Mandi was.not a ground to non-suit the landlord in view of the facts and circumstances of the case. The Apex Court held as follows:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. In making a claim that the suit premises is required bona fide for his own occupation as a residence for himself and other members of his family dependent on him and that he has no other reasonably suitable accommodation is a requirement of law before the Court can state whether the landlord requires the premises bona fide for his use and occupation. In doing so, the Court must also find out whether the landlord or such other person for whose benefit the premises is required has no other reasonably suitable residential accommodation. It cannot be said that the requirement of the landlord is not intermixed with the question of finding out whether he has any other reasonably suitable accommodation. If he has other reasonably suitable accommodation, ihen necessarily it would mean that he does not require the suit premises and his requirement may not be bona fide. In such circumstances further inquiry would be whether that premises is more suitable than the suit premises. Therefore, the questions raised before the Court would not necessarily depend upon only the pleadings. It could be a good defence that the landlord has other reasonably suitable residential accommodation and thereby defend the claim of the landlord.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. There cannot be a pedantic or a dogmatic approach in the matter of analysis of pleadings or of the evidence adduced thereto. It is no doubt true that if the pleadings are clearly set out, it would be easy for the Court to decide the matters. But if the pleadings are lacking or vague and if both parties have understood what was the case pleaded and put forth with reference to requirement of law and placed such material before the Court, neither party is prejudiced. If we analyse from this angle, we do not think that the High Court was not justified in interfering with the order made by the Rent Controller.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">23. From the perusal of the judgment of the Apex Court it is apparent that the Rent Controller must approach the matter in a practical manner. In case the non-disclosure is such as that it goes to the very root of the case the Rent Controller would be justified in non-suiting the landlord. However, if the non-disclosure is such that it would not prejudice the rights of the respondent then the landlord should not be non-suited only on this ground.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">24. The decisions of this Court cited hereinabove were delivered prior to the judgment delivered by the Apex Court in Ram Nar'ain Arora's case. Further more both in Tara Chand Sharma's case and Vijay Kapoor's case decided by this Court, no averment had been made ixi respect of other residential buildings owned by a landlord. There was complete non-disclosure as to whether any such residential building owned by the landlord was in his possession or not. In the present case, as I have held above, the residential premises at 31, The Mall, Shimla was not owned by the landlord and hence these two earlier judgments of this Court are distinguishable on facts also.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">25. In the present case, the landlord has been non-suited only on the ground that he did not disclose the fact that he was in occupation of certain premises on the Mall Road. Under law he was not required to disclose this fact. He was only required to disclose the factum of occupying another residential building owned by him in the urban area concerned. True it may be, that it would have been better if the landlord had disclosed all the facts but non-disclosure of a fact which he was not under law required to disclose could not in my opinion be a ground to dismiss his eviction petition.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">26. However, what are the premises in his occupation even as a tenant can be taken into consideration while deciding the question whether he bona fide requires the demised premises for his personal use or occupation or not.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">27. Lastly comes the question with regard to the bona fide requirement of the landlord. The landlord has no children. According to the landlord as well as his other witnesses i.e. his brother-in-law PW-2 and his wife PW-3, the wife now wants to come back and settle in Shimla. There is no reason to disbelieve their statements. Even according to the evidence led by the tenant the accommodation in possession of the landlord consists of two rooms, kitchen, bath room etc. Admittedly, the landlord is also having his office as an Architect in this building. The landlord belongs to the middle class of the Society. It cannot be expected of a landlord who owns sufficient property to reside in a two room set wherein he also runs his office.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">28. The law by now is well settled that the landlord is the best judge of the suitability of the accommodation required by him. This suitability has however to be judged in the context of reasonable expectations. The landlord and his wife who are both well educated can reasonably be expected to entertain guests and they will have visitors to their house. They would obviously require a drawing room, a bed room and a spare bed room for guests. Even at his residence the landlord may require another room for his professional work. This is the minimum accommodation which they would require. Even if the accommodation possessed by the landlord, though not owned by him, at 31, the Mall, Shimla is taken into consideration such accommodation is not sufficient to meet his requirements since admittedly the landlord is running his profession of Architect from some portion of his these premises.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">29. Keeping in view the entire facts and circumstances, I am of the considered view that the learned Appellate Authority gravely erred in rejecting the eviction petition of the landlord solely on the ground that he had not disclosed the factum of being in possession of the premises at 31, the Mall Shimla. Even though I have held that the said premises are residential premises, in view of the above discussion I hold that the landlord cannot be non-suited only on the ground of his being in possession of such premises since same were not owned by him.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">30. In view of the above discussion, the Revision Petition is allowed, the order of the learned Appellate Authority dated 6.5.2003 is seaside and the order of the Rent Controller dated 22.8.2001 is restored.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">31. Keeping in view the fact that the tenant has been in possession of the premises for a long period he is granted time up to 31st October, 2008 to vacate the premises.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">32. No order as to costs.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '2008(2)ShimLC491',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'Shri S.L. Srivastava',
			'sub' => 'Tenancy',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'shri-arun-bhanwara-vs-s-l-srivastava',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '891084',
		(int) 1 => 'shri-arun-bhanwara-vs-s-l-srivastava'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Shri Arun Bhanwara Vs Shri S L Srivastava - Citation 891084 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '891084',
		'acts' => '',
		'appealno' => '',
		'appellant' => 'Shri Arun Bhanwara',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Shri Arun Bhanwara Vs. Shri S.L. Srivastava',
		'casenote' => ' - CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908.[C.A. No. 5/1908]. Order 14, Rule 2 [As amended by Amending Act of 1976]: [V.K. Gupta, CJ, Deepak Gupta & Surjit Singh, JJ] Preliminary issue of law and fact  Court framing all issues both of law and facts together and also  tried all the issues together, including the issue relating to jurisdiction of Court  Held, Except in situations perceived or warranted under sub-rule (2) of Rule 2 of Order 14 where a  Court in fact frames only issues of law in the first instance and postpones settlement of other issues, clearly and explicitly in situations where the Court has framed all issues together, both of law as well as facts and has also tried all these issues together, it is not open to the Court to adopt the principle of severability and proceed to decide issues of law first, without taking up simultaneously other issues for decision. This course of action is not available to a Court because sub-rule (1) does not permit the  Court to adopt any such principle of severability and to dispose of a suit only on preliminary issues, or what can be termed as issues of law. Sub-rule (1)  clearly mandates that in a situation contemplated under it, where all the issues have been together and have also been taken up for adjudication during the course of the trial, these must be decided together and the judgment in the suit as a whole must be pronounced by the Court covering all the issues framed in the suit.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => 'Ram Narain Arora v. Asha Rani;',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => '',
		'counseldef' => '',
		'court' => 'Himachal Pradesh',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2008-07-31',
		'deposition' => 'Petition allowed',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => ' Deepak Gupta, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>Deepak Gupta, J.</p><p>1. This Revision Petition under Section 25(5) of the H.P. Urban Rent Control Act, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) is directed against the order of the learned Appellate Authority, Shimla in CMA No. 60-S/14 of 2001 whereby the appeal filed by the respondent (hereinafter referred to as the tenant) has been allowed, the order of the Rent Controller has been set-aside and the petition for eviction filed by the present petitioner (hereinafter referred to as the Landlord) on the ground of personal bona fide requirement has been set-aside.</p><p>2. The undisputed facts are that the landlord is owner of the demised premises situated in building known as Tunnel View, Sanjauli, Shimla-6 consisting of two bed rooms with attached bath room and latrine, drawing-cum-dining room, kitchen and balcony. These premises were purchased by the landlord in the year 1986. Thereafter, the landlord had rented out the premises to one Sh. B.K. Chauhan. According to the landlord, when he got married he requested Sh. B.K. Chauhan to vacate the said premises. Sh. Chauhan vacated the said premises but admittedly the landlord did not occupy the same but rented out the same to the tenant in the year 1990.</p><p>3. In the year 1997 the landlord filed a petition for eviction of the tenant on two grounds; firstly that the tenant is in arrears of rent from 1.11.1990 to 31.7.1997 and secondly that the premises are bona fide required by the landlord for the use and occupation of himself and his family.</p><p>4. This petition was contested by the tenant. After trial, the Rent Controller ordered the eviction of the tenant on two grounds; (i) that the tenant was in arrears of rent from November, 1999 till date of order i.e. 22nd August, 2001 and (ii) that the landlord required the premises for his own use and occupation.</p><p>5. The tenant deposited the rent within the time prescribed. He also filed an appeal challenging the finding on the issue of bona fide requirement. The learned Appellate Authority came to the conclusion that the landlord had not made a proper and full disclosure of facts as required under the provisions of the Act and had withheld material facts from the Court viz. that the landlord was in occupation of residential premises on 31, Mall Road in the urban area of Shimla and as such rejected this petition on this short ground.</p><p>6. Aggrieved by the said order, the landlord has filed the present Revision Petition.</p><p>7. I have heard Sh. Ramakant Sharma, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sh. Bhupinder Gupta, learned senior Counsel for the tenant.</p><p>8. It has been urged on behalf of the landlord that the building which is alleged to be in possession of the landlord i.e. 31, the Mall Shimla is not a residential building and secondly that the building is not owned by him.</p><p>9. On the other hand Sh. Bhupinder Gupta, learned Counsel of the tenant has strenuously urged that the landlord in para 18 has not stated anything about any building being owned by him and has only made an averment that he does not own or possess any other such building within the urban area Shimla. It is contended by Sh. Bhupinder Gupta that the landlord of his own volition did not state anything about the ownership of the building and since he has kept silent about the building which he is in occupation he has made a false averment and therefore his petition for eviction has rightly been rejected.</p><p>10. I am not at all in agreement with the contention of the landlord that the premises known as 31, the Mall Shimla which are admittedly in the occupation of the landlord are commercial premises only and not being used by him for his residence. As pointed out above, the landlord purchased the demised premises in 1986. They fell vacant when he got married despite that he did not occupy the same and rented out the same to the tenant in the year 1990. The question that arises is where was the landlord living for this entire period. According to the landlord after the year 1994 he has been living with his brother-in-law Rajan (wife's brother) PW-2, since the year 1994. Prior to 1994 the landlord will have this Court to believe that he was living off and on with one friend or the other. This story is impossible to believe. The landlord was married in the year 1999. He is an Architect by profession. His wife is a law graduate. It is not believable that such a person would have no permanent abode and would continue to live as a guest with his friends for almost 5 years after his marriage. Even the story that he has been living with his brother-in-law after the year 1994 does not inspire confidence. It stands proved on record that the brother-in-law PW-2 Rajan lives with his own family i.e. wife and children. From the evidence it is also clear that the parents of the brother-in-law also reside with him, His flat consists of only two rooms. The flat in possession of the landlord at 31, the Mall Shimla, also consists of two rooms, kitchen and bath room. Even assuming that he was running an office in the part of the flat it cannot be believed that he would not live on his own flat on the Mall Road and reside with his brother-in-law in cramped premises. Even in the electoral list the landlord is shown to be a resident of 31, The Mall, Shimla. Therefore, I am of the considered view that the building 31, the Mall, Shimla was also being used as a residence by the landlord.</p><p>11. Having held so, the question that arises is whether the landlord can be non-suited only on the ground that he has not made any disclosure about the residential accommodation available with him which premises were admittedly not owned by him.</p><p>12. The short question which arises for decision in this petition is whether the landlord was guilty of suppressing and withholding such relevant facts which would disentitle him from seeking eviction of the tenant. To appreciate these contentions it would be necessary to refer to relevant portion of Section 14(3) of the Act:</p><p>Section 14:</p><p>1 and 2 xxxxxxxxxxx</p><p>(3) A landlord may apply to the Controller for an order directing the tenant to put the landlord in possession-</p><p>(a) in case of residential building, if</p><p>(i) he required it for his own occupation:</p><p>Provided that he is not occupying another residential building owned by him, in the urban area concerned:</p><p>Provided further that he has not vacated such a building without sufficient cause within five years of the filing of the application, in the said urban area....</p><p>13. A perusal of the bare provisions of the Act makes it clear that there are certain essential ingredients which the landlord must satisfy before seeking eviction of the tenant under the Act. Not only must he prove that the residential building is bona fide required by him for his own use and occupation but he must also plead and prove that he is not occupying any other residential building owned by him in the urban area concerned and further that he has not vacated such a building without sufficient cause within 5 years of the filing of the application.</p><p>14. Reference may now be made to the relevant allegations made in para 18 of the eviction petition:</p><p>(ii) That the petitioner bona fide requires the premises for his own use and occupation and also for the use and occupation of his family.</p><p>The petitioner does not own or possess any other such building within the urban area of Simla nor the petitioner has vacated any such premises within five years of the filing of this petition.</p><p>The family of the petitioner presently consists of himself and his wife. Due to paucity of accommodation the petitioner has not been able to keep his wife with himself at Simla, where he is working as an Engineer and she has been residing at Chandigarh since 1991 but on account of her ill health she has been brought to Simla by the petitioner. The petitioner at present is seeking temporary shelter, from time to time, with his relations.</p><p>15. The learned Appellate Authority came to the conclusion that the landlord had falsely pleaded that he does not own or possess any other such building within the urban area of Shimla and hence rejected the eviction petition on this ground.</p><p>16. On a close analysis of the proviso to Section 14(3)(a)(i) of the Act it is clear that a landlord is not entitled to seek eviction of a tenant from residential building even in case of bona fide requirement if the landlord is occupying another residential building owned by him in the urban area concerned. One can read three essential ingredients in this proviso i.e. (i) that the landlord is in occupation of another residential building; (ii) that the said residential building is owned by him and (iii) that the said residential building is situated in the concerned urban area.</p><p>17. The question that arises is what is the impact of the landlord not making a disclosure in respect of premises which he is occupying but are not owned by him.</p><p>18. The Apex Court in Onkar Nath v. Ved Vyas ILR 1979 HP 1, held as follows:</p><p>It is common ground that there are three requirements to make out a cause of action for eviction under that provision, and indeed this is apparent from a bare reading of the sub-section. In the present case the finding is to the effect that the landlord requires the residential building for his own occupation. But, the legislation has taken care to insist upon two more conditions, namely; (a) that the landlord is not occupying any other residential building in the area concerned; and (b) that he has not vacated such a building without sufficient cause. There is not a scintilla of evidence nor indeed there is any averment in compliance with these latter conditions. The necessary consequence follows that not merely is there inadequacy of pleadings sufficient to make out a cause of action but total absence of proof of two vital requirements....</p><p>The Supreme Court also said that:.The statute benignly designed to protect tenants from unreasonable evictions has taken case to put restrictions which must be rigorously construed to fulfil the purpose of the statute.</p><p>19. Following the aforesaid judgment and other pronouncements of the Apex Court, a learned Single Judge of this Court in Tara Chand Sharma v. Baij Nath and Ors. 1992 (2) R.C.J. 323, held as follows:</p><p>16. What appears as the legislative intent, in bold relief, is that the landlord, while seeking eviction of a tenant on the ground that he needs a residential building for his own occupation, must come out clearly and honestly with facts relating to the requirement that he is not occupying another residential building owned by him, in the urban area concerned and that he had not vacated such a building without sufficient cause within five years of the filing of the application, in the said urban area. The primal burden of making a clear disclosure would lie upon the landlord, for, the true facts would be in his special knowledge. An order in his favour by the Rent Controller would depend upon the satisfaction of the Rent Controller in regard not only to the claim that the landlord requires the accommodation, from which he wishes to evict a tenant, for his own occupation but also that he was not occupying another residential building owned by him nor had he vacated such building without sufficient cause within five years of the filing of the application in the application in the urban area concerned....</p><p>It was further held as under:</p><p>18. That the landlord should make a full disclosure of the relevant facts, pertaining to the requirements of Sub-section (3)(a)(i) and the two provisos, becomes all the more necessary because the satisfaction of the Rent Controller in regard thereto is the condition precedent for the making of an order in favour of the landlord....</p><p>20. The aforesaid judgment has been followed in a number of other cases including Vijay Kapoor v. Maya Ram 1997 (2) RCR 437, wherein another learned single Judge of this Court following the aforesaid judgment held that the landlord must make complete and proper disclosure of all the material facts.</p><p>21. On the other hand Sh. Ramakant Sharma has relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in Ram Narain Arora v. Asha Rani 1998(2) RCR 268. In that case the Rent Controller came to the conclusion that the landlord had suppressed material information and had not disclosed the fact that he was already in occupation of a house in Subji Mandi. Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act reads as follows:</p><p>Section 14(1)(e). That the premises let for residential purposes are required bona fide by the landlord for occupation as a residence for himself or for any member of his family dependent on him, if he is the owner thereof, or for any person for whose benefit the premises are held and that the landlord or such person has no other reasonably suitable residential accommodation.</p><p>22. The difference between Delhi Act and the present Act is that under the Delhi Act the only requirement is that the landlord has no other reasonably suitable accommodation whereas under the Himachal Act the residential premises are required to be owned by the landlord. The Apex Court in Rama Narain Arora's case (supra) held that the nondisclosure of the fact that the landlord was in occupation of certain premises in Subji Mandi was.not a ground to non-suit the landlord in view of the facts and circumstances of the case. The Apex Court held as follows:</p><p>9. In making a claim that the suit premises is required bona fide for his own occupation as a residence for himself and other members of his family dependent on him and that he has no other reasonably suitable accommodation is a requirement of law before the Court can state whether the landlord requires the premises bona fide for his use and occupation. In doing so, the Court must also find out whether the landlord or such other person for whose benefit the premises is required has no other reasonably suitable residential accommodation. It cannot be said that the requirement of the landlord is not intermixed with the question of finding out whether he has any other reasonably suitable accommodation. If he has other reasonably suitable accommodation, ihen necessarily it would mean that he does not require the suit premises and his requirement may not be bona fide. In such circumstances further inquiry would be whether that premises is more suitable than the suit premises. Therefore, the questions raised before the Court would not necessarily depend upon only the pleadings. It could be a good defence that the landlord has other reasonably suitable residential accommodation and thereby defend the claim of the landlord.</p><p>10. There cannot be a pedantic or a dogmatic approach in the matter of analysis of pleadings or of the evidence adduced thereto. It is no doubt true that if the pleadings are clearly set out, it would be easy for the Court to decide the matters. But if the pleadings are lacking or vague and if both parties have understood what was the case pleaded and put forth with reference to requirement of law and placed such material before the Court, neither party is prejudiced. If we analyse from this angle, we do not think that the High Court was not justified in interfering with the order made by the Rent Controller.</p><p>23. From the perusal of the judgment of the Apex Court it is apparent that the Rent Controller must approach the matter in a practical manner. In case the non-disclosure is such as that it goes to the very root of the case the Rent Controller would be justified in non-suiting the landlord. However, if the non-disclosure is such that it would not prejudice the rights of the respondent then the landlord should not be non-suited only on this ground.</p><p>24. The decisions of this Court cited hereinabove were delivered prior to the judgment delivered by the Apex Court in Ram Nar'ain Arora's case. Further more both in Tara Chand Sharma's case and Vijay Kapoor's case decided by this Court, no averment had been made ixi respect of other residential buildings owned by a landlord. There was complete non-disclosure as to whether any such residential building owned by the landlord was in his possession or not. In the present case, as I have held above, the residential premises at 31, The Mall, Shimla was not owned by the landlord and hence these two earlier judgments of this Court are distinguishable on facts also.</p><p>25. In the present case, the landlord has been non-suited only on the ground that he did not disclose the fact that he was in occupation of certain premises on the Mall Road. Under law he was not required to disclose this fact. He was only required to disclose the factum of occupying another residential building owned by him in the urban area concerned. True it may be, that it would have been better if the landlord had disclosed all the facts but non-disclosure of a fact which he was not under law required to disclose could not in my opinion be a ground to dismiss his eviction petition.</p><p>26. However, what are the premises in his occupation even as a tenant can be taken into consideration while deciding the question whether he bona fide requires the demised premises for his personal use or occupation or not.</p><p>27. Lastly comes the question with regard to the bona fide requirement of the landlord. The landlord has no children. According to the landlord as well as his other witnesses i.e. his brother-in-law PW-2 and his wife PW-3, the wife now wants to come back and settle in Shimla. There is no reason to disbelieve their statements. Even according to the evidence led by the tenant the accommodation in possession of the landlord consists of two rooms, kitchen, bath room etc. Admittedly, the landlord is also having his office as an Architect in this building. The landlord belongs to the middle class of the Society. It cannot be expected of a landlord who owns sufficient property to reside in a two room set wherein he also runs his office.</p><p>28. The law by now is well settled that the landlord is the best judge of the suitability of the accommodation required by him. This suitability has however to be judged in the context of reasonable expectations. The landlord and his wife who are both well educated can reasonably be expected to entertain guests and they will have visitors to their house. They would obviously require a drawing room, a bed room and a spare bed room for guests. Even at his residence the landlord may require another room for his professional work. This is the minimum accommodation which they would require. Even if the accommodation possessed by the landlord, though not owned by him, at 31, the Mall, Shimla is taken into consideration such accommodation is not sufficient to meet his requirements since admittedly the landlord is running his profession of Architect from some portion of his these premises.</p><p>29. Keeping in view the entire facts and circumstances, I am of the considered view that the learned Appellate Authority gravely erred in rejecting the eviction petition of the landlord solely on the ground that he had not disclosed the factum of being in possession of the premises at 31, the Mall Shimla. Even though I have held that the said premises are residential premises, in view of the above discussion I hold that the landlord cannot be non-suited only on the ground of his being in possession of such premises since same were not owned by him.</p><p>30. In view of the above discussion, the Revision Petition is allowed, the order of the learned Appellate Authority dated 6.5.2003 is seaside and the order of the Rent Controller dated 22.8.2001 is restored.</p><p>31. Keeping in view the fact that the tenant has been in possession of the premises for a long period he is granted time up to 31st October, 2008 to vacate the premises.</p><p>32. No order as to costs.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '2008(2)ShimLC491',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'Shri S.L. Srivastava',
		'sub' => 'Tenancy',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'shri-arun-bhanwara-vs-s-l-srivastava'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '891084',
	(int) 1 => 'shri-arun-bhanwara-vs-s-l-srivastava'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/891084/shri-arun-bhanwara-vs-s-l-srivastava'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$caseref = 'Ram Narain Arora v. Asha Rani<br>'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>Deepak Gupta, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. This Revision Petition under Section 25(5) of the H.P. Urban Rent Control Act, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) is directed against the order of the learned Appellate Authority, Shimla in CMA No. 60-S/14 of 2001 whereby the appeal filed by the respondent (hereinafter referred to as the tenant) has been allowed, the order of the Rent Controller has been set-aside and the petition for eviction filed by the present petitioner (hereinafter referred to as the Landlord) on the ground of personal bona fide requirement has been set-aside.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. The undisputed facts are that the landlord is owner of the demised premises situated in building known as Tunnel View, Sanjauli, Shimla-6 consisting of two bed rooms with attached bath room and latrine, drawing-cum-dining room, kitchen and balcony. These premises were purchased by the landlord in the year 1986. Thereafter, the landlord had rented out the premises to one Sh. B.K. Chauhan. According to the landlord, when he got married he requested Sh. B.K. Chauhan to vacate the said premises. Sh. Chauhan vacated the said premises but admittedly the landlord did not occupy the same but rented out the same to the tenant in the year 1990.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. In the year 1997 the landlord filed a petition for eviction of the tenant on two grounds; firstly that the tenant is in arrears of rent from 1.11.1990 to 31.7.1997 and secondly that the premises are bona fide required by the landlord for the use and occupation of himself and his family.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>4. This petition was contested by the tenant. After trial, the Rent Controller ordered the eviction of the tenant on two grounds; (i) that the tenant was in arrears of rent from November, 1999 till date of order i.e. 22nd August, 2001 and (ii) that the landlord required the premises for his own use and occupation.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>5. The tenant deposited the rent within the time prescribed. He also filed an appeal challenging the finding on the issue of bona fide requirement. The learned Appellate Authority came to the conclusion that the landlord had not made a proper and full disclosure of facts as required under the provisions of the Act and had withheld material facts from the Court viz. that the landlord was in occupation of residential premises on 31, Mall Road in the urban area of Shimla and as such rejected this petition on this short ground.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>6. Aggrieved by the said order, the landlord has filed the present Revision Petition.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>7. I have heard Sh. Ramakant Sharma, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sh. Bhupinder Gupta, learned senior Counsel for the tenant.',
	(int) 8 => '<p>8. It has been urged on behalf of the landlord that the building which is alleged to be in possession of the landlord i.e. 31, the Mall Shimla is not a residential building and secondly that the building is not owned by him.',
	(int) 9 => '<p>9. On the other hand Sh. Bhupinder Gupta, learned Counsel of the tenant has strenuously urged that the landlord in para 18 has not stated anything about any building being owned by him and has only made an averment that he does not own or possess any other such building within the urban area Shimla. It is contended by Sh. Bhupinder Gupta that the landlord of his own volition did not state anything about the ownership of the building and since he has kept silent about the building which he is in occupation he has made a false averment and therefore his petition for eviction has rightly been rejected.',
	(int) 10 => '<p>10. I am not at all in agreement with the contention of the landlord that the premises known as 31, the Mall Shimla which are admittedly in the occupation of the landlord are commercial premises only and not being used by him for his residence. As pointed out above, the landlord purchased the demised premises in 1986. They fell vacant when he got married despite that he did not occupy the same and rented out the same to the tenant in the year 1990. The question that arises is where was the landlord living for this entire period. According to the landlord after the year 1994 he has been living with his brother-in-law Rajan (wife's brother) PW-2, since the year 1994. Prior to 1994 the landlord will have this Court to believe that he was living off and on with one friend or the other. This story is impossible to believe. The landlord was married in the year 1999. He is an Architect by profession. His wife is a law graduate. It is not believable that such a person would have no permanent abode and would continue to live as a guest with his friends for almost 5 years after his marriage. Even the story that he has been living with his brother-in-law after the year 1994 does not inspire confidence. It stands proved on record that the brother-in-law PW-2 Rajan lives with his own family i.e. wife and children. From the evidence it is also clear that the parents of the brother-in-law also reside with him, His flat consists of only two rooms. The flat in possession of the landlord at 31, the Mall Shimla, also consists of two rooms, kitchen and bath room. Even assuming that he was running an office in the part of the flat it cannot be believed that he would not live on his own flat on the Mall Road and reside with his brother-in-law in cramped premises. Even in the electoral list the landlord is shown to be a resident of 31, The Mall, Shimla. Therefore, I am of the considered view that the building 31, the Mall, Shimla was also being used as a residence by the landlord.',
	(int) 11 => '<p>11. Having held so, the question that arises is whether the landlord can be non-suited only on the ground that he has not made any disclosure about the residential accommodation available with him which premises were admittedly not owned by him.',
	(int) 12 => '<p>12. The short question which arises for decision in this petition is whether the landlord was guilty of suppressing and withholding such relevant facts which would disentitle him from seeking eviction of the tenant. To appreciate these contentions it would be necessary to refer to relevant portion of Section 14(3) of the Act:',
	(int) 13 => '<p>Section 14:',
	(int) 14 => '<p>1 and 2 xxxxxxxxxxx',
	(int) 15 => '<p>(3) A landlord may apply to the Controller for an order directing the tenant to put the landlord in possession-',
	(int) 16 => '<p>(a) in case of residential building, if',
	(int) 17 => '<p>(i) he required it for his own occupation:',
	(int) 18 => '<p>Provided that he is not occupying another residential building owned by him, in the urban area concerned:',
	(int) 19 => '<p>Provided further that he has not vacated such a building without sufficient cause within five years of the filing of the application, in the said urban area....',
	(int) 20 => '<p>13. A perusal of the bare provisions of the Act makes it clear that there are certain essential ingredients which the landlord must satisfy before seeking eviction of the tenant under the Act. Not only must he prove that the residential building is bona fide required by him for his own use and occupation but he must also plead and prove that he is not occupying any other residential building owned by him in the urban area concerned and further that he has not vacated such a building without sufficient cause within 5 years of the filing of the application.',
	(int) 21 => '<p>14. Reference may now be made to the relevant allegations made in para 18 of the eviction petition:',
	(int) 22 => '<p>(ii) That the petitioner bona fide requires the premises for his own use and occupation and also for the use and occupation of his family.',
	(int) 23 => '<p>The petitioner does not own or possess any other such building within the urban area of Simla nor the petitioner has vacated any such premises within five years of the filing of this petition.',
	(int) 24 => '<p>The family of the petitioner presently consists of himself and his wife. Due to paucity of accommodation the petitioner has not been able to keep his wife with himself at Simla, where he is working as an Engineer and she has been residing at Chandigarh since 1991 but on account of her ill health she has been brought to Simla by the petitioner. The petitioner at present is seeking temporary shelter, from time to time, with his relations.',
	(int) 25 => '<p>15. The learned Appellate Authority came to the conclusion that the landlord had falsely pleaded that he does not own or possess any other such building within the urban area of Shimla and hence rejected the eviction petition on this ground.',
	(int) 26 => '<p>16. On a close analysis of the proviso to Section 14(3)(a)(i) of the Act it is clear that a landlord is not entitled to seek eviction of a tenant from residential building even in case of bona fide requirement if the landlord is occupying another residential building owned by him in the urban area concerned. One can read three essential ingredients in this proviso i.e. (i) that the landlord is in occupation of another residential building; (ii) that the said residential building is owned by him and (iii) that the said residential building is situated in the concerned urban area.',
	(int) 27 => '<p>17. The question that arises is what is the impact of the landlord not making a disclosure in respect of premises which he is occupying but are not owned by him.',
	(int) 28 => '<p>18. The Apex Court in Onkar Nath v. Ved Vyas ILR 1979 HP 1, held as follows:',
	(int) 29 => '<p>It is common ground that there are three requirements to make out a cause of action for eviction under that provision, and indeed this is apparent from a bare reading of the sub-section. In the present case the finding is to the effect that the landlord requires the residential building for his own occupation. But, the legislation has taken care to insist upon two more conditions, namely; (a) that the landlord is not occupying any other residential building in the area concerned; and (b) that he has not vacated such a building without sufficient cause. There is not a scintilla of evidence nor indeed there is any averment in compliance with these latter conditions. The necessary consequence follows that not merely is there inadequacy of pleadings sufficient to make out a cause of action but total absence of proof of two vital requirements....',
	(int) 30 => '<p>The Supreme Court also said that:.The statute benignly designed to protect tenants from unreasonable evictions has taken case to put restrictions which must be rigorously construed to fulfil the purpose of the statute.',
	(int) 31 => '<p>19. Following the aforesaid judgment and other pronouncements of the Apex Court, a learned Single Judge of this Court in Tara Chand Sharma v. Baij Nath and Ors. 1992 (2) R.C.J. 323, held as follows:',
	(int) 32 => '<p>16. What appears as the legislative intent, in bold relief, is that the landlord, while seeking eviction of a tenant on the ground that he needs a residential building for his own occupation, must come out clearly and honestly with facts relating to the requirement that he is not occupying another residential building owned by him, in the urban area concerned and that he had not vacated such a building without sufficient cause within five years of the filing of the application, in the said urban area. The primal burden of making a clear disclosure would lie upon the landlord, for, the true facts would be in his special knowledge. An order in his favour by the Rent Controller would depend upon the satisfaction of the Rent Controller in regard not only to the claim that the landlord requires the accommodation, from which he wishes to evict a tenant, for his own occupation but also that he was not occupying another residential building owned by him nor had he vacated such building without sufficient cause within five years of the filing of the application in the application in the urban area concerned....',
	(int) 33 => '<p>It was further held as under:',
	(int) 34 => '<p>18. That the landlord should make a full disclosure of the relevant facts, pertaining to the requirements of Sub-section (3)(a)(i) and the two provisos, becomes all the more necessary because the satisfaction of the Rent Controller in regard thereto is the condition precedent for the making of an order in favour of the landlord....',
	(int) 35 => '<p>20. The aforesaid judgment has been followed in a number of other cases including Vijay Kapoor v. Maya Ram 1997 (2) RCR 437, wherein another learned single Judge of this Court following the aforesaid judgment held that the landlord must make complete and proper disclosure of all the material facts.',
	(int) 36 => '<p>21. On the other hand Sh. Ramakant Sharma has relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in Ram Narain Arora v. Asha Rani 1998(2) RCR 268. In that case the Rent Controller came to the conclusion that the landlord had suppressed material information and had not disclosed the fact that he was already in occupation of a house in Subji Mandi. Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act reads as follows:',
	(int) 37 => '<p>Section 14(1)(e). That the premises let for residential purposes are required bona fide by the landlord for occupation as a residence for himself or for any member of his family dependent on him, if he is the owner thereof, or for any person for whose benefit the premises are held and that the landlord or such person has no other reasonably suitable residential accommodation.',
	(int) 38 => '<p>22. The difference between Delhi Act and the present Act is that under the Delhi Act the only requirement is that the landlord has no other reasonably suitable accommodation whereas under the Himachal Act the residential premises are required to be owned by the landlord. The Apex Court in Rama Narain Arora's case (supra) held that the nondisclosure of the fact that the landlord was in occupation of certain premises in Subji Mandi was.not a ground to non-suit the landlord in view of the facts and circumstances of the case. The Apex Court held as follows:',
	(int) 39 => '<p>9. In making a claim that the suit premises is required bona fide for his own occupation as a residence for himself and other members of his family dependent on him and that he has no other reasonably suitable accommodation is a requirement of law before the Court can state whether the landlord requires the premises bona fide for his use and occupation. In doing so, the Court must also find out whether the landlord or such other person for whose benefit the premises is required has no other reasonably suitable residential accommodation. It cannot be said that the requirement of the landlord is not intermixed with the question of finding out whether he has any other reasonably suitable accommodation. If he has other reasonably suitable accommodation, ihen necessarily it would mean that he does not require the suit premises and his requirement may not be bona fide. In such circumstances further inquiry would be whether that premises is more suitable than the suit premises. Therefore, the questions raised before the Court would not necessarily depend upon only the pleadings. It could be a good defence that the landlord has other reasonably suitable residential accommodation and thereby defend the claim of the landlord.',
	(int) 40 => '<p>10. There cannot be a pedantic or a dogmatic approach in the matter of analysis of pleadings or of the evidence adduced thereto. It is no doubt true that if the pleadings are clearly set out, it would be easy for the Court to decide the matters. But if the pleadings are lacking or vague and if both parties have understood what was the case pleaded and put forth with reference to requirement of law and placed such material before the Court, neither party is prejudiced. If we analyse from this angle, we do not think that the High Court was not justified in interfering with the order made by the Rent Controller.',
	(int) 41 => '<p>23. From the perusal of the judgment of the Apex Court it is apparent that the Rent Controller must approach the matter in a practical manner. In case the non-disclosure is such as that it goes to the very root of the case the Rent Controller would be justified in non-suiting the landlord. However, if the non-disclosure is such that it would not prejudice the rights of the respondent then the landlord should not be non-suited only on this ground.',
	(int) 42 => '<p>24. The decisions of this Court cited hereinabove were delivered prior to the judgment delivered by the Apex Court in Ram Nar'ain Arora's case. Further more both in Tara Chand Sharma's case and Vijay Kapoor's case decided by this Court, no averment had been made ixi respect of other residential buildings owned by a landlord. There was complete non-disclosure as to whether any such residential building owned by the landlord was in his possession or not. In the present case, as I have held above, the residential premises at 31, The Mall, Shimla was not owned by the landlord and hence these two earlier judgments of this Court are distinguishable on facts also.',
	(int) 43 => '<p>25. In the present case, the landlord has been non-suited only on the ground that he did not disclose the fact that he was in occupation of certain premises on the Mall Road. Under law he was not required to disclose this fact. He was only required to disclose the factum of occupying another residential building owned by him in the urban area concerned. True it may be, that it would have been better if the landlord had disclosed all the facts but non-disclosure of a fact which he was not under law required to disclose could not in my opinion be a ground to dismiss his eviction petition.',
	(int) 44 => '<p>26. However, what are the premises in his occupation even as a tenant can be taken into consideration while deciding the question whether he bona fide requires the demised premises for his personal use or occupation or not.',
	(int) 45 => '<p>27. Lastly comes the question with regard to the bona fide requirement of the landlord. The landlord has no children. According to the landlord as well as his other witnesses i.e. his brother-in-law PW-2 and his wife PW-3, the wife now wants to come back and settle in Shimla. There is no reason to disbelieve their statements. Even according to the evidence led by the tenant the accommodation in possession of the landlord consists of two rooms, kitchen, bath room etc. Admittedly, the landlord is also having his office as an Architect in this building. The landlord belongs to the middle class of the Society. It cannot be expected of a landlord who owns sufficient property to reside in a two room set wherein he also runs his office.',
	(int) 46 => '<p>28. The law by now is well settled that the landlord is the best judge of the suitability of the accommodation required by him. This suitability has however to be judged in the context of reasonable expectations. The landlord and his wife who are both well educated can reasonably be expected to entertain guests and they will have visitors to their house. They would obviously require a drawing room, a bed room and a spare bed room for guests. Even at his residence the landlord may require another room for his professional work. This is the minimum accommodation which they would require. Even if the accommodation possessed by the landlord, though not owned by him, at 31, the Mall, Shimla is taken into consideration such accommodation is not sufficient to meet his requirements since admittedly the landlord is running his profession of Architect from some portion of his these premises.',
	(int) 47 => '<p>29. Keeping in view the entire facts and circumstances, I am of the considered view that the learned Appellate Authority gravely erred in rejecting the eviction petition of the landlord solely on the ground that he had not disclosed the factum of being in possession of the premises at 31, the Mall Shimla. Even though I have held that the said premises are residential premises, in view of the above discussion I hold that the landlord cannot be non-suited only on the ground of his being in possession of such premises since same were not owned by him.',
	(int) 48 => '<p>30. In view of the above discussion, the Revision Petition is allowed, the order of the learned Appellate Authority dated 6.5.2003 is seaside and the order of the Rent Controller dated 22.8.2001 is restored.',
	(int) 49 => '<p>31. Keeping in view the fact that the tenant has been in possession of the premises for a long period he is granted time up to 31st October, 2008 to vacate the premises.',
	(int) 50 => '<p>32. No order as to costs.<p>',
	(int) 51 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 52
$i = (int) 15
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

(3) A landlord may apply to the Controller for an order directing the tenant to put the landlord in possession-

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Shri Arun Bhanwara Vs Shri S L Srivastava - Citation 891084 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '891084',
			'acts' => '',
			'appealno' => '',
			'appellant' => 'Shri Arun Bhanwara',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Shri Arun Bhanwara Vs. Shri S.L. Srivastava',
			'casenote' => ' - CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908.[C.A. No. 5/1908]. Order 14, Rule 2 [As amended by Amending Act of 1976]: [V.K. Gupta, CJ, Deepak Gupta & Surjit Singh, JJ] Preliminary issue of law and fact  Court framing all issues both of law and facts together and also  tried all the issues together, including the issue relating to jurisdiction of Court  Held, Except in situations perceived or warranted under sub-rule (2) of Rule 2 of Order 14 where a  Court in fact frames only issues of law in the first instance and postpones settlement of other issues, clearly and explicitly in situations where the Court has framed all issues together, both of law as well as facts and has also tried all these issues together, it is not open to the Court to adopt the principle of severability and proceed to decide issues of law first, without taking up simultaneously other issues for decision. This course of action is not available to a Court because sub-rule (1) does not permit the  Court to adopt any such principle of severability and to dispose of a suit only on preliminary issues, or what can be termed as issues of law. Sub-rule (1)  clearly mandates that in a situation contemplated under it, where all the issues have been together and have also been taken up for adjudication during the course of the trial, these must be decided together and the judgment in the suit as a whole must be pronounced by the Court covering all the issues framed in the suit.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => 'Ram Narain Arora v. Asha Rani;',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => '',
			'counseldef' => '',
			'court' => 'Himachal Pradesh',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2008-07-31',
			'deposition' => 'Petition allowed',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => ' Deepak Gupta, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">Deepak Gupta, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. This Revision Petition under Section 25(5) of the H.P. Urban Rent Control Act, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) is directed against the order of the learned Appellate Authority, Shimla in CMA No. 60-S/14 of 2001 whereby the appeal filed by the respondent (hereinafter referred to as the tenant) has been allowed, the order of the Rent Controller has been set-aside and the petition for eviction filed by the present petitioner (hereinafter referred to as the Landlord) on the ground of personal bona fide requirement has been set-aside.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The undisputed facts are that the landlord is owner of the demised premises situated in building known as Tunnel View, Sanjauli, Shimla-6 consisting of two bed rooms with attached bath room and latrine, drawing-cum-dining room, kitchen and balcony. These premises were purchased by the landlord in the year 1986. Thereafter, the landlord had rented out the premises to one Sh. B.K. Chauhan. According to the landlord, when he got married he requested Sh. B.K. Chauhan to vacate the said premises. Sh. Chauhan vacated the said premises but admittedly the landlord did not occupy the same but rented out the same to the tenant in the year 1990.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. In the year 1997 the landlord filed a petition for eviction of the tenant on two grounds; firstly that the tenant is in arrears of rent from 1.11.1990 to 31.7.1997 and secondly that the premises are bona fide required by the landlord for the use and occupation of himself and his family.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. This petition was contested by the tenant. After trial, the Rent Controller ordered the eviction of the tenant on two grounds; (i) that the tenant was in arrears of rent from November, 1999 till date of order i.e. 22nd August, 2001 and (ii) that the landlord required the premises for his own use and occupation.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. The tenant deposited the rent within the time prescribed. He also filed an appeal challenging the finding on the issue of bona fide requirement. The learned Appellate Authority came to the conclusion that the landlord had not made a proper and full disclosure of facts as required under the provisions of the Act and had withheld material facts from the Court viz. that the landlord was in occupation of residential premises on 31, Mall Road in the urban area of Shimla and as such rejected this petition on this short ground.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. Aggrieved by the said order, the landlord has filed the present Revision Petition.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. I have heard Sh. Ramakant Sharma, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sh. Bhupinder Gupta, learned senior Counsel for the tenant.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. It has been urged on behalf of the landlord that the building which is alleged to be in possession of the landlord i.e. 31, the Mall Shimla is not a residential building and secondly that the building is not owned by him.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. On the other hand Sh. Bhupinder Gupta, learned Counsel of the tenant has strenuously urged that the landlord in para 18 has not stated anything about any building being owned by him and has only made an averment that he does not own or possess any other such building within the urban area Shimla. It is contended by Sh. Bhupinder Gupta that the landlord of his own volition did not state anything about the ownership of the building and since he has kept silent about the building which he is in occupation he has made a false averment and therefore his petition for eviction has rightly been rejected.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. I am not at all in agreement with the contention of the landlord that the premises known as 31, the Mall Shimla which are admittedly in the occupation of the landlord are commercial premises only and not being used by him for his residence. As pointed out above, the landlord purchased the demised premises in 1986. They fell vacant when he got married despite that he did not occupy the same and rented out the same to the tenant in the year 1990. The question that arises is where was the landlord living for this entire period. According to the landlord after the year 1994 he has been living with his brother-in-law Rajan (wife's brother) PW-2, since the year 1994. Prior to 1994 the landlord will have this Court to believe that he was living off and on with one friend or the other. This story is impossible to believe. The landlord was married in the year 1999. He is an Architect by profession. His wife is a law graduate. It is not believable that such a person would have no permanent abode and would continue to live as a guest with his friends for almost 5 years after his marriage. Even the story that he has been living with his brother-in-law after the year 1994 does not inspire confidence. It stands proved on record that the brother-in-law PW-2 Rajan lives with his own family i.e. wife and children. From the evidence it is also clear that the parents of the brother-in-law also reside with him, His flat consists of only two rooms. The flat in possession of the landlord at 31, the Mall Shimla, also consists of two rooms, kitchen and bath room. Even assuming that he was running an office in the part of the flat it cannot be believed that he would not live on his own flat on the Mall Road and reside with his brother-in-law in cramped premises. Even in the electoral list the landlord is shown to be a resident of 31, The Mall, Shimla. Therefore, I am of the considered view that the building 31, the Mall, Shimla was also being used as a residence by the landlord.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. Having held so, the question that arises is whether the landlord can be non-suited only on the ground that he has not made any disclosure about the residential accommodation available with him which premises were admittedly not owned by him.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. The short question which arises for decision in this petition is whether the landlord was guilty of suppressing and withholding such relevant facts which would disentitle him from seeking eviction of the tenant. To appreciate these contentions it would be necessary to refer to relevant portion of Section 14(3) of the Act:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Section 14:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1 and 2 xxxxxxxxxxx</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(3) A landlord may apply to the Controller for an order directing the tenant to put the landlord in possession-</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(a) in case of residential building, if</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(i) he required it for his own occupation:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Provided that he is not occupying another residential building owned by him, in the urban area concerned:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Provided further that he has not vacated such a building without sufficient cause within five years of the filing of the application, in the said urban area....</p><p style="text-align: justify;">13. A perusal of the bare provisions of the Act makes it clear that there are certain essential ingredients which the landlord must satisfy before seeking eviction of the tenant under the Act. Not only must he prove that the residential building is bona fide required by him for his own use and occupation but he must also plead and prove that he is not occupying any other residential building owned by him in the urban area concerned and further that he has not vacated such a building without sufficient cause within 5 years of the filing of the application.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">14. Reference may now be made to the relevant allegations made in para 18 of the eviction petition:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(ii) That the petitioner bona fide requires the premises for his own use and occupation and also for the use and occupation of his family.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The petitioner does not own or possess any other such building within the urban area of Simla nor the petitioner has vacated any such premises within five years of the filing of this petition.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The family of the petitioner presently consists of himself and his wife. Due to paucity of accommodation the petitioner has not been able to keep his wife with himself at Simla, where he is working as an Engineer and she has been residing at Chandigarh since 1991 but on account of her ill health she has been brought to Simla by the petitioner. The petitioner at present is seeking temporary shelter, from time to time, with his relations.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">15. The learned Appellate Authority came to the conclusion that the landlord had falsely pleaded that he does not own or possess any other such building within the urban area of Shimla and hence rejected the eviction petition on this ground.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">16. On a close analysis of the proviso to Section 14(3)(a)(i) of the Act it is clear that a landlord is not entitled to seek eviction of a tenant from residential building even in case of bona fide requirement if the landlord is occupying another residential building owned by him in the urban area concerned. One can read three essential ingredients in this proviso i.e. (i) that the landlord is in occupation of another residential building; (ii) that the said residential building is owned by him and (iii) that the said residential building is situated in the concerned urban area.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">17. The question that arises is what is the impact of the landlord not making a disclosure in respect of premises which he is occupying but are not owned by him.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">18. The Apex Court in Onkar Nath v. Ved Vyas ILR 1979 HP 1, held as follows:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">It is common ground that there are three requirements to make out a cause of action for eviction under that provision, and indeed this is apparent from a bare reading of the sub-section. In the present case the finding is to the effect that the landlord requires the residential building for his own occupation. But, the legislation has taken care to insist upon two more conditions, namely; (a) that the landlord is not occupying any other residential building in the area concerned; and (b) that he has not vacated such a building without sufficient cause. There is not a scintilla of evidence nor indeed there is any averment in compliance with these latter conditions. The necessary consequence follows that not merely is there inadequacy of pleadings sufficient to make out a cause of action but total absence of proof of two vital requirements....</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The Supreme Court also said that:.The statute benignly designed to protect tenants from unreasonable evictions has taken case to put restrictions which must be rigorously construed to fulfil the purpose of the statute.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">19. Following the aforesaid judgment and other pronouncements of the Apex Court, a learned Single Judge of this Court in Tara Chand Sharma v. Baij Nath and Ors. 1992 (2) R.C.J. 323, held as follows:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">16. What appears as the legislative intent, in bold relief, is that the landlord, while seeking eviction of a tenant on the ground that he needs a residential building for his own occupation, must come out clearly and honestly with facts relating to the requirement that he is not occupying another residential building owned by him, in the urban area concerned and that he had not vacated such a building without sufficient cause within five years of the filing of the application, in the said urban area. The primal burden of making a clear disclosure would lie upon the landlord, for, the true facts would be in his special knowledge. An order in his favour by the Rent Controller would depend upon the satisfaction of the Rent Controller in regard not only to the claim that the landlord requires the accommodation, from which he wishes to evict a tenant, for his own occupation but also that he was not occupying another residential building owned by him nor had he vacated such building without sufficient cause within five years of the filing of the application in the application in the urban area concerned....</p><p style="text-align: justify;">It was further held as under:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">18. That the landlord should make a full disclosure of the relevant facts, pertaining to the requirements of Sub-section (3)(a)(i) and the two provisos, becomes all the more necessary because the satisfaction of the Rent Controller in regard thereto is the condition precedent for the making of an order in favour of the landlord....</p><p style="text-align: justify;">20. The aforesaid judgment has been followed in a number of other cases including Vijay Kapoor v. Maya Ram 1997 (2) RCR 437, wherein another learned single Judge of this Court following the aforesaid judgment held that the landlord must make complete and proper disclosure of all the material facts.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">21. On the other hand Sh. Ramakant Sharma has relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in Ram Narain Arora v. Asha Rani 1998(2) RCR 268. In that case the Rent Controller came to the conclusion that the landlord had suppressed material information and had not disclosed the fact that he was already in occupation of a house in Subji Mandi. Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act reads as follows:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Section 14(1)(e). That the premises let for residential purposes are required bona fide by the landlord for occupation as a residence for himself or for any member of his family dependent on him, if he is the owner thereof, or for any person for whose benefit the premises are held and that the landlord or such person has no other reasonably suitable residential accommodation.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">22. The difference between Delhi Act and the present Act is that under the Delhi Act the only requirement is that the landlord has no other reasonably suitable accommodation whereas under the Himachal Act the residential premises are required to be owned by the landlord. The Apex Court in Rama Narain Arora's case (supra) held that the nondisclosure of the fact that the landlord was in occupation of certain premises in Subji Mandi was.not a ground to non-suit the landlord in view of the facts and circumstances of the case. The Apex Court held as follows:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. In making a claim that the suit premises is required bona fide for his own occupation as a residence for himself and other members of his family dependent on him and that he has no other reasonably suitable accommodation is a requirement of law before the Court can state whether the landlord requires the premises bona fide for his use and occupation. In doing so, the Court must also find out whether the landlord or such other person for whose benefit the premises is required has no other reasonably suitable residential accommodation. It cannot be said that the requirement of the landlord is not intermixed with the question of finding out whether he has any other reasonably suitable accommodation. If he has other reasonably suitable accommodation, ihen necessarily it would mean that he does not require the suit premises and his requirement may not be bona fide. In such circumstances further inquiry would be whether that premises is more suitable than the suit premises. Therefore, the questions raised before the Court would not necessarily depend upon only the pleadings. It could be a good defence that the landlord has other reasonably suitable residential accommodation and thereby defend the claim of the landlord.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. There cannot be a pedantic or a dogmatic approach in the matter of analysis of pleadings or of the evidence adduced thereto. It is no doubt true that if the pleadings are clearly set out, it would be easy for the Court to decide the matters. But if the pleadings are lacking or vague and if both parties have understood what was the case pleaded and put forth with reference to requirement of law and placed such material before the Court, neither party is prejudiced. If we analyse from this angle, we do not think that the High Court was not justified in interfering with the order made by the Rent Controller.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">23. From the perusal of the judgment of the Apex Court it is apparent that the Rent Controller must approach the matter in a practical manner. In case the non-disclosure is such as that it goes to the very root of the case the Rent Controller would be justified in non-suiting the landlord. However, if the non-disclosure is such that it would not prejudice the rights of the respondent then the landlord should not be non-suited only on this ground.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">24. The decisions of this Court cited hereinabove were delivered prior to the judgment delivered by the Apex Court in Ram Nar'ain Arora's case. Further more both in Tara Chand Sharma's case and Vijay Kapoor's case decided by this Court, no averment had been made ixi respect of other residential buildings owned by a landlord. There was complete non-disclosure as to whether any such residential building owned by the landlord was in his possession or not. In the present case, as I have held above, the residential premises at 31, The Mall, Shimla was not owned by the landlord and hence these two earlier judgments of this Court are distinguishable on facts also.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">25. In the present case, the landlord has been non-suited only on the ground that he did not disclose the fact that he was in occupation of certain premises on the Mall Road. Under law he was not required to disclose this fact. He was only required to disclose the factum of occupying another residential building owned by him in the urban area concerned. True it may be, that it would have been better if the landlord had disclosed all the facts but non-disclosure of a fact which he was not under law required to disclose could not in my opinion be a ground to dismiss his eviction petition.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">26. However, what are the premises in his occupation even as a tenant can be taken into consideration while deciding the question whether he bona fide requires the demised premises for his personal use or occupation or not.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">27. Lastly comes the question with regard to the bona fide requirement of the landlord. The landlord has no children. According to the landlord as well as his other witnesses i.e. his brother-in-law PW-2 and his wife PW-3, the wife now wants to come back and settle in Shimla. There is no reason to disbelieve their statements. Even according to the evidence led by the tenant the accommodation in possession of the landlord consists of two rooms, kitchen, bath room etc. Admittedly, the landlord is also having his office as an Architect in this building. The landlord belongs to the middle class of the Society. It cannot be expected of a landlord who owns sufficient property to reside in a two room set wherein he also runs his office.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">28. The law by now is well settled that the landlord is the best judge of the suitability of the accommodation required by him. This suitability has however to be judged in the context of reasonable expectations. The landlord and his wife who are both well educated can reasonably be expected to entertain guests and they will have visitors to their house. They would obviously require a drawing room, a bed room and a spare bed room for guests. Even at his residence the landlord may require another room for his professional work. This is the minimum accommodation which they would require. Even if the accommodation possessed by the landlord, though not owned by him, at 31, the Mall, Shimla is taken into consideration such accommodation is not sufficient to meet his requirements since admittedly the landlord is running his profession of Architect from some portion of his these premises.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">29. Keeping in view the entire facts and circumstances, I am of the considered view that the learned Appellate Authority gravely erred in rejecting the eviction petition of the landlord solely on the ground that he had not disclosed the factum of being in possession of the premises at 31, the Mall Shimla. Even though I have held that the said premises are residential premises, in view of the above discussion I hold that the landlord cannot be non-suited only on the ground of his being in possession of such premises since same were not owned by him.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">30. In view of the above discussion, the Revision Petition is allowed, the order of the learned Appellate Authority dated 6.5.2003 is seaside and the order of the Rent Controller dated 22.8.2001 is restored.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">31. Keeping in view the fact that the tenant has been in possession of the premises for a long period he is granted time up to 31st October, 2008 to vacate the premises.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">32. No order as to costs.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '2008(2)ShimLC491',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'Shri S.L. Srivastava',
			'sub' => 'Tenancy',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'shri-arun-bhanwara-vs-s-l-srivastava',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '891084',
		(int) 1 => 'shri-arun-bhanwara-vs-s-l-srivastava'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Shri Arun Bhanwara Vs Shri S L Srivastava - Citation 891084 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '891084',
		'acts' => '',
		'appealno' => '',
		'appellant' => 'Shri Arun Bhanwara',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Shri Arun Bhanwara Vs. Shri S.L. Srivastava',
		'casenote' => ' - CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908.[C.A. No. 5/1908]. Order 14, Rule 2 [As amended by Amending Act of 1976]: [V.K. Gupta, CJ, Deepak Gupta & Surjit Singh, JJ] Preliminary issue of law and fact  Court framing all issues both of law and facts together and also  tried all the issues together, including the issue relating to jurisdiction of Court  Held, Except in situations perceived or warranted under sub-rule (2) of Rule 2 of Order 14 where a  Court in fact frames only issues of law in the first instance and postpones settlement of other issues, clearly and explicitly in situations where the Court has framed all issues together, both of law as well as facts and has also tried all these issues together, it is not open to the Court to adopt the principle of severability and proceed to decide issues of law first, without taking up simultaneously other issues for decision. This course of action is not available to a Court because sub-rule (1) does not permit the  Court to adopt any such principle of severability and to dispose of a suit only on preliminary issues, or what can be termed as issues of law. Sub-rule (1)  clearly mandates that in a situation contemplated under it, where all the issues have been together and have also been taken up for adjudication during the course of the trial, these must be decided together and the judgment in the suit as a whole must be pronounced by the Court covering all the issues framed in the suit.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => 'Ram Narain Arora v. Asha Rani;',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => '',
		'counseldef' => '',
		'court' => 'Himachal Pradesh',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2008-07-31',
		'deposition' => 'Petition allowed',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => ' Deepak Gupta, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>Deepak Gupta, J.</p><p>1. This Revision Petition under Section 25(5) of the H.P. Urban Rent Control Act, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) is directed against the order of the learned Appellate Authority, Shimla in CMA No. 60-S/14 of 2001 whereby the appeal filed by the respondent (hereinafter referred to as the tenant) has been allowed, the order of the Rent Controller has been set-aside and the petition for eviction filed by the present petitioner (hereinafter referred to as the Landlord) on the ground of personal bona fide requirement has been set-aside.</p><p>2. The undisputed facts are that the landlord is owner of the demised premises situated in building known as Tunnel View, Sanjauli, Shimla-6 consisting of two bed rooms with attached bath room and latrine, drawing-cum-dining room, kitchen and balcony. These premises were purchased by the landlord in the year 1986. Thereafter, the landlord had rented out the premises to one Sh. B.K. Chauhan. According to the landlord, when he got married he requested Sh. B.K. Chauhan to vacate the said premises. Sh. Chauhan vacated the said premises but admittedly the landlord did not occupy the same but rented out the same to the tenant in the year 1990.</p><p>3. In the year 1997 the landlord filed a petition for eviction of the tenant on two grounds; firstly that the tenant is in arrears of rent from 1.11.1990 to 31.7.1997 and secondly that the premises are bona fide required by the landlord for the use and occupation of himself and his family.</p><p>4. This petition was contested by the tenant. After trial, the Rent Controller ordered the eviction of the tenant on two grounds; (i) that the tenant was in arrears of rent from November, 1999 till date of order i.e. 22nd August, 2001 and (ii) that the landlord required the premises for his own use and occupation.</p><p>5. The tenant deposited the rent within the time prescribed. He also filed an appeal challenging the finding on the issue of bona fide requirement. The learned Appellate Authority came to the conclusion that the landlord had not made a proper and full disclosure of facts as required under the provisions of the Act and had withheld material facts from the Court viz. that the landlord was in occupation of residential premises on 31, Mall Road in the urban area of Shimla and as such rejected this petition on this short ground.</p><p>6. Aggrieved by the said order, the landlord has filed the present Revision Petition.</p><p>7. I have heard Sh. Ramakant Sharma, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sh. Bhupinder Gupta, learned senior Counsel for the tenant.</p><p>8. It has been urged on behalf of the landlord that the building which is alleged to be in possession of the landlord i.e. 31, the Mall Shimla is not a residential building and secondly that the building is not owned by him.</p><p>9. On the other hand Sh. Bhupinder Gupta, learned Counsel of the tenant has strenuously urged that the landlord in para 18 has not stated anything about any building being owned by him and has only made an averment that he does not own or possess any other such building within the urban area Shimla. It is contended by Sh. Bhupinder Gupta that the landlord of his own volition did not state anything about the ownership of the building and since he has kept silent about the building which he is in occupation he has made a false averment and therefore his petition for eviction has rightly been rejected.</p><p>10. I am not at all in agreement with the contention of the landlord that the premises known as 31, the Mall Shimla which are admittedly in the occupation of the landlord are commercial premises only and not being used by him for his residence. As pointed out above, the landlord purchased the demised premises in 1986. They fell vacant when he got married despite that he did not occupy the same and rented out the same to the tenant in the year 1990. The question that arises is where was the landlord living for this entire period. According to the landlord after the year 1994 he has been living with his brother-in-law Rajan (wife's brother) PW-2, since the year 1994. Prior to 1994 the landlord will have this Court to believe that he was living off and on with one friend or the other. This story is impossible to believe. The landlord was married in the year 1999. He is an Architect by profession. His wife is a law graduate. It is not believable that such a person would have no permanent abode and would continue to live as a guest with his friends for almost 5 years after his marriage. Even the story that he has been living with his brother-in-law after the year 1994 does not inspire confidence. It stands proved on record that the brother-in-law PW-2 Rajan lives with his own family i.e. wife and children. From the evidence it is also clear that the parents of the brother-in-law also reside with him, His flat consists of only two rooms. The flat in possession of the landlord at 31, the Mall Shimla, also consists of two rooms, kitchen and bath room. Even assuming that he was running an office in the part of the flat it cannot be believed that he would not live on his own flat on the Mall Road and reside with his brother-in-law in cramped premises. Even in the electoral list the landlord is shown to be a resident of 31, The Mall, Shimla. Therefore, I am of the considered view that the building 31, the Mall, Shimla was also being used as a residence by the landlord.</p><p>11. Having held so, the question that arises is whether the landlord can be non-suited only on the ground that he has not made any disclosure about the residential accommodation available with him which premises were admittedly not owned by him.</p><p>12. The short question which arises for decision in this petition is whether the landlord was guilty of suppressing and withholding such relevant facts which would disentitle him from seeking eviction of the tenant. To appreciate these contentions it would be necessary to refer to relevant portion of Section 14(3) of the Act:</p><p>Section 14:</p><p>1 and 2 xxxxxxxxxxx</p><p>(3) A landlord may apply to the Controller for an order directing the tenant to put the landlord in possession-</p><p>(a) in case of residential building, if</p><p>(i) he required it for his own occupation:</p><p>Provided that he is not occupying another residential building owned by him, in the urban area concerned:</p><p>Provided further that he has not vacated such a building without sufficient cause within five years of the filing of the application, in the said urban area....</p><p>13. A perusal of the bare provisions of the Act makes it clear that there are certain essential ingredients which the landlord must satisfy before seeking eviction of the tenant under the Act. Not only must he prove that the residential building is bona fide required by him for his own use and occupation but he must also plead and prove that he is not occupying any other residential building owned by him in the urban area concerned and further that he has not vacated such a building without sufficient cause within 5 years of the filing of the application.</p><p>14. Reference may now be made to the relevant allegations made in para 18 of the eviction petition:</p><p>(ii) That the petitioner bona fide requires the premises for his own use and occupation and also for the use and occupation of his family.</p><p>The petitioner does not own or possess any other such building within the urban area of Simla nor the petitioner has vacated any such premises within five years of the filing of this petition.</p><p>The family of the petitioner presently consists of himself and his wife. Due to paucity of accommodation the petitioner has not been able to keep his wife with himself at Simla, where he is working as an Engineer and she has been residing at Chandigarh since 1991 but on account of her ill health she has been brought to Simla by the petitioner. The petitioner at present is seeking temporary shelter, from time to time, with his relations.</p><p>15. The learned Appellate Authority came to the conclusion that the landlord had falsely pleaded that he does not own or possess any other such building within the urban area of Shimla and hence rejected the eviction petition on this ground.</p><p>16. On a close analysis of the proviso to Section 14(3)(a)(i) of the Act it is clear that a landlord is not entitled to seek eviction of a tenant from residential building even in case of bona fide requirement if the landlord is occupying another residential building owned by him in the urban area concerned. One can read three essential ingredients in this proviso i.e. (i) that the landlord is in occupation of another residential building; (ii) that the said residential building is owned by him and (iii) that the said residential building is situated in the concerned urban area.</p><p>17. The question that arises is what is the impact of the landlord not making a disclosure in respect of premises which he is occupying but are not owned by him.</p><p>18. The Apex Court in Onkar Nath v. Ved Vyas ILR 1979 HP 1, held as follows:</p><p>It is common ground that there are three requirements to make out a cause of action for eviction under that provision, and indeed this is apparent from a bare reading of the sub-section. In the present case the finding is to the effect that the landlord requires the residential building for his own occupation. But, the legislation has taken care to insist upon two more conditions, namely; (a) that the landlord is not occupying any other residential building in the area concerned; and (b) that he has not vacated such a building without sufficient cause. There is not a scintilla of evidence nor indeed there is any averment in compliance with these latter conditions. The necessary consequence follows that not merely is there inadequacy of pleadings sufficient to make out a cause of action but total absence of proof of two vital requirements....</p><p>The Supreme Court also said that:.The statute benignly designed to protect tenants from unreasonable evictions has taken case to put restrictions which must be rigorously construed to fulfil the purpose of the statute.</p><p>19. Following the aforesaid judgment and other pronouncements of the Apex Court, a learned Single Judge of this Court in Tara Chand Sharma v. Baij Nath and Ors. 1992 (2) R.C.J. 323, held as follows:</p><p>16. What appears as the legislative intent, in bold relief, is that the landlord, while seeking eviction of a tenant on the ground that he needs a residential building for his own occupation, must come out clearly and honestly with facts relating to the requirement that he is not occupying another residential building owned by him, in the urban area concerned and that he had not vacated such a building without sufficient cause within five years of the filing of the application, in the said urban area. The primal burden of making a clear disclosure would lie upon the landlord, for, the true facts would be in his special knowledge. An order in his favour by the Rent Controller would depend upon the satisfaction of the Rent Controller in regard not only to the claim that the landlord requires the accommodation, from which he wishes to evict a tenant, for his own occupation but also that he was not occupying another residential building owned by him nor had he vacated such building without sufficient cause within five years of the filing of the application in the application in the urban area concerned....</p><p>It was further held as under:</p><p>18. That the landlord should make a full disclosure of the relevant facts, pertaining to the requirements of Sub-section (3)(a)(i) and the two provisos, becomes all the more necessary because the satisfaction of the Rent Controller in regard thereto is the condition precedent for the making of an order in favour of the landlord....</p><p>20. The aforesaid judgment has been followed in a number of other cases including Vijay Kapoor v. Maya Ram 1997 (2) RCR 437, wherein another learned single Judge of this Court following the aforesaid judgment held that the landlord must make complete and proper disclosure of all the material facts.</p><p>21. On the other hand Sh. Ramakant Sharma has relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in Ram Narain Arora v. Asha Rani 1998(2) RCR 268. In that case the Rent Controller came to the conclusion that the landlord had suppressed material information and had not disclosed the fact that he was already in occupation of a house in Subji Mandi. Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act reads as follows:</p><p>Section 14(1)(e). That the premises let for residential purposes are required bona fide by the landlord for occupation as a residence for himself or for any member of his family dependent on him, if he is the owner thereof, or for any person for whose benefit the premises are held and that the landlord or such person has no other reasonably suitable residential accommodation.</p><p>22. The difference between Delhi Act and the present Act is that under the Delhi Act the only requirement is that the landlord has no other reasonably suitable accommodation whereas under the Himachal Act the residential premises are required to be owned by the landlord. The Apex Court in Rama Narain Arora's case (supra) held that the nondisclosure of the fact that the landlord was in occupation of certain premises in Subji Mandi was.not a ground to non-suit the landlord in view of the facts and circumstances of the case. The Apex Court held as follows:</p><p>9. In making a claim that the suit premises is required bona fide for his own occupation as a residence for himself and other members of his family dependent on him and that he has no other reasonably suitable accommodation is a requirement of law before the Court can state whether the landlord requires the premises bona fide for his use and occupation. In doing so, the Court must also find out whether the landlord or such other person for whose benefit the premises is required has no other reasonably suitable residential accommodation. It cannot be said that the requirement of the landlord is not intermixed with the question of finding out whether he has any other reasonably suitable accommodation. If he has other reasonably suitable accommodation, ihen necessarily it would mean that he does not require the suit premises and his requirement may not be bona fide. In such circumstances further inquiry would be whether that premises is more suitable than the suit premises. Therefore, the questions raised before the Court would not necessarily depend upon only the pleadings. It could be a good defence that the landlord has other reasonably suitable residential accommodation and thereby defend the claim of the landlord.</p><p>10. There cannot be a pedantic or a dogmatic approach in the matter of analysis of pleadings or of the evidence adduced thereto. It is no doubt true that if the pleadings are clearly set out, it would be easy for the Court to decide the matters. But if the pleadings are lacking or vague and if both parties have understood what was the case pleaded and put forth with reference to requirement of law and placed such material before the Court, neither party is prejudiced. If we analyse from this angle, we do not think that the High Court was not justified in interfering with the order made by the Rent Controller.</p><p>23. From the perusal of the judgment of the Apex Court it is apparent that the Rent Controller must approach the matter in a practical manner. In case the non-disclosure is such as that it goes to the very root of the case the Rent Controller would be justified in non-suiting the landlord. However, if the non-disclosure is such that it would not prejudice the rights of the respondent then the landlord should not be non-suited only on this ground.</p><p>24. The decisions of this Court cited hereinabove were delivered prior to the judgment delivered by the Apex Court in Ram Nar'ain Arora's case. Further more both in Tara Chand Sharma's case and Vijay Kapoor's case decided by this Court, no averment had been made ixi respect of other residential buildings owned by a landlord. There was complete non-disclosure as to whether any such residential building owned by the landlord was in his possession or not. In the present case, as I have held above, the residential premises at 31, The Mall, Shimla was not owned by the landlord and hence these two earlier judgments of this Court are distinguishable on facts also.</p><p>25. In the present case, the landlord has been non-suited only on the ground that he did not disclose the fact that he was in occupation of certain premises on the Mall Road. Under law he was not required to disclose this fact. He was only required to disclose the factum of occupying another residential building owned by him in the urban area concerned. True it may be, that it would have been better if the landlord had disclosed all the facts but non-disclosure of a fact which he was not under law required to disclose could not in my opinion be a ground to dismiss his eviction petition.</p><p>26. However, what are the premises in his occupation even as a tenant can be taken into consideration while deciding the question whether he bona fide requires the demised premises for his personal use or occupation or not.</p><p>27. Lastly comes the question with regard to the bona fide requirement of the landlord. The landlord has no children. According to the landlord as well as his other witnesses i.e. his brother-in-law PW-2 and his wife PW-3, the wife now wants to come back and settle in Shimla. There is no reason to disbelieve their statements. Even according to the evidence led by the tenant the accommodation in possession of the landlord consists of two rooms, kitchen, bath room etc. Admittedly, the landlord is also having his office as an Architect in this building. The landlord belongs to the middle class of the Society. It cannot be expected of a landlord who owns sufficient property to reside in a two room set wherein he also runs his office.</p><p>28. The law by now is well settled that the landlord is the best judge of the suitability of the accommodation required by him. This suitability has however to be judged in the context of reasonable expectations. The landlord and his wife who are both well educated can reasonably be expected to entertain guests and they will have visitors to their house. They would obviously require a drawing room, a bed room and a spare bed room for guests. Even at his residence the landlord may require another room for his professional work. This is the minimum accommodation which they would require. Even if the accommodation possessed by the landlord, though not owned by him, at 31, the Mall, Shimla is taken into consideration such accommodation is not sufficient to meet his requirements since admittedly the landlord is running his profession of Architect from some portion of his these premises.</p><p>29. Keeping in view the entire facts and circumstances, I am of the considered view that the learned Appellate Authority gravely erred in rejecting the eviction petition of the landlord solely on the ground that he had not disclosed the factum of being in possession of the premises at 31, the Mall Shimla. Even though I have held that the said premises are residential premises, in view of the above discussion I hold that the landlord cannot be non-suited only on the ground of his being in possession of such premises since same were not owned by him.</p><p>30. In view of the above discussion, the Revision Petition is allowed, the order of the learned Appellate Authority dated 6.5.2003 is seaside and the order of the Rent Controller dated 22.8.2001 is restored.</p><p>31. Keeping in view the fact that the tenant has been in possession of the premises for a long period he is granted time up to 31st October, 2008 to vacate the premises.</p><p>32. No order as to costs.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '2008(2)ShimLC491',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'Shri S.L. Srivastava',
		'sub' => 'Tenancy',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'shri-arun-bhanwara-vs-s-l-srivastava'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '891084',
	(int) 1 => 'shri-arun-bhanwara-vs-s-l-srivastava'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/891084/shri-arun-bhanwara-vs-s-l-srivastava'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$caseref = 'Ram Narain Arora v. Asha Rani<br>'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>Deepak Gupta, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. This Revision Petition under Section 25(5) of the H.P. Urban Rent Control Act, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) is directed against the order of the learned Appellate Authority, Shimla in CMA No. 60-S/14 of 2001 whereby the appeal filed by the respondent (hereinafter referred to as the tenant) has been allowed, the order of the Rent Controller has been set-aside and the petition for eviction filed by the present petitioner (hereinafter referred to as the Landlord) on the ground of personal bona fide requirement has been set-aside.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. The undisputed facts are that the landlord is owner of the demised premises situated in building known as Tunnel View, Sanjauli, Shimla-6 consisting of two bed rooms with attached bath room and latrine, drawing-cum-dining room, kitchen and balcony. These premises were purchased by the landlord in the year 1986. Thereafter, the landlord had rented out the premises to one Sh. B.K. Chauhan. According to the landlord, when he got married he requested Sh. B.K. Chauhan to vacate the said premises. Sh. Chauhan vacated the said premises but admittedly the landlord did not occupy the same but rented out the same to the tenant in the year 1990.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. In the year 1997 the landlord filed a petition for eviction of the tenant on two grounds; firstly that the tenant is in arrears of rent from 1.11.1990 to 31.7.1997 and secondly that the premises are bona fide required by the landlord for the use and occupation of himself and his family.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>4. This petition was contested by the tenant. After trial, the Rent Controller ordered the eviction of the tenant on two grounds; (i) that the tenant was in arrears of rent from November, 1999 till date of order i.e. 22nd August, 2001 and (ii) that the landlord required the premises for his own use and occupation.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>5. The tenant deposited the rent within the time prescribed. He also filed an appeal challenging the finding on the issue of bona fide requirement. The learned Appellate Authority came to the conclusion that the landlord had not made a proper and full disclosure of facts as required under the provisions of the Act and had withheld material facts from the Court viz. that the landlord was in occupation of residential premises on 31, Mall Road in the urban area of Shimla and as such rejected this petition on this short ground.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>6. Aggrieved by the said order, the landlord has filed the present Revision Petition.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>7. I have heard Sh. Ramakant Sharma, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sh. Bhupinder Gupta, learned senior Counsel for the tenant.',
	(int) 8 => '<p>8. It has been urged on behalf of the landlord that the building which is alleged to be in possession of the landlord i.e. 31, the Mall Shimla is not a residential building and secondly that the building is not owned by him.',
	(int) 9 => '<p>9. On the other hand Sh. Bhupinder Gupta, learned Counsel of the tenant has strenuously urged that the landlord in para 18 has not stated anything about any building being owned by him and has only made an averment that he does not own or possess any other such building within the urban area Shimla. It is contended by Sh. Bhupinder Gupta that the landlord of his own volition did not state anything about the ownership of the building and since he has kept silent about the building which he is in occupation he has made a false averment and therefore his petition for eviction has rightly been rejected.',
	(int) 10 => '<p>10. I am not at all in agreement with the contention of the landlord that the premises known as 31, the Mall Shimla which are admittedly in the occupation of the landlord are commercial premises only and not being used by him for his residence. As pointed out above, the landlord purchased the demised premises in 1986. They fell vacant when he got married despite that he did not occupy the same and rented out the same to the tenant in the year 1990. The question that arises is where was the landlord living for this entire period. According to the landlord after the year 1994 he has been living with his brother-in-law Rajan (wife's brother) PW-2, since the year 1994. Prior to 1994 the landlord will have this Court to believe that he was living off and on with one friend or the other. This story is impossible to believe. The landlord was married in the year 1999. He is an Architect by profession. His wife is a law graduate. It is not believable that such a person would have no permanent abode and would continue to live as a guest with his friends for almost 5 years after his marriage. Even the story that he has been living with his brother-in-law after the year 1994 does not inspire confidence. It stands proved on record that the brother-in-law PW-2 Rajan lives with his own family i.e. wife and children. From the evidence it is also clear that the parents of the brother-in-law also reside with him, His flat consists of only two rooms. The flat in possession of the landlord at 31, the Mall Shimla, also consists of two rooms, kitchen and bath room. Even assuming that he was running an office in the part of the flat it cannot be believed that he would not live on his own flat on the Mall Road and reside with his brother-in-law in cramped premises. Even in the electoral list the landlord is shown to be a resident of 31, The Mall, Shimla. Therefore, I am of the considered view that the building 31, the Mall, Shimla was also being used as a residence by the landlord.',
	(int) 11 => '<p>11. Having held so, the question that arises is whether the landlord can be non-suited only on the ground that he has not made any disclosure about the residential accommodation available with him which premises were admittedly not owned by him.',
	(int) 12 => '<p>12. The short question which arises for decision in this petition is whether the landlord was guilty of suppressing and withholding such relevant facts which would disentitle him from seeking eviction of the tenant. To appreciate these contentions it would be necessary to refer to relevant portion of Section 14(3) of the Act:',
	(int) 13 => '<p>Section 14:',
	(int) 14 => '<p>1 and 2 xxxxxxxxxxx',
	(int) 15 => '<p>(3) A landlord may apply to the Controller for an order directing the tenant to put the landlord in possession-',
	(int) 16 => '<p>(a) in case of residential building, if',
	(int) 17 => '<p>(i) he required it for his own occupation:',
	(int) 18 => '<p>Provided that he is not occupying another residential building owned by him, in the urban area concerned:',
	(int) 19 => '<p>Provided further that he has not vacated such a building without sufficient cause within five years of the filing of the application, in the said urban area....',
	(int) 20 => '<p>13. A perusal of the bare provisions of the Act makes it clear that there are certain essential ingredients which the landlord must satisfy before seeking eviction of the tenant under the Act. Not only must he prove that the residential building is bona fide required by him for his own use and occupation but he must also plead and prove that he is not occupying any other residential building owned by him in the urban area concerned and further that he has not vacated such a building without sufficient cause within 5 years of the filing of the application.',
	(int) 21 => '<p>14. Reference may now be made to the relevant allegations made in para 18 of the eviction petition:',
	(int) 22 => '<p>(ii) That the petitioner bona fide requires the premises for his own use and occupation and also for the use and occupation of his family.',
	(int) 23 => '<p>The petitioner does not own or possess any other such building within the urban area of Simla nor the petitioner has vacated any such premises within five years of the filing of this petition.',
	(int) 24 => '<p>The family of the petitioner presently consists of himself and his wife. Due to paucity of accommodation the petitioner has not been able to keep his wife with himself at Simla, where he is working as an Engineer and she has been residing at Chandigarh since 1991 but on account of her ill health she has been brought to Simla by the petitioner. The petitioner at present is seeking temporary shelter, from time to time, with his relations.',
	(int) 25 => '<p>15. The learned Appellate Authority came to the conclusion that the landlord had falsely pleaded that he does not own or possess any other such building within the urban area of Shimla and hence rejected the eviction petition on this ground.',
	(int) 26 => '<p>16. On a close analysis of the proviso to Section 14(3)(a)(i) of the Act it is clear that a landlord is not entitled to seek eviction of a tenant from residential building even in case of bona fide requirement if the landlord is occupying another residential building owned by him in the urban area concerned. One can read three essential ingredients in this proviso i.e. (i) that the landlord is in occupation of another residential building; (ii) that the said residential building is owned by him and (iii) that the said residential building is situated in the concerned urban area.',
	(int) 27 => '<p>17. The question that arises is what is the impact of the landlord not making a disclosure in respect of premises which he is occupying but are not owned by him.',
	(int) 28 => '<p>18. The Apex Court in Onkar Nath v. Ved Vyas ILR 1979 HP 1, held as follows:',
	(int) 29 => '<p>It is common ground that there are three requirements to make out a cause of action for eviction under that provision, and indeed this is apparent from a bare reading of the sub-section. In the present case the finding is to the effect that the landlord requires the residential building for his own occupation. But, the legislation has taken care to insist upon two more conditions, namely; (a) that the landlord is not occupying any other residential building in the area concerned; and (b) that he has not vacated such a building without sufficient cause. There is not a scintilla of evidence nor indeed there is any averment in compliance with these latter conditions. The necessary consequence follows that not merely is there inadequacy of pleadings sufficient to make out a cause of action but total absence of proof of two vital requirements....',
	(int) 30 => '<p>The Supreme Court also said that:.The statute benignly designed to protect tenants from unreasonable evictions has taken case to put restrictions which must be rigorously construed to fulfil the purpose of the statute.',
	(int) 31 => '<p>19. Following the aforesaid judgment and other pronouncements of the Apex Court, a learned Single Judge of this Court in Tara Chand Sharma v. Baij Nath and Ors. 1992 (2) R.C.J. 323, held as follows:',
	(int) 32 => '<p>16. What appears as the legislative intent, in bold relief, is that the landlord, while seeking eviction of a tenant on the ground that he needs a residential building for his own occupation, must come out clearly and honestly with facts relating to the requirement that he is not occupying another residential building owned by him, in the urban area concerned and that he had not vacated such a building without sufficient cause within five years of the filing of the application, in the said urban area. The primal burden of making a clear disclosure would lie upon the landlord, for, the true facts would be in his special knowledge. An order in his favour by the Rent Controller would depend upon the satisfaction of the Rent Controller in regard not only to the claim that the landlord requires the accommodation, from which he wishes to evict a tenant, for his own occupation but also that he was not occupying another residential building owned by him nor had he vacated such building without sufficient cause within five years of the filing of the application in the application in the urban area concerned....',
	(int) 33 => '<p>It was further held as under:',
	(int) 34 => '<p>18. That the landlord should make a full disclosure of the relevant facts, pertaining to the requirements of Sub-section (3)(a)(i) and the two provisos, becomes all the more necessary because the satisfaction of the Rent Controller in regard thereto is the condition precedent for the making of an order in favour of the landlord....',
	(int) 35 => '<p>20. The aforesaid judgment has been followed in a number of other cases including Vijay Kapoor v. Maya Ram 1997 (2) RCR 437, wherein another learned single Judge of this Court following the aforesaid judgment held that the landlord must make complete and proper disclosure of all the material facts.',
	(int) 36 => '<p>21. On the other hand Sh. Ramakant Sharma has relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in Ram Narain Arora v. Asha Rani 1998(2) RCR 268. In that case the Rent Controller came to the conclusion that the landlord had suppressed material information and had not disclosed the fact that he was already in occupation of a house in Subji Mandi. Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act reads as follows:',
	(int) 37 => '<p>Section 14(1)(e). That the premises let for residential purposes are required bona fide by the landlord for occupation as a residence for himself or for any member of his family dependent on him, if he is the owner thereof, or for any person for whose benefit the premises are held and that the landlord or such person has no other reasonably suitable residential accommodation.',
	(int) 38 => '<p>22. The difference between Delhi Act and the present Act is that under the Delhi Act the only requirement is that the landlord has no other reasonably suitable accommodation whereas under the Himachal Act the residential premises are required to be owned by the landlord. The Apex Court in Rama Narain Arora's case (supra) held that the nondisclosure of the fact that the landlord was in occupation of certain premises in Subji Mandi was.not a ground to non-suit the landlord in view of the facts and circumstances of the case. The Apex Court held as follows:',
	(int) 39 => '<p>9. In making a claim that the suit premises is required bona fide for his own occupation as a residence for himself and other members of his family dependent on him and that he has no other reasonably suitable accommodation is a requirement of law before the Court can state whether the landlord requires the premises bona fide for his use and occupation. In doing so, the Court must also find out whether the landlord or such other person for whose benefit the premises is required has no other reasonably suitable residential accommodation. It cannot be said that the requirement of the landlord is not intermixed with the question of finding out whether he has any other reasonably suitable accommodation. If he has other reasonably suitable accommodation, ihen necessarily it would mean that he does not require the suit premises and his requirement may not be bona fide. In such circumstances further inquiry would be whether that premises is more suitable than the suit premises. Therefore, the questions raised before the Court would not necessarily depend upon only the pleadings. It could be a good defence that the landlord has other reasonably suitable residential accommodation and thereby defend the claim of the landlord.',
	(int) 40 => '<p>10. There cannot be a pedantic or a dogmatic approach in the matter of analysis of pleadings or of the evidence adduced thereto. It is no doubt true that if the pleadings are clearly set out, it would be easy for the Court to decide the matters. But if the pleadings are lacking or vague and if both parties have understood what was the case pleaded and put forth with reference to requirement of law and placed such material before the Court, neither party is prejudiced. If we analyse from this angle, we do not think that the High Court was not justified in interfering with the order made by the Rent Controller.',
	(int) 41 => '<p>23. From the perusal of the judgment of the Apex Court it is apparent that the Rent Controller must approach the matter in a practical manner. In case the non-disclosure is such as that it goes to the very root of the case the Rent Controller would be justified in non-suiting the landlord. However, if the non-disclosure is such that it would not prejudice the rights of the respondent then the landlord should not be non-suited only on this ground.',
	(int) 42 => '<p>24. The decisions of this Court cited hereinabove were delivered prior to the judgment delivered by the Apex Court in Ram Nar'ain Arora's case. Further more both in Tara Chand Sharma's case and Vijay Kapoor's case decided by this Court, no averment had been made ixi respect of other residential buildings owned by a landlord. There was complete non-disclosure as to whether any such residential building owned by the landlord was in his possession or not. In the present case, as I have held above, the residential premises at 31, The Mall, Shimla was not owned by the landlord and hence these two earlier judgments of this Court are distinguishable on facts also.',
	(int) 43 => '<p>25. In the present case, the landlord has been non-suited only on the ground that he did not disclose the fact that he was in occupation of certain premises on the Mall Road. Under law he was not required to disclose this fact. He was only required to disclose the factum of occupying another residential building owned by him in the urban area concerned. True it may be, that it would have been better if the landlord had disclosed all the facts but non-disclosure of a fact which he was not under law required to disclose could not in my opinion be a ground to dismiss his eviction petition.',
	(int) 44 => '<p>26. However, what are the premises in his occupation even as a tenant can be taken into consideration while deciding the question whether he bona fide requires the demised premises for his personal use or occupation or not.',
	(int) 45 => '<p>27. Lastly comes the question with regard to the bona fide requirement of the landlord. The landlord has no children. According to the landlord as well as his other witnesses i.e. his brother-in-law PW-2 and his wife PW-3, the wife now wants to come back and settle in Shimla. There is no reason to disbelieve their statements. Even according to the evidence led by the tenant the accommodation in possession of the landlord consists of two rooms, kitchen, bath room etc. Admittedly, the landlord is also having his office as an Architect in this building. The landlord belongs to the middle class of the Society. It cannot be expected of a landlord who owns sufficient property to reside in a two room set wherein he also runs his office.',
	(int) 46 => '<p>28. The law by now is well settled that the landlord is the best judge of the suitability of the accommodation required by him. This suitability has however to be judged in the context of reasonable expectations. The landlord and his wife who are both well educated can reasonably be expected to entertain guests and they will have visitors to their house. They would obviously require a drawing room, a bed room and a spare bed room for guests. Even at his residence the landlord may require another room for his professional work. This is the minimum accommodation which they would require. Even if the accommodation possessed by the landlord, though not owned by him, at 31, the Mall, Shimla is taken into consideration such accommodation is not sufficient to meet his requirements since admittedly the landlord is running his profession of Architect from some portion of his these premises.',
	(int) 47 => '<p>29. Keeping in view the entire facts and circumstances, I am of the considered view that the learned Appellate Authority gravely erred in rejecting the eviction petition of the landlord solely on the ground that he had not disclosed the factum of being in possession of the premises at 31, the Mall Shimla. Even though I have held that the said premises are residential premises, in view of the above discussion I hold that the landlord cannot be non-suited only on the ground of his being in possession of such premises since same were not owned by him.',
	(int) 48 => '<p>30. In view of the above discussion, the Revision Petition is allowed, the order of the learned Appellate Authority dated 6.5.2003 is seaside and the order of the Rent Controller dated 22.8.2001 is restored.',
	(int) 49 => '<p>31. Keeping in view the fact that the tenant has been in possession of the premises for a long period he is granted time up to 31st October, 2008 to vacate the premises.',
	(int) 50 => '<p>32. No order as to costs.<p>',
	(int) 51 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 52
$i = (int) 16
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

(a) in case of residential building, if

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Shri Arun Bhanwara Vs Shri S L Srivastava - Citation 891084 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '891084',
			'acts' => '',
			'appealno' => '',
			'appellant' => 'Shri Arun Bhanwara',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Shri Arun Bhanwara Vs. Shri S.L. Srivastava',
			'casenote' => ' - CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908.[C.A. No. 5/1908]. Order 14, Rule 2 [As amended by Amending Act of 1976]: [V.K. Gupta, CJ, Deepak Gupta & Surjit Singh, JJ] Preliminary issue of law and fact  Court framing all issues both of law and facts together and also  tried all the issues together, including the issue relating to jurisdiction of Court  Held, Except in situations perceived or warranted under sub-rule (2) of Rule 2 of Order 14 where a  Court in fact frames only issues of law in the first instance and postpones settlement of other issues, clearly and explicitly in situations where the Court has framed all issues together, both of law as well as facts and has also tried all these issues together, it is not open to the Court to adopt the principle of severability and proceed to decide issues of law first, without taking up simultaneously other issues for decision. This course of action is not available to a Court because sub-rule (1) does not permit the  Court to adopt any such principle of severability and to dispose of a suit only on preliminary issues, or what can be termed as issues of law. Sub-rule (1)  clearly mandates that in a situation contemplated under it, where all the issues have been together and have also been taken up for adjudication during the course of the trial, these must be decided together and the judgment in the suit as a whole must be pronounced by the Court covering all the issues framed in the suit.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => 'Ram Narain Arora v. Asha Rani;',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => '',
			'counseldef' => '',
			'court' => 'Himachal Pradesh',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2008-07-31',
			'deposition' => 'Petition allowed',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => ' Deepak Gupta, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">Deepak Gupta, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. This Revision Petition under Section 25(5) of the H.P. Urban Rent Control Act, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) is directed against the order of the learned Appellate Authority, Shimla in CMA No. 60-S/14 of 2001 whereby the appeal filed by the respondent (hereinafter referred to as the tenant) has been allowed, the order of the Rent Controller has been set-aside and the petition for eviction filed by the present petitioner (hereinafter referred to as the Landlord) on the ground of personal bona fide requirement has been set-aside.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The undisputed facts are that the landlord is owner of the demised premises situated in building known as Tunnel View, Sanjauli, Shimla-6 consisting of two bed rooms with attached bath room and latrine, drawing-cum-dining room, kitchen and balcony. These premises were purchased by the landlord in the year 1986. Thereafter, the landlord had rented out the premises to one Sh. B.K. Chauhan. According to the landlord, when he got married he requested Sh. B.K. Chauhan to vacate the said premises. Sh. Chauhan vacated the said premises but admittedly the landlord did not occupy the same but rented out the same to the tenant in the year 1990.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. In the year 1997 the landlord filed a petition for eviction of the tenant on two grounds; firstly that the tenant is in arrears of rent from 1.11.1990 to 31.7.1997 and secondly that the premises are bona fide required by the landlord for the use and occupation of himself and his family.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. This petition was contested by the tenant. After trial, the Rent Controller ordered the eviction of the tenant on two grounds; (i) that the tenant was in arrears of rent from November, 1999 till date of order i.e. 22nd August, 2001 and (ii) that the landlord required the premises for his own use and occupation.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. The tenant deposited the rent within the time prescribed. He also filed an appeal challenging the finding on the issue of bona fide requirement. The learned Appellate Authority came to the conclusion that the landlord had not made a proper and full disclosure of facts as required under the provisions of the Act and had withheld material facts from the Court viz. that the landlord was in occupation of residential premises on 31, Mall Road in the urban area of Shimla and as such rejected this petition on this short ground.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. Aggrieved by the said order, the landlord has filed the present Revision Petition.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. I have heard Sh. Ramakant Sharma, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sh. Bhupinder Gupta, learned senior Counsel for the tenant.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. It has been urged on behalf of the landlord that the building which is alleged to be in possession of the landlord i.e. 31, the Mall Shimla is not a residential building and secondly that the building is not owned by him.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. On the other hand Sh. Bhupinder Gupta, learned Counsel of the tenant has strenuously urged that the landlord in para 18 has not stated anything about any building being owned by him and has only made an averment that he does not own or possess any other such building within the urban area Shimla. It is contended by Sh. Bhupinder Gupta that the landlord of his own volition did not state anything about the ownership of the building and since he has kept silent about the building which he is in occupation he has made a false averment and therefore his petition for eviction has rightly been rejected.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. I am not at all in agreement with the contention of the landlord that the premises known as 31, the Mall Shimla which are admittedly in the occupation of the landlord are commercial premises only and not being used by him for his residence. As pointed out above, the landlord purchased the demised premises in 1986. They fell vacant when he got married despite that he did not occupy the same and rented out the same to the tenant in the year 1990. The question that arises is where was the landlord living for this entire period. According to the landlord after the year 1994 he has been living with his brother-in-law Rajan (wife's brother) PW-2, since the year 1994. Prior to 1994 the landlord will have this Court to believe that he was living off and on with one friend or the other. This story is impossible to believe. The landlord was married in the year 1999. He is an Architect by profession. His wife is a law graduate. It is not believable that such a person would have no permanent abode and would continue to live as a guest with his friends for almost 5 years after his marriage. Even the story that he has been living with his brother-in-law after the year 1994 does not inspire confidence. It stands proved on record that the brother-in-law PW-2 Rajan lives with his own family i.e. wife and children. From the evidence it is also clear that the parents of the brother-in-law also reside with him, His flat consists of only two rooms. The flat in possession of the landlord at 31, the Mall Shimla, also consists of two rooms, kitchen and bath room. Even assuming that he was running an office in the part of the flat it cannot be believed that he would not live on his own flat on the Mall Road and reside with his brother-in-law in cramped premises. Even in the electoral list the landlord is shown to be a resident of 31, The Mall, Shimla. Therefore, I am of the considered view that the building 31, the Mall, Shimla was also being used as a residence by the landlord.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. Having held so, the question that arises is whether the landlord can be non-suited only on the ground that he has not made any disclosure about the residential accommodation available with him which premises were admittedly not owned by him.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. The short question which arises for decision in this petition is whether the landlord was guilty of suppressing and withholding such relevant facts which would disentitle him from seeking eviction of the tenant. To appreciate these contentions it would be necessary to refer to relevant portion of Section 14(3) of the Act:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Section 14:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1 and 2 xxxxxxxxxxx</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(3) A landlord may apply to the Controller for an order directing the tenant to put the landlord in possession-</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(a) in case of residential building, if</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(i) he required it for his own occupation:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Provided that he is not occupying another residential building owned by him, in the urban area concerned:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Provided further that he has not vacated such a building without sufficient cause within five years of the filing of the application, in the said urban area....</p><p style="text-align: justify;">13. A perusal of the bare provisions of the Act makes it clear that there are certain essential ingredients which the landlord must satisfy before seeking eviction of the tenant under the Act. Not only must he prove that the residential building is bona fide required by him for his own use and occupation but he must also plead and prove that he is not occupying any other residential building owned by him in the urban area concerned and further that he has not vacated such a building without sufficient cause within 5 years of the filing of the application.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">14. Reference may now be made to the relevant allegations made in para 18 of the eviction petition:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(ii) That the petitioner bona fide requires the premises for his own use and occupation and also for the use and occupation of his family.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The petitioner does not own or possess any other such building within the urban area of Simla nor the petitioner has vacated any such premises within five years of the filing of this petition.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The family of the petitioner presently consists of himself and his wife. Due to paucity of accommodation the petitioner has not been able to keep his wife with himself at Simla, where he is working as an Engineer and she has been residing at Chandigarh since 1991 but on account of her ill health she has been brought to Simla by the petitioner. The petitioner at present is seeking temporary shelter, from time to time, with his relations.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">15. The learned Appellate Authority came to the conclusion that the landlord had falsely pleaded that he does not own or possess any other such building within the urban area of Shimla and hence rejected the eviction petition on this ground.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">16. On a close analysis of the proviso to Section 14(3)(a)(i) of the Act it is clear that a landlord is not entitled to seek eviction of a tenant from residential building even in case of bona fide requirement if the landlord is occupying another residential building owned by him in the urban area concerned. One can read three essential ingredients in this proviso i.e. (i) that the landlord is in occupation of another residential building; (ii) that the said residential building is owned by him and (iii) that the said residential building is situated in the concerned urban area.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">17. The question that arises is what is the impact of the landlord not making a disclosure in respect of premises which he is occupying but are not owned by him.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">18. The Apex Court in Onkar Nath v. Ved Vyas ILR 1979 HP 1, held as follows:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">It is common ground that there are three requirements to make out a cause of action for eviction under that provision, and indeed this is apparent from a bare reading of the sub-section. In the present case the finding is to the effect that the landlord requires the residential building for his own occupation. But, the legislation has taken care to insist upon two more conditions, namely; (a) that the landlord is not occupying any other residential building in the area concerned; and (b) that he has not vacated such a building without sufficient cause. There is not a scintilla of evidence nor indeed there is any averment in compliance with these latter conditions. The necessary consequence follows that not merely is there inadequacy of pleadings sufficient to make out a cause of action but total absence of proof of two vital requirements....</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The Supreme Court also said that:.The statute benignly designed to protect tenants from unreasonable evictions has taken case to put restrictions which must be rigorously construed to fulfil the purpose of the statute.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">19. Following the aforesaid judgment and other pronouncements of the Apex Court, a learned Single Judge of this Court in Tara Chand Sharma v. Baij Nath and Ors. 1992 (2) R.C.J. 323, held as follows:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">16. What appears as the legislative intent, in bold relief, is that the landlord, while seeking eviction of a tenant on the ground that he needs a residential building for his own occupation, must come out clearly and honestly with facts relating to the requirement that he is not occupying another residential building owned by him, in the urban area concerned and that he had not vacated such a building without sufficient cause within five years of the filing of the application, in the said urban area. The primal burden of making a clear disclosure would lie upon the landlord, for, the true facts would be in his special knowledge. An order in his favour by the Rent Controller would depend upon the satisfaction of the Rent Controller in regard not only to the claim that the landlord requires the accommodation, from which he wishes to evict a tenant, for his own occupation but also that he was not occupying another residential building owned by him nor had he vacated such building without sufficient cause within five years of the filing of the application in the application in the urban area concerned....</p><p style="text-align: justify;">It was further held as under:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">18. That the landlord should make a full disclosure of the relevant facts, pertaining to the requirements of Sub-section (3)(a)(i) and the two provisos, becomes all the more necessary because the satisfaction of the Rent Controller in regard thereto is the condition precedent for the making of an order in favour of the landlord....</p><p style="text-align: justify;">20. The aforesaid judgment has been followed in a number of other cases including Vijay Kapoor v. Maya Ram 1997 (2) RCR 437, wherein another learned single Judge of this Court following the aforesaid judgment held that the landlord must make complete and proper disclosure of all the material facts.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">21. On the other hand Sh. Ramakant Sharma has relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in Ram Narain Arora v. Asha Rani 1998(2) RCR 268. In that case the Rent Controller came to the conclusion that the landlord had suppressed material information and had not disclosed the fact that he was already in occupation of a house in Subji Mandi. Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act reads as follows:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Section 14(1)(e). That the premises let for residential purposes are required bona fide by the landlord for occupation as a residence for himself or for any member of his family dependent on him, if he is the owner thereof, or for any person for whose benefit the premises are held and that the landlord or such person has no other reasonably suitable residential accommodation.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">22. The difference between Delhi Act and the present Act is that under the Delhi Act the only requirement is that the landlord has no other reasonably suitable accommodation whereas under the Himachal Act the residential premises are required to be owned by the landlord. The Apex Court in Rama Narain Arora's case (supra) held that the nondisclosure of the fact that the landlord was in occupation of certain premises in Subji Mandi was.not a ground to non-suit the landlord in view of the facts and circumstances of the case. The Apex Court held as follows:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. In making a claim that the suit premises is required bona fide for his own occupation as a residence for himself and other members of his family dependent on him and that he has no other reasonably suitable accommodation is a requirement of law before the Court can state whether the landlord requires the premises bona fide for his use and occupation. In doing so, the Court must also find out whether the landlord or such other person for whose benefit the premises is required has no other reasonably suitable residential accommodation. It cannot be said that the requirement of the landlord is not intermixed with the question of finding out whether he has any other reasonably suitable accommodation. If he has other reasonably suitable accommodation, ihen necessarily it would mean that he does not require the suit premises and his requirement may not be bona fide. In such circumstances further inquiry would be whether that premises is more suitable than the suit premises. Therefore, the questions raised before the Court would not necessarily depend upon only the pleadings. It could be a good defence that the landlord has other reasonably suitable residential accommodation and thereby defend the claim of the landlord.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. There cannot be a pedantic or a dogmatic approach in the matter of analysis of pleadings or of the evidence adduced thereto. It is no doubt true that if the pleadings are clearly set out, it would be easy for the Court to decide the matters. But if the pleadings are lacking or vague and if both parties have understood what was the case pleaded and put forth with reference to requirement of law and placed such material before the Court, neither party is prejudiced. If we analyse from this angle, we do not think that the High Court was not justified in interfering with the order made by the Rent Controller.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">23. From the perusal of the judgment of the Apex Court it is apparent that the Rent Controller must approach the matter in a practical manner. In case the non-disclosure is such as that it goes to the very root of the case the Rent Controller would be justified in non-suiting the landlord. However, if the non-disclosure is such that it would not prejudice the rights of the respondent then the landlord should not be non-suited only on this ground.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">24. The decisions of this Court cited hereinabove were delivered prior to the judgment delivered by the Apex Court in Ram Nar'ain Arora's case. Further more both in Tara Chand Sharma's case and Vijay Kapoor's case decided by this Court, no averment had been made ixi respect of other residential buildings owned by a landlord. There was complete non-disclosure as to whether any such residential building owned by the landlord was in his possession or not. In the present case, as I have held above, the residential premises at 31, The Mall, Shimla was not owned by the landlord and hence these two earlier judgments of this Court are distinguishable on facts also.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">25. In the present case, the landlord has been non-suited only on the ground that he did not disclose the fact that he was in occupation of certain premises on the Mall Road. Under law he was not required to disclose this fact. He was only required to disclose the factum of occupying another residential building owned by him in the urban area concerned. True it may be, that it would have been better if the landlord had disclosed all the facts but non-disclosure of a fact which he was not under law required to disclose could not in my opinion be a ground to dismiss his eviction petition.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">26. However, what are the premises in his occupation even as a tenant can be taken into consideration while deciding the question whether he bona fide requires the demised premises for his personal use or occupation or not.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">27. Lastly comes the question with regard to the bona fide requirement of the landlord. The landlord has no children. According to the landlord as well as his other witnesses i.e. his brother-in-law PW-2 and his wife PW-3, the wife now wants to come back and settle in Shimla. There is no reason to disbelieve their statements. Even according to the evidence led by the tenant the accommodation in possession of the landlord consists of two rooms, kitchen, bath room etc. Admittedly, the landlord is also having his office as an Architect in this building. The landlord belongs to the middle class of the Society. It cannot be expected of a landlord who owns sufficient property to reside in a two room set wherein he also runs his office.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">28. The law by now is well settled that the landlord is the best judge of the suitability of the accommodation required by him. This suitability has however to be judged in the context of reasonable expectations. The landlord and his wife who are both well educated can reasonably be expected to entertain guests and they will have visitors to their house. They would obviously require a drawing room, a bed room and a spare bed room for guests. Even at his residence the landlord may require another room for his professional work. This is the minimum accommodation which they would require. Even if the accommodation possessed by the landlord, though not owned by him, at 31, the Mall, Shimla is taken into consideration such accommodation is not sufficient to meet his requirements since admittedly the landlord is running his profession of Architect from some portion of his these premises.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">29. Keeping in view the entire facts and circumstances, I am of the considered view that the learned Appellate Authority gravely erred in rejecting the eviction petition of the landlord solely on the ground that he had not disclosed the factum of being in possession of the premises at 31, the Mall Shimla. Even though I have held that the said premises are residential premises, in view of the above discussion I hold that the landlord cannot be non-suited only on the ground of his being in possession of such premises since same were not owned by him.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">30. In view of the above discussion, the Revision Petition is allowed, the order of the learned Appellate Authority dated 6.5.2003 is seaside and the order of the Rent Controller dated 22.8.2001 is restored.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">31. Keeping in view the fact that the tenant has been in possession of the premises for a long period he is granted time up to 31st October, 2008 to vacate the premises.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">32. No order as to costs.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '2008(2)ShimLC491',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'Shri S.L. Srivastava',
			'sub' => 'Tenancy',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'shri-arun-bhanwara-vs-s-l-srivastava',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '891084',
		(int) 1 => 'shri-arun-bhanwara-vs-s-l-srivastava'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Shri Arun Bhanwara Vs Shri S L Srivastava - Citation 891084 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '891084',
		'acts' => '',
		'appealno' => '',
		'appellant' => 'Shri Arun Bhanwara',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Shri Arun Bhanwara Vs. Shri S.L. Srivastava',
		'casenote' => ' - CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908.[C.A. No. 5/1908]. Order 14, Rule 2 [As amended by Amending Act of 1976]: [V.K. Gupta, CJ, Deepak Gupta & Surjit Singh, JJ] Preliminary issue of law and fact  Court framing all issues both of law and facts together and also  tried all the issues together, including the issue relating to jurisdiction of Court  Held, Except in situations perceived or warranted under sub-rule (2) of Rule 2 of Order 14 where a  Court in fact frames only issues of law in the first instance and postpones settlement of other issues, clearly and explicitly in situations where the Court has framed all issues together, both of law as well as facts and has also tried all these issues together, it is not open to the Court to adopt the principle of severability and proceed to decide issues of law first, without taking up simultaneously other issues for decision. This course of action is not available to a Court because sub-rule (1) does not permit the  Court to adopt any such principle of severability and to dispose of a suit only on preliminary issues, or what can be termed as issues of law. Sub-rule (1)  clearly mandates that in a situation contemplated under it, where all the issues have been together and have also been taken up for adjudication during the course of the trial, these must be decided together and the judgment in the suit as a whole must be pronounced by the Court covering all the issues framed in the suit.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => 'Ram Narain Arora v. Asha Rani;',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => '',
		'counseldef' => '',
		'court' => 'Himachal Pradesh',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2008-07-31',
		'deposition' => 'Petition allowed',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => ' Deepak Gupta, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>Deepak Gupta, J.</p><p>1. This Revision Petition under Section 25(5) of the H.P. Urban Rent Control Act, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) is directed against the order of the learned Appellate Authority, Shimla in CMA No. 60-S/14 of 2001 whereby the appeal filed by the respondent (hereinafter referred to as the tenant) has been allowed, the order of the Rent Controller has been set-aside and the petition for eviction filed by the present petitioner (hereinafter referred to as the Landlord) on the ground of personal bona fide requirement has been set-aside.</p><p>2. The undisputed facts are that the landlord is owner of the demised premises situated in building known as Tunnel View, Sanjauli, Shimla-6 consisting of two bed rooms with attached bath room and latrine, drawing-cum-dining room, kitchen and balcony. These premises were purchased by the landlord in the year 1986. Thereafter, the landlord had rented out the premises to one Sh. B.K. Chauhan. According to the landlord, when he got married he requested Sh. B.K. Chauhan to vacate the said premises. Sh. Chauhan vacated the said premises but admittedly the landlord did not occupy the same but rented out the same to the tenant in the year 1990.</p><p>3. In the year 1997 the landlord filed a petition for eviction of the tenant on two grounds; firstly that the tenant is in arrears of rent from 1.11.1990 to 31.7.1997 and secondly that the premises are bona fide required by the landlord for the use and occupation of himself and his family.</p><p>4. This petition was contested by the tenant. After trial, the Rent Controller ordered the eviction of the tenant on two grounds; (i) that the tenant was in arrears of rent from November, 1999 till date of order i.e. 22nd August, 2001 and (ii) that the landlord required the premises for his own use and occupation.</p><p>5. The tenant deposited the rent within the time prescribed. He also filed an appeal challenging the finding on the issue of bona fide requirement. The learned Appellate Authority came to the conclusion that the landlord had not made a proper and full disclosure of facts as required under the provisions of the Act and had withheld material facts from the Court viz. that the landlord was in occupation of residential premises on 31, Mall Road in the urban area of Shimla and as such rejected this petition on this short ground.</p><p>6. Aggrieved by the said order, the landlord has filed the present Revision Petition.</p><p>7. I have heard Sh. Ramakant Sharma, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sh. Bhupinder Gupta, learned senior Counsel for the tenant.</p><p>8. It has been urged on behalf of the landlord that the building which is alleged to be in possession of the landlord i.e. 31, the Mall Shimla is not a residential building and secondly that the building is not owned by him.</p><p>9. On the other hand Sh. Bhupinder Gupta, learned Counsel of the tenant has strenuously urged that the landlord in para 18 has not stated anything about any building being owned by him and has only made an averment that he does not own or possess any other such building within the urban area Shimla. It is contended by Sh. Bhupinder Gupta that the landlord of his own volition did not state anything about the ownership of the building and since he has kept silent about the building which he is in occupation he has made a false averment and therefore his petition for eviction has rightly been rejected.</p><p>10. I am not at all in agreement with the contention of the landlord that the premises known as 31, the Mall Shimla which are admittedly in the occupation of the landlord are commercial premises only and not being used by him for his residence. As pointed out above, the landlord purchased the demised premises in 1986. They fell vacant when he got married despite that he did not occupy the same and rented out the same to the tenant in the year 1990. The question that arises is where was the landlord living for this entire period. According to the landlord after the year 1994 he has been living with his brother-in-law Rajan (wife's brother) PW-2, since the year 1994. Prior to 1994 the landlord will have this Court to believe that he was living off and on with one friend or the other. This story is impossible to believe. The landlord was married in the year 1999. He is an Architect by profession. His wife is a law graduate. It is not believable that such a person would have no permanent abode and would continue to live as a guest with his friends for almost 5 years after his marriage. Even the story that he has been living with his brother-in-law after the year 1994 does not inspire confidence. It stands proved on record that the brother-in-law PW-2 Rajan lives with his own family i.e. wife and children. From the evidence it is also clear that the parents of the brother-in-law also reside with him, His flat consists of only two rooms. The flat in possession of the landlord at 31, the Mall Shimla, also consists of two rooms, kitchen and bath room. Even assuming that he was running an office in the part of the flat it cannot be believed that he would not live on his own flat on the Mall Road and reside with his brother-in-law in cramped premises. Even in the electoral list the landlord is shown to be a resident of 31, The Mall, Shimla. Therefore, I am of the considered view that the building 31, the Mall, Shimla was also being used as a residence by the landlord.</p><p>11. Having held so, the question that arises is whether the landlord can be non-suited only on the ground that he has not made any disclosure about the residential accommodation available with him which premises were admittedly not owned by him.</p><p>12. The short question which arises for decision in this petition is whether the landlord was guilty of suppressing and withholding such relevant facts which would disentitle him from seeking eviction of the tenant. To appreciate these contentions it would be necessary to refer to relevant portion of Section 14(3) of the Act:</p><p>Section 14:</p><p>1 and 2 xxxxxxxxxxx</p><p>(3) A landlord may apply to the Controller for an order directing the tenant to put the landlord in possession-</p><p>(a) in case of residential building, if</p><p>(i) he required it for his own occupation:</p><p>Provided that he is not occupying another residential building owned by him, in the urban area concerned:</p><p>Provided further that he has not vacated such a building without sufficient cause within five years of the filing of the application, in the said urban area....</p><p>13. A perusal of the bare provisions of the Act makes it clear that there are certain essential ingredients which the landlord must satisfy before seeking eviction of the tenant under the Act. Not only must he prove that the residential building is bona fide required by him for his own use and occupation but he must also plead and prove that he is not occupying any other residential building owned by him in the urban area concerned and further that he has not vacated such a building without sufficient cause within 5 years of the filing of the application.</p><p>14. Reference may now be made to the relevant allegations made in para 18 of the eviction petition:</p><p>(ii) That the petitioner bona fide requires the premises for his own use and occupation and also for the use and occupation of his family.</p><p>The petitioner does not own or possess any other such building within the urban area of Simla nor the petitioner has vacated any such premises within five years of the filing of this petition.</p><p>The family of the petitioner presently consists of himself and his wife. Due to paucity of accommodation the petitioner has not been able to keep his wife with himself at Simla, where he is working as an Engineer and she has been residing at Chandigarh since 1991 but on account of her ill health she has been brought to Simla by the petitioner. The petitioner at present is seeking temporary shelter, from time to time, with his relations.</p><p>15. The learned Appellate Authority came to the conclusion that the landlord had falsely pleaded that he does not own or possess any other such building within the urban area of Shimla and hence rejected the eviction petition on this ground.</p><p>16. On a close analysis of the proviso to Section 14(3)(a)(i) of the Act it is clear that a landlord is not entitled to seek eviction of a tenant from residential building even in case of bona fide requirement if the landlord is occupying another residential building owned by him in the urban area concerned. One can read three essential ingredients in this proviso i.e. (i) that the landlord is in occupation of another residential building; (ii) that the said residential building is owned by him and (iii) that the said residential building is situated in the concerned urban area.</p><p>17. The question that arises is what is the impact of the landlord not making a disclosure in respect of premises which he is occupying but are not owned by him.</p><p>18. The Apex Court in Onkar Nath v. Ved Vyas ILR 1979 HP 1, held as follows:</p><p>It is common ground that there are three requirements to make out a cause of action for eviction under that provision, and indeed this is apparent from a bare reading of the sub-section. In the present case the finding is to the effect that the landlord requires the residential building for his own occupation. But, the legislation has taken care to insist upon two more conditions, namely; (a) that the landlord is not occupying any other residential building in the area concerned; and (b) that he has not vacated such a building without sufficient cause. There is not a scintilla of evidence nor indeed there is any averment in compliance with these latter conditions. The necessary consequence follows that not merely is there inadequacy of pleadings sufficient to make out a cause of action but total absence of proof of two vital requirements....</p><p>The Supreme Court also said that:.The statute benignly designed to protect tenants from unreasonable evictions has taken case to put restrictions which must be rigorously construed to fulfil the purpose of the statute.</p><p>19. Following the aforesaid judgment and other pronouncements of the Apex Court, a learned Single Judge of this Court in Tara Chand Sharma v. Baij Nath and Ors. 1992 (2) R.C.J. 323, held as follows:</p><p>16. What appears as the legislative intent, in bold relief, is that the landlord, while seeking eviction of a tenant on the ground that he needs a residential building for his own occupation, must come out clearly and honestly with facts relating to the requirement that he is not occupying another residential building owned by him, in the urban area concerned and that he had not vacated such a building without sufficient cause within five years of the filing of the application, in the said urban area. The primal burden of making a clear disclosure would lie upon the landlord, for, the true facts would be in his special knowledge. An order in his favour by the Rent Controller would depend upon the satisfaction of the Rent Controller in regard not only to the claim that the landlord requires the accommodation, from which he wishes to evict a tenant, for his own occupation but also that he was not occupying another residential building owned by him nor had he vacated such building without sufficient cause within five years of the filing of the application in the application in the urban area concerned....</p><p>It was further held as under:</p><p>18. That the landlord should make a full disclosure of the relevant facts, pertaining to the requirements of Sub-section (3)(a)(i) and the two provisos, becomes all the more necessary because the satisfaction of the Rent Controller in regard thereto is the condition precedent for the making of an order in favour of the landlord....</p><p>20. The aforesaid judgment has been followed in a number of other cases including Vijay Kapoor v. Maya Ram 1997 (2) RCR 437, wherein another learned single Judge of this Court following the aforesaid judgment held that the landlord must make complete and proper disclosure of all the material facts.</p><p>21. On the other hand Sh. Ramakant Sharma has relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in Ram Narain Arora v. Asha Rani 1998(2) RCR 268. In that case the Rent Controller came to the conclusion that the landlord had suppressed material information and had not disclosed the fact that he was already in occupation of a house in Subji Mandi. Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act reads as follows:</p><p>Section 14(1)(e). That the premises let for residential purposes are required bona fide by the landlord for occupation as a residence for himself or for any member of his family dependent on him, if he is the owner thereof, or for any person for whose benefit the premises are held and that the landlord or such person has no other reasonably suitable residential accommodation.</p><p>22. The difference between Delhi Act and the present Act is that under the Delhi Act the only requirement is that the landlord has no other reasonably suitable accommodation whereas under the Himachal Act the residential premises are required to be owned by the landlord. The Apex Court in Rama Narain Arora's case (supra) held that the nondisclosure of the fact that the landlord was in occupation of certain premises in Subji Mandi was.not a ground to non-suit the landlord in view of the facts and circumstances of the case. The Apex Court held as follows:</p><p>9. In making a claim that the suit premises is required bona fide for his own occupation as a residence for himself and other members of his family dependent on him and that he has no other reasonably suitable accommodation is a requirement of law before the Court can state whether the landlord requires the premises bona fide for his use and occupation. In doing so, the Court must also find out whether the landlord or such other person for whose benefit the premises is required has no other reasonably suitable residential accommodation. It cannot be said that the requirement of the landlord is not intermixed with the question of finding out whether he has any other reasonably suitable accommodation. If he has other reasonably suitable accommodation, ihen necessarily it would mean that he does not require the suit premises and his requirement may not be bona fide. In such circumstances further inquiry would be whether that premises is more suitable than the suit premises. Therefore, the questions raised before the Court would not necessarily depend upon only the pleadings. It could be a good defence that the landlord has other reasonably suitable residential accommodation and thereby defend the claim of the landlord.</p><p>10. There cannot be a pedantic or a dogmatic approach in the matter of analysis of pleadings or of the evidence adduced thereto. It is no doubt true that if the pleadings are clearly set out, it would be easy for the Court to decide the matters. But if the pleadings are lacking or vague and if both parties have understood what was the case pleaded and put forth with reference to requirement of law and placed such material before the Court, neither party is prejudiced. If we analyse from this angle, we do not think that the High Court was not justified in interfering with the order made by the Rent Controller.</p><p>23. From the perusal of the judgment of the Apex Court it is apparent that the Rent Controller must approach the matter in a practical manner. In case the non-disclosure is such as that it goes to the very root of the case the Rent Controller would be justified in non-suiting the landlord. However, if the non-disclosure is such that it would not prejudice the rights of the respondent then the landlord should not be non-suited only on this ground.</p><p>24. The decisions of this Court cited hereinabove were delivered prior to the judgment delivered by the Apex Court in Ram Nar'ain Arora's case. Further more both in Tara Chand Sharma's case and Vijay Kapoor's case decided by this Court, no averment had been made ixi respect of other residential buildings owned by a landlord. There was complete non-disclosure as to whether any such residential building owned by the landlord was in his possession or not. In the present case, as I have held above, the residential premises at 31, The Mall, Shimla was not owned by the landlord and hence these two earlier judgments of this Court are distinguishable on facts also.</p><p>25. In the present case, the landlord has been non-suited only on the ground that he did not disclose the fact that he was in occupation of certain premises on the Mall Road. Under law he was not required to disclose this fact. He was only required to disclose the factum of occupying another residential building owned by him in the urban area concerned. True it may be, that it would have been better if the landlord had disclosed all the facts but non-disclosure of a fact which he was not under law required to disclose could not in my opinion be a ground to dismiss his eviction petition.</p><p>26. However, what are the premises in his occupation even as a tenant can be taken into consideration while deciding the question whether he bona fide requires the demised premises for his personal use or occupation or not.</p><p>27. Lastly comes the question with regard to the bona fide requirement of the landlord. The landlord has no children. According to the landlord as well as his other witnesses i.e. his brother-in-law PW-2 and his wife PW-3, the wife now wants to come back and settle in Shimla. There is no reason to disbelieve their statements. Even according to the evidence led by the tenant the accommodation in possession of the landlord consists of two rooms, kitchen, bath room etc. Admittedly, the landlord is also having his office as an Architect in this building. The landlord belongs to the middle class of the Society. It cannot be expected of a landlord who owns sufficient property to reside in a two room set wherein he also runs his office.</p><p>28. The law by now is well settled that the landlord is the best judge of the suitability of the accommodation required by him. This suitability has however to be judged in the context of reasonable expectations. The landlord and his wife who are both well educated can reasonably be expected to entertain guests and they will have visitors to their house. They would obviously require a drawing room, a bed room and a spare bed room for guests. Even at his residence the landlord may require another room for his professional work. This is the minimum accommodation which they would require. Even if the accommodation possessed by the landlord, though not owned by him, at 31, the Mall, Shimla is taken into consideration such accommodation is not sufficient to meet his requirements since admittedly the landlord is running his profession of Architect from some portion of his these premises.</p><p>29. Keeping in view the entire facts and circumstances, I am of the considered view that the learned Appellate Authority gravely erred in rejecting the eviction petition of the landlord solely on the ground that he had not disclosed the factum of being in possession of the premises at 31, the Mall Shimla. Even though I have held that the said premises are residential premises, in view of the above discussion I hold that the landlord cannot be non-suited only on the ground of his being in possession of such premises since same were not owned by him.</p><p>30. In view of the above discussion, the Revision Petition is allowed, the order of the learned Appellate Authority dated 6.5.2003 is seaside and the order of the Rent Controller dated 22.8.2001 is restored.</p><p>31. Keeping in view the fact that the tenant has been in possession of the premises for a long period he is granted time up to 31st October, 2008 to vacate the premises.</p><p>32. No order as to costs.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '2008(2)ShimLC491',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'Shri S.L. Srivastava',
		'sub' => 'Tenancy',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'shri-arun-bhanwara-vs-s-l-srivastava'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '891084',
	(int) 1 => 'shri-arun-bhanwara-vs-s-l-srivastava'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/891084/shri-arun-bhanwara-vs-s-l-srivastava'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$caseref = 'Ram Narain Arora v. Asha Rani<br>'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>Deepak Gupta, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. This Revision Petition under Section 25(5) of the H.P. Urban Rent Control Act, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) is directed against the order of the learned Appellate Authority, Shimla in CMA No. 60-S/14 of 2001 whereby the appeal filed by the respondent (hereinafter referred to as the tenant) has been allowed, the order of the Rent Controller has been set-aside and the petition for eviction filed by the present petitioner (hereinafter referred to as the Landlord) on the ground of personal bona fide requirement has been set-aside.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. The undisputed facts are that the landlord is owner of the demised premises situated in building known as Tunnel View, Sanjauli, Shimla-6 consisting of two bed rooms with attached bath room and latrine, drawing-cum-dining room, kitchen and balcony. These premises were purchased by the landlord in the year 1986. Thereafter, the landlord had rented out the premises to one Sh. B.K. Chauhan. According to the landlord, when he got married he requested Sh. B.K. Chauhan to vacate the said premises. Sh. Chauhan vacated the said premises but admittedly the landlord did not occupy the same but rented out the same to the tenant in the year 1990.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. In the year 1997 the landlord filed a petition for eviction of the tenant on two grounds; firstly that the tenant is in arrears of rent from 1.11.1990 to 31.7.1997 and secondly that the premises are bona fide required by the landlord for the use and occupation of himself and his family.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>4. This petition was contested by the tenant. After trial, the Rent Controller ordered the eviction of the tenant on two grounds; (i) that the tenant was in arrears of rent from November, 1999 till date of order i.e. 22nd August, 2001 and (ii) that the landlord required the premises for his own use and occupation.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>5. The tenant deposited the rent within the time prescribed. He also filed an appeal challenging the finding on the issue of bona fide requirement. The learned Appellate Authority came to the conclusion that the landlord had not made a proper and full disclosure of facts as required under the provisions of the Act and had withheld material facts from the Court viz. that the landlord was in occupation of residential premises on 31, Mall Road in the urban area of Shimla and as such rejected this petition on this short ground.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>6. Aggrieved by the said order, the landlord has filed the present Revision Petition.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>7. I have heard Sh. Ramakant Sharma, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sh. Bhupinder Gupta, learned senior Counsel for the tenant.',
	(int) 8 => '<p>8. It has been urged on behalf of the landlord that the building which is alleged to be in possession of the landlord i.e. 31, the Mall Shimla is not a residential building and secondly that the building is not owned by him.',
	(int) 9 => '<p>9. On the other hand Sh. Bhupinder Gupta, learned Counsel of the tenant has strenuously urged that the landlord in para 18 has not stated anything about any building being owned by him and has only made an averment that he does not own or possess any other such building within the urban area Shimla. It is contended by Sh. Bhupinder Gupta that the landlord of his own volition did not state anything about the ownership of the building and since he has kept silent about the building which he is in occupation he has made a false averment and therefore his petition for eviction has rightly been rejected.',
	(int) 10 => '<p>10. I am not at all in agreement with the contention of the landlord that the premises known as 31, the Mall Shimla which are admittedly in the occupation of the landlord are commercial premises only and not being used by him for his residence. As pointed out above, the landlord purchased the demised premises in 1986. They fell vacant when he got married despite that he did not occupy the same and rented out the same to the tenant in the year 1990. The question that arises is where was the landlord living for this entire period. According to the landlord after the year 1994 he has been living with his brother-in-law Rajan (wife's brother) PW-2, since the year 1994. Prior to 1994 the landlord will have this Court to believe that he was living off and on with one friend or the other. This story is impossible to believe. The landlord was married in the year 1999. He is an Architect by profession. His wife is a law graduate. It is not believable that such a person would have no permanent abode and would continue to live as a guest with his friends for almost 5 years after his marriage. Even the story that he has been living with his brother-in-law after the year 1994 does not inspire confidence. It stands proved on record that the brother-in-law PW-2 Rajan lives with his own family i.e. wife and children. From the evidence it is also clear that the parents of the brother-in-law also reside with him, His flat consists of only two rooms. The flat in possession of the landlord at 31, the Mall Shimla, also consists of two rooms, kitchen and bath room. Even assuming that he was running an office in the part of the flat it cannot be believed that he would not live on his own flat on the Mall Road and reside with his brother-in-law in cramped premises. Even in the electoral list the landlord is shown to be a resident of 31, The Mall, Shimla. Therefore, I am of the considered view that the building 31, the Mall, Shimla was also being used as a residence by the landlord.',
	(int) 11 => '<p>11. Having held so, the question that arises is whether the landlord can be non-suited only on the ground that he has not made any disclosure about the residential accommodation available with him which premises were admittedly not owned by him.',
	(int) 12 => '<p>12. The short question which arises for decision in this petition is whether the landlord was guilty of suppressing and withholding such relevant facts which would disentitle him from seeking eviction of the tenant. To appreciate these contentions it would be necessary to refer to relevant portion of Section 14(3) of the Act:',
	(int) 13 => '<p>Section 14:',
	(int) 14 => '<p>1 and 2 xxxxxxxxxxx',
	(int) 15 => '<p>(3) A landlord may apply to the Controller for an order directing the tenant to put the landlord in possession-',
	(int) 16 => '<p>(a) in case of residential building, if',
	(int) 17 => '<p>(i) he required it for his own occupation:',
	(int) 18 => '<p>Provided that he is not occupying another residential building owned by him, in the urban area concerned:',
	(int) 19 => '<p>Provided further that he has not vacated such a building without sufficient cause within five years of the filing of the application, in the said urban area....',
	(int) 20 => '<p>13. A perusal of the bare provisions of the Act makes it clear that there are certain essential ingredients which the landlord must satisfy before seeking eviction of the tenant under the Act. Not only must he prove that the residential building is bona fide required by him for his own use and occupation but he must also plead and prove that he is not occupying any other residential building owned by him in the urban area concerned and further that he has not vacated such a building without sufficient cause within 5 years of the filing of the application.',
	(int) 21 => '<p>14. Reference may now be made to the relevant allegations made in para 18 of the eviction petition:',
	(int) 22 => '<p>(ii) That the petitioner bona fide requires the premises for his own use and occupation and also for the use and occupation of his family.',
	(int) 23 => '<p>The petitioner does not own or possess any other such building within the urban area of Simla nor the petitioner has vacated any such premises within five years of the filing of this petition.',
	(int) 24 => '<p>The family of the petitioner presently consists of himself and his wife. Due to paucity of accommodation the petitioner has not been able to keep his wife with himself at Simla, where he is working as an Engineer and she has been residing at Chandigarh since 1991 but on account of her ill health she has been brought to Simla by the petitioner. The petitioner at present is seeking temporary shelter, from time to time, with his relations.',
	(int) 25 => '<p>15. The learned Appellate Authority came to the conclusion that the landlord had falsely pleaded that he does not own or possess any other such building within the urban area of Shimla and hence rejected the eviction petition on this ground.',
	(int) 26 => '<p>16. On a close analysis of the proviso to Section 14(3)(a)(i) of the Act it is clear that a landlord is not entitled to seek eviction of a tenant from residential building even in case of bona fide requirement if the landlord is occupying another residential building owned by him in the urban area concerned. One can read three essential ingredients in this proviso i.e. (i) that the landlord is in occupation of another residential building; (ii) that the said residential building is owned by him and (iii) that the said residential building is situated in the concerned urban area.',
	(int) 27 => '<p>17. The question that arises is what is the impact of the landlord not making a disclosure in respect of premises which he is occupying but are not owned by him.',
	(int) 28 => '<p>18. The Apex Court in Onkar Nath v. Ved Vyas ILR 1979 HP 1, held as follows:',
	(int) 29 => '<p>It is common ground that there are three requirements to make out a cause of action for eviction under that provision, and indeed this is apparent from a bare reading of the sub-section. In the present case the finding is to the effect that the landlord requires the residential building for his own occupation. But, the legislation has taken care to insist upon two more conditions, namely; (a) that the landlord is not occupying any other residential building in the area concerned; and (b) that he has not vacated such a building without sufficient cause. There is not a scintilla of evidence nor indeed there is any averment in compliance with these latter conditions. The necessary consequence follows that not merely is there inadequacy of pleadings sufficient to make out a cause of action but total absence of proof of two vital requirements....',
	(int) 30 => '<p>The Supreme Court also said that:.The statute benignly designed to protect tenants from unreasonable evictions has taken case to put restrictions which must be rigorously construed to fulfil the purpose of the statute.',
	(int) 31 => '<p>19. Following the aforesaid judgment and other pronouncements of the Apex Court, a learned Single Judge of this Court in Tara Chand Sharma v. Baij Nath and Ors. 1992 (2) R.C.J. 323, held as follows:',
	(int) 32 => '<p>16. What appears as the legislative intent, in bold relief, is that the landlord, while seeking eviction of a tenant on the ground that he needs a residential building for his own occupation, must come out clearly and honestly with facts relating to the requirement that he is not occupying another residential building owned by him, in the urban area concerned and that he had not vacated such a building without sufficient cause within five years of the filing of the application, in the said urban area. The primal burden of making a clear disclosure would lie upon the landlord, for, the true facts would be in his special knowledge. An order in his favour by the Rent Controller would depend upon the satisfaction of the Rent Controller in regard not only to the claim that the landlord requires the accommodation, from which he wishes to evict a tenant, for his own occupation but also that he was not occupying another residential building owned by him nor had he vacated such building without sufficient cause within five years of the filing of the application in the application in the urban area concerned....',
	(int) 33 => '<p>It was further held as under:',
	(int) 34 => '<p>18. That the landlord should make a full disclosure of the relevant facts, pertaining to the requirements of Sub-section (3)(a)(i) and the two provisos, becomes all the more necessary because the satisfaction of the Rent Controller in regard thereto is the condition precedent for the making of an order in favour of the landlord....',
	(int) 35 => '<p>20. The aforesaid judgment has been followed in a number of other cases including Vijay Kapoor v. Maya Ram 1997 (2) RCR 437, wherein another learned single Judge of this Court following the aforesaid judgment held that the landlord must make complete and proper disclosure of all the material facts.',
	(int) 36 => '<p>21. On the other hand Sh. Ramakant Sharma has relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in Ram Narain Arora v. Asha Rani 1998(2) RCR 268. In that case the Rent Controller came to the conclusion that the landlord had suppressed material information and had not disclosed the fact that he was already in occupation of a house in Subji Mandi. Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act reads as follows:',
	(int) 37 => '<p>Section 14(1)(e). That the premises let for residential purposes are required bona fide by the landlord for occupation as a residence for himself or for any member of his family dependent on him, if he is the owner thereof, or for any person for whose benefit the premises are held and that the landlord or such person has no other reasonably suitable residential accommodation.',
	(int) 38 => '<p>22. The difference between Delhi Act and the present Act is that under the Delhi Act the only requirement is that the landlord has no other reasonably suitable accommodation whereas under the Himachal Act the residential premises are required to be owned by the landlord. The Apex Court in Rama Narain Arora's case (supra) held that the nondisclosure of the fact that the landlord was in occupation of certain premises in Subji Mandi was.not a ground to non-suit the landlord in view of the facts and circumstances of the case. The Apex Court held as follows:',
	(int) 39 => '<p>9. In making a claim that the suit premises is required bona fide for his own occupation as a residence for himself and other members of his family dependent on him and that he has no other reasonably suitable accommodation is a requirement of law before the Court can state whether the landlord requires the premises bona fide for his use and occupation. In doing so, the Court must also find out whether the landlord or such other person for whose benefit the premises is required has no other reasonably suitable residential accommodation. It cannot be said that the requirement of the landlord is not intermixed with the question of finding out whether he has any other reasonably suitable accommodation. If he has other reasonably suitable accommodation, ihen necessarily it would mean that he does not require the suit premises and his requirement may not be bona fide. In such circumstances further inquiry would be whether that premises is more suitable than the suit premises. Therefore, the questions raised before the Court would not necessarily depend upon only the pleadings. It could be a good defence that the landlord has other reasonably suitable residential accommodation and thereby defend the claim of the landlord.',
	(int) 40 => '<p>10. There cannot be a pedantic or a dogmatic approach in the matter of analysis of pleadings or of the evidence adduced thereto. It is no doubt true that if the pleadings are clearly set out, it would be easy for the Court to decide the matters. But if the pleadings are lacking or vague and if both parties have understood what was the case pleaded and put forth with reference to requirement of law and placed such material before the Court, neither party is prejudiced. If we analyse from this angle, we do not think that the High Court was not justified in interfering with the order made by the Rent Controller.',
	(int) 41 => '<p>23. From the perusal of the judgment of the Apex Court it is apparent that the Rent Controller must approach the matter in a practical manner. In case the non-disclosure is such as that it goes to the very root of the case the Rent Controller would be justified in non-suiting the landlord. However, if the non-disclosure is such that it would not prejudice the rights of the respondent then the landlord should not be non-suited only on this ground.',
	(int) 42 => '<p>24. The decisions of this Court cited hereinabove were delivered prior to the judgment delivered by the Apex Court in Ram Nar'ain Arora's case. Further more both in Tara Chand Sharma's case and Vijay Kapoor's case decided by this Court, no averment had been made ixi respect of other residential buildings owned by a landlord. There was complete non-disclosure as to whether any such residential building owned by the landlord was in his possession or not. In the present case, as I have held above, the residential premises at 31, The Mall, Shimla was not owned by the landlord and hence these two earlier judgments of this Court are distinguishable on facts also.',
	(int) 43 => '<p>25. In the present case, the landlord has been non-suited only on the ground that he did not disclose the fact that he was in occupation of certain premises on the Mall Road. Under law he was not required to disclose this fact. He was only required to disclose the factum of occupying another residential building owned by him in the urban area concerned. True it may be, that it would have been better if the landlord had disclosed all the facts but non-disclosure of a fact which he was not under law required to disclose could not in my opinion be a ground to dismiss his eviction petition.',
	(int) 44 => '<p>26. However, what are the premises in his occupation even as a tenant can be taken into consideration while deciding the question whether he bona fide requires the demised premises for his personal use or occupation or not.',
	(int) 45 => '<p>27. Lastly comes the question with regard to the bona fide requirement of the landlord. The landlord has no children. According to the landlord as well as his other witnesses i.e. his brother-in-law PW-2 and his wife PW-3, the wife now wants to come back and settle in Shimla. There is no reason to disbelieve their statements. Even according to the evidence led by the tenant the accommodation in possession of the landlord consists of two rooms, kitchen, bath room etc. Admittedly, the landlord is also having his office as an Architect in this building. The landlord belongs to the middle class of the Society. It cannot be expected of a landlord who owns sufficient property to reside in a two room set wherein he also runs his office.',
	(int) 46 => '<p>28. The law by now is well settled that the landlord is the best judge of the suitability of the accommodation required by him. This suitability has however to be judged in the context of reasonable expectations. The landlord and his wife who are both well educated can reasonably be expected to entertain guests and they will have visitors to their house. They would obviously require a drawing room, a bed room and a spare bed room for guests. Even at his residence the landlord may require another room for his professional work. This is the minimum accommodation which they would require. Even if the accommodation possessed by the landlord, though not owned by him, at 31, the Mall, Shimla is taken into consideration such accommodation is not sufficient to meet his requirements since admittedly the landlord is running his profession of Architect from some portion of his these premises.',
	(int) 47 => '<p>29. Keeping in view the entire facts and circumstances, I am of the considered view that the learned Appellate Authority gravely erred in rejecting the eviction petition of the landlord solely on the ground that he had not disclosed the factum of being in possession of the premises at 31, the Mall Shimla. Even though I have held that the said premises are residential premises, in view of the above discussion I hold that the landlord cannot be non-suited only on the ground of his being in possession of such premises since same were not owned by him.',
	(int) 48 => '<p>30. In view of the above discussion, the Revision Petition is allowed, the order of the learned Appellate Authority dated 6.5.2003 is seaside and the order of the Rent Controller dated 22.8.2001 is restored.',
	(int) 49 => '<p>31. Keeping in view the fact that the tenant has been in possession of the premises for a long period he is granted time up to 31st October, 2008 to vacate the premises.',
	(int) 50 => '<p>32. No order as to costs.<p>',
	(int) 51 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 52
$i = (int) 17
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

(i) he required it for his own occupation:

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Shri Arun Bhanwara Vs Shri S L Srivastava - Citation 891084 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '891084',
			'acts' => '',
			'appealno' => '',
			'appellant' => 'Shri Arun Bhanwara',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Shri Arun Bhanwara Vs. Shri S.L. Srivastava',
			'casenote' => ' - CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908.[C.A. No. 5/1908]. Order 14, Rule 2 [As amended by Amending Act of 1976]: [V.K. Gupta, CJ, Deepak Gupta & Surjit Singh, JJ] Preliminary issue of law and fact  Court framing all issues both of law and facts together and also  tried all the issues together, including the issue relating to jurisdiction of Court  Held, Except in situations perceived or warranted under sub-rule (2) of Rule 2 of Order 14 where a  Court in fact frames only issues of law in the first instance and postpones settlement of other issues, clearly and explicitly in situations where the Court has framed all issues together, both of law as well as facts and has also tried all these issues together, it is not open to the Court to adopt the principle of severability and proceed to decide issues of law first, without taking up simultaneously other issues for decision. This course of action is not available to a Court because sub-rule (1) does not permit the  Court to adopt any such principle of severability and to dispose of a suit only on preliminary issues, or what can be termed as issues of law. Sub-rule (1)  clearly mandates that in a situation contemplated under it, where all the issues have been together and have also been taken up for adjudication during the course of the trial, these must be decided together and the judgment in the suit as a whole must be pronounced by the Court covering all the issues framed in the suit.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => 'Ram Narain Arora v. Asha Rani;',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => '',
			'counseldef' => '',
			'court' => 'Himachal Pradesh',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2008-07-31',
			'deposition' => 'Petition allowed',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => ' Deepak Gupta, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">Deepak Gupta, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. This Revision Petition under Section 25(5) of the H.P. Urban Rent Control Act, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) is directed against the order of the learned Appellate Authority, Shimla in CMA No. 60-S/14 of 2001 whereby the appeal filed by the respondent (hereinafter referred to as the tenant) has been allowed, the order of the Rent Controller has been set-aside and the petition for eviction filed by the present petitioner (hereinafter referred to as the Landlord) on the ground of personal bona fide requirement has been set-aside.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The undisputed facts are that the landlord is owner of the demised premises situated in building known as Tunnel View, Sanjauli, Shimla-6 consisting of two bed rooms with attached bath room and latrine, drawing-cum-dining room, kitchen and balcony. These premises were purchased by the landlord in the year 1986. Thereafter, the landlord had rented out the premises to one Sh. B.K. Chauhan. According to the landlord, when he got married he requested Sh. B.K. Chauhan to vacate the said premises. Sh. Chauhan vacated the said premises but admittedly the landlord did not occupy the same but rented out the same to the tenant in the year 1990.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. In the year 1997 the landlord filed a petition for eviction of the tenant on two grounds; firstly that the tenant is in arrears of rent from 1.11.1990 to 31.7.1997 and secondly that the premises are bona fide required by the landlord for the use and occupation of himself and his family.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. This petition was contested by the tenant. After trial, the Rent Controller ordered the eviction of the tenant on two grounds; (i) that the tenant was in arrears of rent from November, 1999 till date of order i.e. 22nd August, 2001 and (ii) that the landlord required the premises for his own use and occupation.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. The tenant deposited the rent within the time prescribed. He also filed an appeal challenging the finding on the issue of bona fide requirement. The learned Appellate Authority came to the conclusion that the landlord had not made a proper and full disclosure of facts as required under the provisions of the Act and had withheld material facts from the Court viz. that the landlord was in occupation of residential premises on 31, Mall Road in the urban area of Shimla and as such rejected this petition on this short ground.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. Aggrieved by the said order, the landlord has filed the present Revision Petition.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. I have heard Sh. Ramakant Sharma, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sh. Bhupinder Gupta, learned senior Counsel for the tenant.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. It has been urged on behalf of the landlord that the building which is alleged to be in possession of the landlord i.e. 31, the Mall Shimla is not a residential building and secondly that the building is not owned by him.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. On the other hand Sh. Bhupinder Gupta, learned Counsel of the tenant has strenuously urged that the landlord in para 18 has not stated anything about any building being owned by him and has only made an averment that he does not own or possess any other such building within the urban area Shimla. It is contended by Sh. Bhupinder Gupta that the landlord of his own volition did not state anything about the ownership of the building and since he has kept silent about the building which he is in occupation he has made a false averment and therefore his petition for eviction has rightly been rejected.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. I am not at all in agreement with the contention of the landlord that the premises known as 31, the Mall Shimla which are admittedly in the occupation of the landlord are commercial premises only and not being used by him for his residence. As pointed out above, the landlord purchased the demised premises in 1986. They fell vacant when he got married despite that he did not occupy the same and rented out the same to the tenant in the year 1990. The question that arises is where was the landlord living for this entire period. According to the landlord after the year 1994 he has been living with his brother-in-law Rajan (wife's brother) PW-2, since the year 1994. Prior to 1994 the landlord will have this Court to believe that he was living off and on with one friend or the other. This story is impossible to believe. The landlord was married in the year 1999. He is an Architect by profession. His wife is a law graduate. It is not believable that such a person would have no permanent abode and would continue to live as a guest with his friends for almost 5 years after his marriage. Even the story that he has been living with his brother-in-law after the year 1994 does not inspire confidence. It stands proved on record that the brother-in-law PW-2 Rajan lives with his own family i.e. wife and children. From the evidence it is also clear that the parents of the brother-in-law also reside with him, His flat consists of only two rooms. The flat in possession of the landlord at 31, the Mall Shimla, also consists of two rooms, kitchen and bath room. Even assuming that he was running an office in the part of the flat it cannot be believed that he would not live on his own flat on the Mall Road and reside with his brother-in-law in cramped premises. Even in the electoral list the landlord is shown to be a resident of 31, The Mall, Shimla. Therefore, I am of the considered view that the building 31, the Mall, Shimla was also being used as a residence by the landlord.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. Having held so, the question that arises is whether the landlord can be non-suited only on the ground that he has not made any disclosure about the residential accommodation available with him which premises were admittedly not owned by him.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. The short question which arises for decision in this petition is whether the landlord was guilty of suppressing and withholding such relevant facts which would disentitle him from seeking eviction of the tenant. To appreciate these contentions it would be necessary to refer to relevant portion of Section 14(3) of the Act:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Section 14:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1 and 2 xxxxxxxxxxx</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(3) A landlord may apply to the Controller for an order directing the tenant to put the landlord in possession-</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(a) in case of residential building, if</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(i) he required it for his own occupation:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Provided that he is not occupying another residential building owned by him, in the urban area concerned:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Provided further that he has not vacated such a building without sufficient cause within five years of the filing of the application, in the said urban area....</p><p style="text-align: justify;">13. A perusal of the bare provisions of the Act makes it clear that there are certain essential ingredients which the landlord must satisfy before seeking eviction of the tenant under the Act. Not only must he prove that the residential building is bona fide required by him for his own use and occupation but he must also plead and prove that he is not occupying any other residential building owned by him in the urban area concerned and further that he has not vacated such a building without sufficient cause within 5 years of the filing of the application.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">14. Reference may now be made to the relevant allegations made in para 18 of the eviction petition:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(ii) That the petitioner bona fide requires the premises for his own use and occupation and also for the use and occupation of his family.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The petitioner does not own or possess any other such building within the urban area of Simla nor the petitioner has vacated any such premises within five years of the filing of this petition.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The family of the petitioner presently consists of himself and his wife. Due to paucity of accommodation the petitioner has not been able to keep his wife with himself at Simla, where he is working as an Engineer and she has been residing at Chandigarh since 1991 but on account of her ill health she has been brought to Simla by the petitioner. The petitioner at present is seeking temporary shelter, from time to time, with his relations.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">15. The learned Appellate Authority came to the conclusion that the landlord had falsely pleaded that he does not own or possess any other such building within the urban area of Shimla and hence rejected the eviction petition on this ground.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">16. On a close analysis of the proviso to Section 14(3)(a)(i) of the Act it is clear that a landlord is not entitled to seek eviction of a tenant from residential building even in case of bona fide requirement if the landlord is occupying another residential building owned by him in the urban area concerned. One can read three essential ingredients in this proviso i.e. (i) that the landlord is in occupation of another residential building; (ii) that the said residential building is owned by him and (iii) that the said residential building is situated in the concerned urban area.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">17. The question that arises is what is the impact of the landlord not making a disclosure in respect of premises which he is occupying but are not owned by him.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">18. The Apex Court in Onkar Nath v. Ved Vyas ILR 1979 HP 1, held as follows:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">It is common ground that there are three requirements to make out a cause of action for eviction under that provision, and indeed this is apparent from a bare reading of the sub-section. In the present case the finding is to the effect that the landlord requires the residential building for his own occupation. But, the legislation has taken care to insist upon two more conditions, namely; (a) that the landlord is not occupying any other residential building in the area concerned; and (b) that he has not vacated such a building without sufficient cause. There is not a scintilla of evidence nor indeed there is any averment in compliance with these latter conditions. The necessary consequence follows that not merely is there inadequacy of pleadings sufficient to make out a cause of action but total absence of proof of two vital requirements....</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The Supreme Court also said that:.The statute benignly designed to protect tenants from unreasonable evictions has taken case to put restrictions which must be rigorously construed to fulfil the purpose of the statute.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">19. Following the aforesaid judgment and other pronouncements of the Apex Court, a learned Single Judge of this Court in Tara Chand Sharma v. Baij Nath and Ors. 1992 (2) R.C.J. 323, held as follows:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">16. What appears as the legislative intent, in bold relief, is that the landlord, while seeking eviction of a tenant on the ground that he needs a residential building for his own occupation, must come out clearly and honestly with facts relating to the requirement that he is not occupying another residential building owned by him, in the urban area concerned and that he had not vacated such a building without sufficient cause within five years of the filing of the application, in the said urban area. The primal burden of making a clear disclosure would lie upon the landlord, for, the true facts would be in his special knowledge. An order in his favour by the Rent Controller would depend upon the satisfaction of the Rent Controller in regard not only to the claim that the landlord requires the accommodation, from which he wishes to evict a tenant, for his own occupation but also that he was not occupying another residential building owned by him nor had he vacated such building without sufficient cause within five years of the filing of the application in the application in the urban area concerned....</p><p style="text-align: justify;">It was further held as under:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">18. That the landlord should make a full disclosure of the relevant facts, pertaining to the requirements of Sub-section (3)(a)(i) and the two provisos, becomes all the more necessary because the satisfaction of the Rent Controller in regard thereto is the condition precedent for the making of an order in favour of the landlord....</p><p style="text-align: justify;">20. The aforesaid judgment has been followed in a number of other cases including Vijay Kapoor v. Maya Ram 1997 (2) RCR 437, wherein another learned single Judge of this Court following the aforesaid judgment held that the landlord must make complete and proper disclosure of all the material facts.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">21. On the other hand Sh. Ramakant Sharma has relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in Ram Narain Arora v. Asha Rani 1998(2) RCR 268. In that case the Rent Controller came to the conclusion that the landlord had suppressed material information and had not disclosed the fact that he was already in occupation of a house in Subji Mandi. Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act reads as follows:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Section 14(1)(e). That the premises let for residential purposes are required bona fide by the landlord for occupation as a residence for himself or for any member of his family dependent on him, if he is the owner thereof, or for any person for whose benefit the premises are held and that the landlord or such person has no other reasonably suitable residential accommodation.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">22. The difference between Delhi Act and the present Act is that under the Delhi Act the only requirement is that the landlord has no other reasonably suitable accommodation whereas under the Himachal Act the residential premises are required to be owned by the landlord. The Apex Court in Rama Narain Arora's case (supra) held that the nondisclosure of the fact that the landlord was in occupation of certain premises in Subji Mandi was.not a ground to non-suit the landlord in view of the facts and circumstances of the case. The Apex Court held as follows:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. In making a claim that the suit premises is required bona fide for his own occupation as a residence for himself and other members of his family dependent on him and that he has no other reasonably suitable accommodation is a requirement of law before the Court can state whether the landlord requires the premises bona fide for his use and occupation. In doing so, the Court must also find out whether the landlord or such other person for whose benefit the premises is required has no other reasonably suitable residential accommodation. It cannot be said that the requirement of the landlord is not intermixed with the question of finding out whether he has any other reasonably suitable accommodation. If he has other reasonably suitable accommodation, ihen necessarily it would mean that he does not require the suit premises and his requirement may not be bona fide. In such circumstances further inquiry would be whether that premises is more suitable than the suit premises. Therefore, the questions raised before the Court would not necessarily depend upon only the pleadings. It could be a good defence that the landlord has other reasonably suitable residential accommodation and thereby defend the claim of the landlord.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. There cannot be a pedantic or a dogmatic approach in the matter of analysis of pleadings or of the evidence adduced thereto. It is no doubt true that if the pleadings are clearly set out, it would be easy for the Court to decide the matters. But if the pleadings are lacking or vague and if both parties have understood what was the case pleaded and put forth with reference to requirement of law and placed such material before the Court, neither party is prejudiced. If we analyse from this angle, we do not think that the High Court was not justified in interfering with the order made by the Rent Controller.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">23. From the perusal of the judgment of the Apex Court it is apparent that the Rent Controller must approach the matter in a practical manner. In case the non-disclosure is such as that it goes to the very root of the case the Rent Controller would be justified in non-suiting the landlord. However, if the non-disclosure is such that it would not prejudice the rights of the respondent then the landlord should not be non-suited only on this ground.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">24. The decisions of this Court cited hereinabove were delivered prior to the judgment delivered by the Apex Court in Ram Nar'ain Arora's case. Further more both in Tara Chand Sharma's case and Vijay Kapoor's case decided by this Court, no averment had been made ixi respect of other residential buildings owned by a landlord. There was complete non-disclosure as to whether any such residential building owned by the landlord was in his possession or not. In the present case, as I have held above, the residential premises at 31, The Mall, Shimla was not owned by the landlord and hence these two earlier judgments of this Court are distinguishable on facts also.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">25. In the present case, the landlord has been non-suited only on the ground that he did not disclose the fact that he was in occupation of certain premises on the Mall Road. Under law he was not required to disclose this fact. He was only required to disclose the factum of occupying another residential building owned by him in the urban area concerned. True it may be, that it would have been better if the landlord had disclosed all the facts but non-disclosure of a fact which he was not under law required to disclose could not in my opinion be a ground to dismiss his eviction petition.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">26. However, what are the premises in his occupation even as a tenant can be taken into consideration while deciding the question whether he bona fide requires the demised premises for his personal use or occupation or not.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">27. Lastly comes the question with regard to the bona fide requirement of the landlord. The landlord has no children. According to the landlord as well as his other witnesses i.e. his brother-in-law PW-2 and his wife PW-3, the wife now wants to come back and settle in Shimla. There is no reason to disbelieve their statements. Even according to the evidence led by the tenant the accommodation in possession of the landlord consists of two rooms, kitchen, bath room etc. Admittedly, the landlord is also having his office as an Architect in this building. The landlord belongs to the middle class of the Society. It cannot be expected of a landlord who owns sufficient property to reside in a two room set wherein he also runs his office.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">28. The law by now is well settled that the landlord is the best judge of the suitability of the accommodation required by him. This suitability has however to be judged in the context of reasonable expectations. The landlord and his wife who are both well educated can reasonably be expected to entertain guests and they will have visitors to their house. They would obviously require a drawing room, a bed room and a spare bed room for guests. Even at his residence the landlord may require another room for his professional work. This is the minimum accommodation which they would require. Even if the accommodation possessed by the landlord, though not owned by him, at 31, the Mall, Shimla is taken into consideration such accommodation is not sufficient to meet his requirements since admittedly the landlord is running his profession of Architect from some portion of his these premises.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">29. Keeping in view the entire facts and circumstances, I am of the considered view that the learned Appellate Authority gravely erred in rejecting the eviction petition of the landlord solely on the ground that he had not disclosed the factum of being in possession of the premises at 31, the Mall Shimla. Even though I have held that the said premises are residential premises, in view of the above discussion I hold that the landlord cannot be non-suited only on the ground of his being in possession of such premises since same were not owned by him.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">30. In view of the above discussion, the Revision Petition is allowed, the order of the learned Appellate Authority dated 6.5.2003 is seaside and the order of the Rent Controller dated 22.8.2001 is restored.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">31. Keeping in view the fact that the tenant has been in possession of the premises for a long period he is granted time up to 31st October, 2008 to vacate the premises.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">32. No order as to costs.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '2008(2)ShimLC491',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'Shri S.L. Srivastava',
			'sub' => 'Tenancy',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'shri-arun-bhanwara-vs-s-l-srivastava',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '891084',
		(int) 1 => 'shri-arun-bhanwara-vs-s-l-srivastava'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Shri Arun Bhanwara Vs Shri S L Srivastava - Citation 891084 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '891084',
		'acts' => '',
		'appealno' => '',
		'appellant' => 'Shri Arun Bhanwara',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Shri Arun Bhanwara Vs. Shri S.L. Srivastava',
		'casenote' => ' - CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908.[C.A. No. 5/1908]. Order 14, Rule 2 [As amended by Amending Act of 1976]: [V.K. Gupta, CJ, Deepak Gupta & Surjit Singh, JJ] Preliminary issue of law and fact  Court framing all issues both of law and facts together and also  tried all the issues together, including the issue relating to jurisdiction of Court  Held, Except in situations perceived or warranted under sub-rule (2) of Rule 2 of Order 14 where a  Court in fact frames only issues of law in the first instance and postpones settlement of other issues, clearly and explicitly in situations where the Court has framed all issues together, both of law as well as facts and has also tried all these issues together, it is not open to the Court to adopt the principle of severability and proceed to decide issues of law first, without taking up simultaneously other issues for decision. This course of action is not available to a Court because sub-rule (1) does not permit the  Court to adopt any such principle of severability and to dispose of a suit only on preliminary issues, or what can be termed as issues of law. Sub-rule (1)  clearly mandates that in a situation contemplated under it, where all the issues have been together and have also been taken up for adjudication during the course of the trial, these must be decided together and the judgment in the suit as a whole must be pronounced by the Court covering all the issues framed in the suit.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => 'Ram Narain Arora v. Asha Rani;',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => '',
		'counseldef' => '',
		'court' => 'Himachal Pradesh',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2008-07-31',
		'deposition' => 'Petition allowed',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => ' Deepak Gupta, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>Deepak Gupta, J.</p><p>1. This Revision Petition under Section 25(5) of the H.P. Urban Rent Control Act, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) is directed against the order of the learned Appellate Authority, Shimla in CMA No. 60-S/14 of 2001 whereby the appeal filed by the respondent (hereinafter referred to as the tenant) has been allowed, the order of the Rent Controller has been set-aside and the petition for eviction filed by the present petitioner (hereinafter referred to as the Landlord) on the ground of personal bona fide requirement has been set-aside.</p><p>2. The undisputed facts are that the landlord is owner of the demised premises situated in building known as Tunnel View, Sanjauli, Shimla-6 consisting of two bed rooms with attached bath room and latrine, drawing-cum-dining room, kitchen and balcony. These premises were purchased by the landlord in the year 1986. Thereafter, the landlord had rented out the premises to one Sh. B.K. Chauhan. According to the landlord, when he got married he requested Sh. B.K. Chauhan to vacate the said premises. Sh. Chauhan vacated the said premises but admittedly the landlord did not occupy the same but rented out the same to the tenant in the year 1990.</p><p>3. In the year 1997 the landlord filed a petition for eviction of the tenant on two grounds; firstly that the tenant is in arrears of rent from 1.11.1990 to 31.7.1997 and secondly that the premises are bona fide required by the landlord for the use and occupation of himself and his family.</p><p>4. This petition was contested by the tenant. After trial, the Rent Controller ordered the eviction of the tenant on two grounds; (i) that the tenant was in arrears of rent from November, 1999 till date of order i.e. 22nd August, 2001 and (ii) that the landlord required the premises for his own use and occupation.</p><p>5. The tenant deposited the rent within the time prescribed. He also filed an appeal challenging the finding on the issue of bona fide requirement. The learned Appellate Authority came to the conclusion that the landlord had not made a proper and full disclosure of facts as required under the provisions of the Act and had withheld material facts from the Court viz. that the landlord was in occupation of residential premises on 31, Mall Road in the urban area of Shimla and as such rejected this petition on this short ground.</p><p>6. Aggrieved by the said order, the landlord has filed the present Revision Petition.</p><p>7. I have heard Sh. Ramakant Sharma, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sh. Bhupinder Gupta, learned senior Counsel for the tenant.</p><p>8. It has been urged on behalf of the landlord that the building which is alleged to be in possession of the landlord i.e. 31, the Mall Shimla is not a residential building and secondly that the building is not owned by him.</p><p>9. On the other hand Sh. Bhupinder Gupta, learned Counsel of the tenant has strenuously urged that the landlord in para 18 has not stated anything about any building being owned by him and has only made an averment that he does not own or possess any other such building within the urban area Shimla. It is contended by Sh. Bhupinder Gupta that the landlord of his own volition did not state anything about the ownership of the building and since he has kept silent about the building which he is in occupation he has made a false averment and therefore his petition for eviction has rightly been rejected.</p><p>10. I am not at all in agreement with the contention of the landlord that the premises known as 31, the Mall Shimla which are admittedly in the occupation of the landlord are commercial premises only and not being used by him for his residence. As pointed out above, the landlord purchased the demised premises in 1986. They fell vacant when he got married despite that he did not occupy the same and rented out the same to the tenant in the year 1990. The question that arises is where was the landlord living for this entire period. According to the landlord after the year 1994 he has been living with his brother-in-law Rajan (wife's brother) PW-2, since the year 1994. Prior to 1994 the landlord will have this Court to believe that he was living off and on with one friend or the other. This story is impossible to believe. The landlord was married in the year 1999. He is an Architect by profession. His wife is a law graduate. It is not believable that such a person would have no permanent abode and would continue to live as a guest with his friends for almost 5 years after his marriage. Even the story that he has been living with his brother-in-law after the year 1994 does not inspire confidence. It stands proved on record that the brother-in-law PW-2 Rajan lives with his own family i.e. wife and children. From the evidence it is also clear that the parents of the brother-in-law also reside with him, His flat consists of only two rooms. The flat in possession of the landlord at 31, the Mall Shimla, also consists of two rooms, kitchen and bath room. Even assuming that he was running an office in the part of the flat it cannot be believed that he would not live on his own flat on the Mall Road and reside with his brother-in-law in cramped premises. Even in the electoral list the landlord is shown to be a resident of 31, The Mall, Shimla. Therefore, I am of the considered view that the building 31, the Mall, Shimla was also being used as a residence by the landlord.</p><p>11. Having held so, the question that arises is whether the landlord can be non-suited only on the ground that he has not made any disclosure about the residential accommodation available with him which premises were admittedly not owned by him.</p><p>12. The short question which arises for decision in this petition is whether the landlord was guilty of suppressing and withholding such relevant facts which would disentitle him from seeking eviction of the tenant. To appreciate these contentions it would be necessary to refer to relevant portion of Section 14(3) of the Act:</p><p>Section 14:</p><p>1 and 2 xxxxxxxxxxx</p><p>(3) A landlord may apply to the Controller for an order directing the tenant to put the landlord in possession-</p><p>(a) in case of residential building, if</p><p>(i) he required it for his own occupation:</p><p>Provided that he is not occupying another residential building owned by him, in the urban area concerned:</p><p>Provided further that he has not vacated such a building without sufficient cause within five years of the filing of the application, in the said urban area....</p><p>13. A perusal of the bare provisions of the Act makes it clear that there are certain essential ingredients which the landlord must satisfy before seeking eviction of the tenant under the Act. Not only must he prove that the residential building is bona fide required by him for his own use and occupation but he must also plead and prove that he is not occupying any other residential building owned by him in the urban area concerned and further that he has not vacated such a building without sufficient cause within 5 years of the filing of the application.</p><p>14. Reference may now be made to the relevant allegations made in para 18 of the eviction petition:</p><p>(ii) That the petitioner bona fide requires the premises for his own use and occupation and also for the use and occupation of his family.</p><p>The petitioner does not own or possess any other such building within the urban area of Simla nor the petitioner has vacated any such premises within five years of the filing of this petition.</p><p>The family of the petitioner presently consists of himself and his wife. Due to paucity of accommodation the petitioner has not been able to keep his wife with himself at Simla, where he is working as an Engineer and she has been residing at Chandigarh since 1991 but on account of her ill health she has been brought to Simla by the petitioner. The petitioner at present is seeking temporary shelter, from time to time, with his relations.</p><p>15. The learned Appellate Authority came to the conclusion that the landlord had falsely pleaded that he does not own or possess any other such building within the urban area of Shimla and hence rejected the eviction petition on this ground.</p><p>16. On a close analysis of the proviso to Section 14(3)(a)(i) of the Act it is clear that a landlord is not entitled to seek eviction of a tenant from residential building even in case of bona fide requirement if the landlord is occupying another residential building owned by him in the urban area concerned. One can read three essential ingredients in this proviso i.e. (i) that the landlord is in occupation of another residential building; (ii) that the said residential building is owned by him and (iii) that the said residential building is situated in the concerned urban area.</p><p>17. The question that arises is what is the impact of the landlord not making a disclosure in respect of premises which he is occupying but are not owned by him.</p><p>18. The Apex Court in Onkar Nath v. Ved Vyas ILR 1979 HP 1, held as follows:</p><p>It is common ground that there are three requirements to make out a cause of action for eviction under that provision, and indeed this is apparent from a bare reading of the sub-section. In the present case the finding is to the effect that the landlord requires the residential building for his own occupation. But, the legislation has taken care to insist upon two more conditions, namely; (a) that the landlord is not occupying any other residential building in the area concerned; and (b) that he has not vacated such a building without sufficient cause. There is not a scintilla of evidence nor indeed there is any averment in compliance with these latter conditions. The necessary consequence follows that not merely is there inadequacy of pleadings sufficient to make out a cause of action but total absence of proof of two vital requirements....</p><p>The Supreme Court also said that:.The statute benignly designed to protect tenants from unreasonable evictions has taken case to put restrictions which must be rigorously construed to fulfil the purpose of the statute.</p><p>19. Following the aforesaid judgment and other pronouncements of the Apex Court, a learned Single Judge of this Court in Tara Chand Sharma v. Baij Nath and Ors. 1992 (2) R.C.J. 323, held as follows:</p><p>16. What appears as the legislative intent, in bold relief, is that the landlord, while seeking eviction of a tenant on the ground that he needs a residential building for his own occupation, must come out clearly and honestly with facts relating to the requirement that he is not occupying another residential building owned by him, in the urban area concerned and that he had not vacated such a building without sufficient cause within five years of the filing of the application, in the said urban area. The primal burden of making a clear disclosure would lie upon the landlord, for, the true facts would be in his special knowledge. An order in his favour by the Rent Controller would depend upon the satisfaction of the Rent Controller in regard not only to the claim that the landlord requires the accommodation, from which he wishes to evict a tenant, for his own occupation but also that he was not occupying another residential building owned by him nor had he vacated such building without sufficient cause within five years of the filing of the application in the application in the urban area concerned....</p><p>It was further held as under:</p><p>18. That the landlord should make a full disclosure of the relevant facts, pertaining to the requirements of Sub-section (3)(a)(i) and the two provisos, becomes all the more necessary because the satisfaction of the Rent Controller in regard thereto is the condition precedent for the making of an order in favour of the landlord....</p><p>20. The aforesaid judgment has been followed in a number of other cases including Vijay Kapoor v. Maya Ram 1997 (2) RCR 437, wherein another learned single Judge of this Court following the aforesaid judgment held that the landlord must make complete and proper disclosure of all the material facts.</p><p>21. On the other hand Sh. Ramakant Sharma has relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in Ram Narain Arora v. Asha Rani 1998(2) RCR 268. In that case the Rent Controller came to the conclusion that the landlord had suppressed material information and had not disclosed the fact that he was already in occupation of a house in Subji Mandi. Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act reads as follows:</p><p>Section 14(1)(e). That the premises let for residential purposes are required bona fide by the landlord for occupation as a residence for himself or for any member of his family dependent on him, if he is the owner thereof, or for any person for whose benefit the premises are held and that the landlord or such person has no other reasonably suitable residential accommodation.</p><p>22. The difference between Delhi Act and the present Act is that under the Delhi Act the only requirement is that the landlord has no other reasonably suitable accommodation whereas under the Himachal Act the residential premises are required to be owned by the landlord. The Apex Court in Rama Narain Arora's case (supra) held that the nondisclosure of the fact that the landlord was in occupation of certain premises in Subji Mandi was.not a ground to non-suit the landlord in view of the facts and circumstances of the case. The Apex Court held as follows:</p><p>9. In making a claim that the suit premises is required bona fide for his own occupation as a residence for himself and other members of his family dependent on him and that he has no other reasonably suitable accommodation is a requirement of law before the Court can state whether the landlord requires the premises bona fide for his use and occupation. In doing so, the Court must also find out whether the landlord or such other person for whose benefit the premises is required has no other reasonably suitable residential accommodation. It cannot be said that the requirement of the landlord is not intermixed with the question of finding out whether he has any other reasonably suitable accommodation. If he has other reasonably suitable accommodation, ihen necessarily it would mean that he does not require the suit premises and his requirement may not be bona fide. In such circumstances further inquiry would be whether that premises is more suitable than the suit premises. Therefore, the questions raised before the Court would not necessarily depend upon only the pleadings. It could be a good defence that the landlord has other reasonably suitable residential accommodation and thereby defend the claim of the landlord.</p><p>10. There cannot be a pedantic or a dogmatic approach in the matter of analysis of pleadings or of the evidence adduced thereto. It is no doubt true that if the pleadings are clearly set out, it would be easy for the Court to decide the matters. But if the pleadings are lacking or vague and if both parties have understood what was the case pleaded and put forth with reference to requirement of law and placed such material before the Court, neither party is prejudiced. If we analyse from this angle, we do not think that the High Court was not justified in interfering with the order made by the Rent Controller.</p><p>23. From the perusal of the judgment of the Apex Court it is apparent that the Rent Controller must approach the matter in a practical manner. In case the non-disclosure is such as that it goes to the very root of the case the Rent Controller would be justified in non-suiting the landlord. However, if the non-disclosure is such that it would not prejudice the rights of the respondent then the landlord should not be non-suited only on this ground.</p><p>24. The decisions of this Court cited hereinabove were delivered prior to the judgment delivered by the Apex Court in Ram Nar'ain Arora's case. Further more both in Tara Chand Sharma's case and Vijay Kapoor's case decided by this Court, no averment had been made ixi respect of other residential buildings owned by a landlord. There was complete non-disclosure as to whether any such residential building owned by the landlord was in his possession or not. In the present case, as I have held above, the residential premises at 31, The Mall, Shimla was not owned by the landlord and hence these two earlier judgments of this Court are distinguishable on facts also.</p><p>25. In the present case, the landlord has been non-suited only on the ground that he did not disclose the fact that he was in occupation of certain premises on the Mall Road. Under law he was not required to disclose this fact. He was only required to disclose the factum of occupying another residential building owned by him in the urban area concerned. True it may be, that it would have been better if the landlord had disclosed all the facts but non-disclosure of a fact which he was not under law required to disclose could not in my opinion be a ground to dismiss his eviction petition.</p><p>26. However, what are the premises in his occupation even as a tenant can be taken into consideration while deciding the question whether he bona fide requires the demised premises for his personal use or occupation or not.</p><p>27. Lastly comes the question with regard to the bona fide requirement of the landlord. The landlord has no children. According to the landlord as well as his other witnesses i.e. his brother-in-law PW-2 and his wife PW-3, the wife now wants to come back and settle in Shimla. There is no reason to disbelieve their statements. Even according to the evidence led by the tenant the accommodation in possession of the landlord consists of two rooms, kitchen, bath room etc. Admittedly, the landlord is also having his office as an Architect in this building. The landlord belongs to the middle class of the Society. It cannot be expected of a landlord who owns sufficient property to reside in a two room set wherein he also runs his office.</p><p>28. The law by now is well settled that the landlord is the best judge of the suitability of the accommodation required by him. This suitability has however to be judged in the context of reasonable expectations. The landlord and his wife who are both well educated can reasonably be expected to entertain guests and they will have visitors to their house. They would obviously require a drawing room, a bed room and a spare bed room for guests. Even at his residence the landlord may require another room for his professional work. This is the minimum accommodation which they would require. Even if the accommodation possessed by the landlord, though not owned by him, at 31, the Mall, Shimla is taken into consideration such accommodation is not sufficient to meet his requirements since admittedly the landlord is running his profession of Architect from some portion of his these premises.</p><p>29. Keeping in view the entire facts and circumstances, I am of the considered view that the learned Appellate Authority gravely erred in rejecting the eviction petition of the landlord solely on the ground that he had not disclosed the factum of being in possession of the premises at 31, the Mall Shimla. Even though I have held that the said premises are residential premises, in view of the above discussion I hold that the landlord cannot be non-suited only on the ground of his being in possession of such premises since same were not owned by him.</p><p>30. In view of the above discussion, the Revision Petition is allowed, the order of the learned Appellate Authority dated 6.5.2003 is seaside and the order of the Rent Controller dated 22.8.2001 is restored.</p><p>31. Keeping in view the fact that the tenant has been in possession of the premises for a long period he is granted time up to 31st October, 2008 to vacate the premises.</p><p>32. No order as to costs.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '2008(2)ShimLC491',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'Shri S.L. Srivastava',
		'sub' => 'Tenancy',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'shri-arun-bhanwara-vs-s-l-srivastava'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '891084',
	(int) 1 => 'shri-arun-bhanwara-vs-s-l-srivastava'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/891084/shri-arun-bhanwara-vs-s-l-srivastava'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$caseref = 'Ram Narain Arora v. Asha Rani<br>'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>Deepak Gupta, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. This Revision Petition under Section 25(5) of the H.P. Urban Rent Control Act, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) is directed against the order of the learned Appellate Authority, Shimla in CMA No. 60-S/14 of 2001 whereby the appeal filed by the respondent (hereinafter referred to as the tenant) has been allowed, the order of the Rent Controller has been set-aside and the petition for eviction filed by the present petitioner (hereinafter referred to as the Landlord) on the ground of personal bona fide requirement has been set-aside.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. The undisputed facts are that the landlord is owner of the demised premises situated in building known as Tunnel View, Sanjauli, Shimla-6 consisting of two bed rooms with attached bath room and latrine, drawing-cum-dining room, kitchen and balcony. These premises were purchased by the landlord in the year 1986. Thereafter, the landlord had rented out the premises to one Sh. B.K. Chauhan. According to the landlord, when he got married he requested Sh. B.K. Chauhan to vacate the said premises. Sh. Chauhan vacated the said premises but admittedly the landlord did not occupy the same but rented out the same to the tenant in the year 1990.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. In the year 1997 the landlord filed a petition for eviction of the tenant on two grounds; firstly that the tenant is in arrears of rent from 1.11.1990 to 31.7.1997 and secondly that the premises are bona fide required by the landlord for the use and occupation of himself and his family.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>4. This petition was contested by the tenant. After trial, the Rent Controller ordered the eviction of the tenant on two grounds; (i) that the tenant was in arrears of rent from November, 1999 till date of order i.e. 22nd August, 2001 and (ii) that the landlord required the premises for his own use and occupation.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>5. The tenant deposited the rent within the time prescribed. He also filed an appeal challenging the finding on the issue of bona fide requirement. The learned Appellate Authority came to the conclusion that the landlord had not made a proper and full disclosure of facts as required under the provisions of the Act and had withheld material facts from the Court viz. that the landlord was in occupation of residential premises on 31, Mall Road in the urban area of Shimla and as such rejected this petition on this short ground.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>6. Aggrieved by the said order, the landlord has filed the present Revision Petition.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>7. I have heard Sh. Ramakant Sharma, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sh. Bhupinder Gupta, learned senior Counsel for the tenant.',
	(int) 8 => '<p>8. It has been urged on behalf of the landlord that the building which is alleged to be in possession of the landlord i.e. 31, the Mall Shimla is not a residential building and secondly that the building is not owned by him.',
	(int) 9 => '<p>9. On the other hand Sh. Bhupinder Gupta, learned Counsel of the tenant has strenuously urged that the landlord in para 18 has not stated anything about any building being owned by him and has only made an averment that he does not own or possess any other such building within the urban area Shimla. It is contended by Sh. Bhupinder Gupta that the landlord of his own volition did not state anything about the ownership of the building and since he has kept silent about the building which he is in occupation he has made a false averment and therefore his petition for eviction has rightly been rejected.',
	(int) 10 => '<p>10. I am not at all in agreement with the contention of the landlord that the premises known as 31, the Mall Shimla which are admittedly in the occupation of the landlord are commercial premises only and not being used by him for his residence. As pointed out above, the landlord purchased the demised premises in 1986. They fell vacant when he got married despite that he did not occupy the same and rented out the same to the tenant in the year 1990. The question that arises is where was the landlord living for this entire period. According to the landlord after the year 1994 he has been living with his brother-in-law Rajan (wife's brother) PW-2, since the year 1994. Prior to 1994 the landlord will have this Court to believe that he was living off and on with one friend or the other. This story is impossible to believe. The landlord was married in the year 1999. He is an Architect by profession. His wife is a law graduate. It is not believable that such a person would have no permanent abode and would continue to live as a guest with his friends for almost 5 years after his marriage. Even the story that he has been living with his brother-in-law after the year 1994 does not inspire confidence. It stands proved on record that the brother-in-law PW-2 Rajan lives with his own family i.e. wife and children. From the evidence it is also clear that the parents of the brother-in-law also reside with him, His flat consists of only two rooms. The flat in possession of the landlord at 31, the Mall Shimla, also consists of two rooms, kitchen and bath room. Even assuming that he was running an office in the part of the flat it cannot be believed that he would not live on his own flat on the Mall Road and reside with his brother-in-law in cramped premises. Even in the electoral list the landlord is shown to be a resident of 31, The Mall, Shimla. Therefore, I am of the considered view that the building 31, the Mall, Shimla was also being used as a residence by the landlord.',
	(int) 11 => '<p>11. Having held so, the question that arises is whether the landlord can be non-suited only on the ground that he has not made any disclosure about the residential accommodation available with him which premises were admittedly not owned by him.',
	(int) 12 => '<p>12. The short question which arises for decision in this petition is whether the landlord was guilty of suppressing and withholding such relevant facts which would disentitle him from seeking eviction of the tenant. To appreciate these contentions it would be necessary to refer to relevant portion of Section 14(3) of the Act:',
	(int) 13 => '<p>Section 14:',
	(int) 14 => '<p>1 and 2 xxxxxxxxxxx',
	(int) 15 => '<p>(3) A landlord may apply to the Controller for an order directing the tenant to put the landlord in possession-',
	(int) 16 => '<p>(a) in case of residential building, if',
	(int) 17 => '<p>(i) he required it for his own occupation:',
	(int) 18 => '<p>Provided that he is not occupying another residential building owned by him, in the urban area concerned:',
	(int) 19 => '<p>Provided further that he has not vacated such a building without sufficient cause within five years of the filing of the application, in the said urban area....',
	(int) 20 => '<p>13. A perusal of the bare provisions of the Act makes it clear that there are certain essential ingredients which the landlord must satisfy before seeking eviction of the tenant under the Act. Not only must he prove that the residential building is bona fide required by him for his own use and occupation but he must also plead and prove that he is not occupying any other residential building owned by him in the urban area concerned and further that he has not vacated such a building without sufficient cause within 5 years of the filing of the application.',
	(int) 21 => '<p>14. Reference may now be made to the relevant allegations made in para 18 of the eviction petition:',
	(int) 22 => '<p>(ii) That the petitioner bona fide requires the premises for his own use and occupation and also for the use and occupation of his family.',
	(int) 23 => '<p>The petitioner does not own or possess any other such building within the urban area of Simla nor the petitioner has vacated any such premises within five years of the filing of this petition.',
	(int) 24 => '<p>The family of the petitioner presently consists of himself and his wife. Due to paucity of accommodation the petitioner has not been able to keep his wife with himself at Simla, where he is working as an Engineer and she has been residing at Chandigarh since 1991 but on account of her ill health she has been brought to Simla by the petitioner. The petitioner at present is seeking temporary shelter, from time to time, with his relations.',
	(int) 25 => '<p>15. The learned Appellate Authority came to the conclusion that the landlord had falsely pleaded that he does not own or possess any other such building within the urban area of Shimla and hence rejected the eviction petition on this ground.',
	(int) 26 => '<p>16. On a close analysis of the proviso to Section 14(3)(a)(i) of the Act it is clear that a landlord is not entitled to seek eviction of a tenant from residential building even in case of bona fide requirement if the landlord is occupying another residential building owned by him in the urban area concerned. One can read three essential ingredients in this proviso i.e. (i) that the landlord is in occupation of another residential building; (ii) that the said residential building is owned by him and (iii) that the said residential building is situated in the concerned urban area.',
	(int) 27 => '<p>17. The question that arises is what is the impact of the landlord not making a disclosure in respect of premises which he is occupying but are not owned by him.',
	(int) 28 => '<p>18. The Apex Court in Onkar Nath v. Ved Vyas ILR 1979 HP 1, held as follows:',
	(int) 29 => '<p>It is common ground that there are three requirements to make out a cause of action for eviction under that provision, and indeed this is apparent from a bare reading of the sub-section. In the present case the finding is to the effect that the landlord requires the residential building for his own occupation. But, the legislation has taken care to insist upon two more conditions, namely; (a) that the landlord is not occupying any other residential building in the area concerned; and (b) that he has not vacated such a building without sufficient cause. There is not a scintilla of evidence nor indeed there is any averment in compliance with these latter conditions. The necessary consequence follows that not merely is there inadequacy of pleadings sufficient to make out a cause of action but total absence of proof of two vital requirements....',
	(int) 30 => '<p>The Supreme Court also said that:.The statute benignly designed to protect tenants from unreasonable evictions has taken case to put restrictions which must be rigorously construed to fulfil the purpose of the statute.',
	(int) 31 => '<p>19. Following the aforesaid judgment and other pronouncements of the Apex Court, a learned Single Judge of this Court in Tara Chand Sharma v. Baij Nath and Ors. 1992 (2) R.C.J. 323, held as follows:',
	(int) 32 => '<p>16. What appears as the legislative intent, in bold relief, is that the landlord, while seeking eviction of a tenant on the ground that he needs a residential building for his own occupation, must come out clearly and honestly with facts relating to the requirement that he is not occupying another residential building owned by him, in the urban area concerned and that he had not vacated such a building without sufficient cause within five years of the filing of the application, in the said urban area. The primal burden of making a clear disclosure would lie upon the landlord, for, the true facts would be in his special knowledge. An order in his favour by the Rent Controller would depend upon the satisfaction of the Rent Controller in regard not only to the claim that the landlord requires the accommodation, from which he wishes to evict a tenant, for his own occupation but also that he was not occupying another residential building owned by him nor had he vacated such building without sufficient cause within five years of the filing of the application in the application in the urban area concerned....',
	(int) 33 => '<p>It was further held as under:',
	(int) 34 => '<p>18. That the landlord should make a full disclosure of the relevant facts, pertaining to the requirements of Sub-section (3)(a)(i) and the two provisos, becomes all the more necessary because the satisfaction of the Rent Controller in regard thereto is the condition precedent for the making of an order in favour of the landlord....',
	(int) 35 => '<p>20. The aforesaid judgment has been followed in a number of other cases including Vijay Kapoor v. Maya Ram 1997 (2) RCR 437, wherein another learned single Judge of this Court following the aforesaid judgment held that the landlord must make complete and proper disclosure of all the material facts.',
	(int) 36 => '<p>21. On the other hand Sh. Ramakant Sharma has relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in Ram Narain Arora v. Asha Rani 1998(2) RCR 268. In that case the Rent Controller came to the conclusion that the landlord had suppressed material information and had not disclosed the fact that he was already in occupation of a house in Subji Mandi. Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act reads as follows:',
	(int) 37 => '<p>Section 14(1)(e). That the premises let for residential purposes are required bona fide by the landlord for occupation as a residence for himself or for any member of his family dependent on him, if he is the owner thereof, or for any person for whose benefit the premises are held and that the landlord or such person has no other reasonably suitable residential accommodation.',
	(int) 38 => '<p>22. The difference between Delhi Act and the present Act is that under the Delhi Act the only requirement is that the landlord has no other reasonably suitable accommodation whereas under the Himachal Act the residential premises are required to be owned by the landlord. The Apex Court in Rama Narain Arora's case (supra) held that the nondisclosure of the fact that the landlord was in occupation of certain premises in Subji Mandi was.not a ground to non-suit the landlord in view of the facts and circumstances of the case. The Apex Court held as follows:',
	(int) 39 => '<p>9. In making a claim that the suit premises is required bona fide for his own occupation as a residence for himself and other members of his family dependent on him and that he has no other reasonably suitable accommodation is a requirement of law before the Court can state whether the landlord requires the premises bona fide for his use and occupation. In doing so, the Court must also find out whether the landlord or such other person for whose benefit the premises is required has no other reasonably suitable residential accommodation. It cannot be said that the requirement of the landlord is not intermixed with the question of finding out whether he has any other reasonably suitable accommodation. If he has other reasonably suitable accommodation, ihen necessarily it would mean that he does not require the suit premises and his requirement may not be bona fide. In such circumstances further inquiry would be whether that premises is more suitable than the suit premises. Therefore, the questions raised before the Court would not necessarily depend upon only the pleadings. It could be a good defence that the landlord has other reasonably suitable residential accommodation and thereby defend the claim of the landlord.',
	(int) 40 => '<p>10. There cannot be a pedantic or a dogmatic approach in the matter of analysis of pleadings or of the evidence adduced thereto. It is no doubt true that if the pleadings are clearly set out, it would be easy for the Court to decide the matters. But if the pleadings are lacking or vague and if both parties have understood what was the case pleaded and put forth with reference to requirement of law and placed such material before the Court, neither party is prejudiced. If we analyse from this angle, we do not think that the High Court was not justified in interfering with the order made by the Rent Controller.',
	(int) 41 => '<p>23. From the perusal of the judgment of the Apex Court it is apparent that the Rent Controller must approach the matter in a practical manner. In case the non-disclosure is such as that it goes to the very root of the case the Rent Controller would be justified in non-suiting the landlord. However, if the non-disclosure is such that it would not prejudice the rights of the respondent then the landlord should not be non-suited only on this ground.',
	(int) 42 => '<p>24. The decisions of this Court cited hereinabove were delivered prior to the judgment delivered by the Apex Court in Ram Nar'ain Arora's case. Further more both in Tara Chand Sharma's case and Vijay Kapoor's case decided by this Court, no averment had been made ixi respect of other residential buildings owned by a landlord. There was complete non-disclosure as to whether any such residential building owned by the landlord was in his possession or not. In the present case, as I have held above, the residential premises at 31, The Mall, Shimla was not owned by the landlord and hence these two earlier judgments of this Court are distinguishable on facts also.',
	(int) 43 => '<p>25. In the present case, the landlord has been non-suited only on the ground that he did not disclose the fact that he was in occupation of certain premises on the Mall Road. Under law he was not required to disclose this fact. He was only required to disclose the factum of occupying another residential building owned by him in the urban area concerned. True it may be, that it would have been better if the landlord had disclosed all the facts but non-disclosure of a fact which he was not under law required to disclose could not in my opinion be a ground to dismiss his eviction petition.',
	(int) 44 => '<p>26. However, what are the premises in his occupation even as a tenant can be taken into consideration while deciding the question whether he bona fide requires the demised premises for his personal use or occupation or not.',
	(int) 45 => '<p>27. Lastly comes the question with regard to the bona fide requirement of the landlord. The landlord has no children. According to the landlord as well as his other witnesses i.e. his brother-in-law PW-2 and his wife PW-3, the wife now wants to come back and settle in Shimla. There is no reason to disbelieve their statements. Even according to the evidence led by the tenant the accommodation in possession of the landlord consists of two rooms, kitchen, bath room etc. Admittedly, the landlord is also having his office as an Architect in this building. The landlord belongs to the middle class of the Society. It cannot be expected of a landlord who owns sufficient property to reside in a two room set wherein he also runs his office.',
	(int) 46 => '<p>28. The law by now is well settled that the landlord is the best judge of the suitability of the accommodation required by him. This suitability has however to be judged in the context of reasonable expectations. The landlord and his wife who are both well educated can reasonably be expected to entertain guests and they will have visitors to their house. They would obviously require a drawing room, a bed room and a spare bed room for guests. Even at his residence the landlord may require another room for his professional work. This is the minimum accommodation which they would require. Even if the accommodation possessed by the landlord, though not owned by him, at 31, the Mall, Shimla is taken into consideration such accommodation is not sufficient to meet his requirements since admittedly the landlord is running his profession of Architect from some portion of his these premises.',
	(int) 47 => '<p>29. Keeping in view the entire facts and circumstances, I am of the considered view that the learned Appellate Authority gravely erred in rejecting the eviction petition of the landlord solely on the ground that he had not disclosed the factum of being in possession of the premises at 31, the Mall Shimla. Even though I have held that the said premises are residential premises, in view of the above discussion I hold that the landlord cannot be non-suited only on the ground of his being in possession of such premises since same were not owned by him.',
	(int) 48 => '<p>30. In view of the above discussion, the Revision Petition is allowed, the order of the learned Appellate Authority dated 6.5.2003 is seaside and the order of the Rent Controller dated 22.8.2001 is restored.',
	(int) 49 => '<p>31. Keeping in view the fact that the tenant has been in possession of the premises for a long period he is granted time up to 31st October, 2008 to vacate the premises.',
	(int) 50 => '<p>32. No order as to costs.<p>',
	(int) 51 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 52
$i = (int) 18
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

Provided that he is not occupying another residential building owned by him, in the urban area concerned:

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Shri Arun Bhanwara Vs Shri S L Srivastava - Citation 891084 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '891084',
			'acts' => '',
			'appealno' => '',
			'appellant' => 'Shri Arun Bhanwara',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Shri Arun Bhanwara Vs. Shri S.L. Srivastava',
			'casenote' => ' - CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908.[C.A. No. 5/1908]. Order 14, Rule 2 [As amended by Amending Act of 1976]: [V.K. Gupta, CJ, Deepak Gupta & Surjit Singh, JJ] Preliminary issue of law and fact  Court framing all issues both of law and facts together and also  tried all the issues together, including the issue relating to jurisdiction of Court  Held, Except in situations perceived or warranted under sub-rule (2) of Rule 2 of Order 14 where a  Court in fact frames only issues of law in the first instance and postpones settlement of other issues, clearly and explicitly in situations where the Court has framed all issues together, both of law as well as facts and has also tried all these issues together, it is not open to the Court to adopt the principle of severability and proceed to decide issues of law first, without taking up simultaneously other issues for decision. This course of action is not available to a Court because sub-rule (1) does not permit the  Court to adopt any such principle of severability and to dispose of a suit only on preliminary issues, or what can be termed as issues of law. Sub-rule (1)  clearly mandates that in a situation contemplated under it, where all the issues have been together and have also been taken up for adjudication during the course of the trial, these must be decided together and the judgment in the suit as a whole must be pronounced by the Court covering all the issues framed in the suit.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => 'Ram Narain Arora v. Asha Rani;',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => '',
			'counseldef' => '',
			'court' => 'Himachal Pradesh',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2008-07-31',
			'deposition' => 'Petition allowed',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => ' Deepak Gupta, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">Deepak Gupta, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. This Revision Petition under Section 25(5) of the H.P. Urban Rent Control Act, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) is directed against the order of the learned Appellate Authority, Shimla in CMA No. 60-S/14 of 2001 whereby the appeal filed by the respondent (hereinafter referred to as the tenant) has been allowed, the order of the Rent Controller has been set-aside and the petition for eviction filed by the present petitioner (hereinafter referred to as the Landlord) on the ground of personal bona fide requirement has been set-aside.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The undisputed facts are that the landlord is owner of the demised premises situated in building known as Tunnel View, Sanjauli, Shimla-6 consisting of two bed rooms with attached bath room and latrine, drawing-cum-dining room, kitchen and balcony. These premises were purchased by the landlord in the year 1986. Thereafter, the landlord had rented out the premises to one Sh. B.K. Chauhan. According to the landlord, when he got married he requested Sh. B.K. Chauhan to vacate the said premises. Sh. Chauhan vacated the said premises but admittedly the landlord did not occupy the same but rented out the same to the tenant in the year 1990.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. In the year 1997 the landlord filed a petition for eviction of the tenant on two grounds; firstly that the tenant is in arrears of rent from 1.11.1990 to 31.7.1997 and secondly that the premises are bona fide required by the landlord for the use and occupation of himself and his family.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. This petition was contested by the tenant. After trial, the Rent Controller ordered the eviction of the tenant on two grounds; (i) that the tenant was in arrears of rent from November, 1999 till date of order i.e. 22nd August, 2001 and (ii) that the landlord required the premises for his own use and occupation.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. The tenant deposited the rent within the time prescribed. He also filed an appeal challenging the finding on the issue of bona fide requirement. The learned Appellate Authority came to the conclusion that the landlord had not made a proper and full disclosure of facts as required under the provisions of the Act and had withheld material facts from the Court viz. that the landlord was in occupation of residential premises on 31, Mall Road in the urban area of Shimla and as such rejected this petition on this short ground.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. Aggrieved by the said order, the landlord has filed the present Revision Petition.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. I have heard Sh. Ramakant Sharma, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sh. Bhupinder Gupta, learned senior Counsel for the tenant.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. It has been urged on behalf of the landlord that the building which is alleged to be in possession of the landlord i.e. 31, the Mall Shimla is not a residential building and secondly that the building is not owned by him.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. On the other hand Sh. Bhupinder Gupta, learned Counsel of the tenant has strenuously urged that the landlord in para 18 has not stated anything about any building being owned by him and has only made an averment that he does not own or possess any other such building within the urban area Shimla. It is contended by Sh. Bhupinder Gupta that the landlord of his own volition did not state anything about the ownership of the building and since he has kept silent about the building which he is in occupation he has made a false averment and therefore his petition for eviction has rightly been rejected.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. I am not at all in agreement with the contention of the landlord that the premises known as 31, the Mall Shimla which are admittedly in the occupation of the landlord are commercial premises only and not being used by him for his residence. As pointed out above, the landlord purchased the demised premises in 1986. They fell vacant when he got married despite that he did not occupy the same and rented out the same to the tenant in the year 1990. The question that arises is where was the landlord living for this entire period. According to the landlord after the year 1994 he has been living with his brother-in-law Rajan (wife's brother) PW-2, since the year 1994. Prior to 1994 the landlord will have this Court to believe that he was living off and on with one friend or the other. This story is impossible to believe. The landlord was married in the year 1999. He is an Architect by profession. His wife is a law graduate. It is not believable that such a person would have no permanent abode and would continue to live as a guest with his friends for almost 5 years after his marriage. Even the story that he has been living with his brother-in-law after the year 1994 does not inspire confidence. It stands proved on record that the brother-in-law PW-2 Rajan lives with his own family i.e. wife and children. From the evidence it is also clear that the parents of the brother-in-law also reside with him, His flat consists of only two rooms. The flat in possession of the landlord at 31, the Mall Shimla, also consists of two rooms, kitchen and bath room. Even assuming that he was running an office in the part of the flat it cannot be believed that he would not live on his own flat on the Mall Road and reside with his brother-in-law in cramped premises. Even in the electoral list the landlord is shown to be a resident of 31, The Mall, Shimla. Therefore, I am of the considered view that the building 31, the Mall, Shimla was also being used as a residence by the landlord.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. Having held so, the question that arises is whether the landlord can be non-suited only on the ground that he has not made any disclosure about the residential accommodation available with him which premises were admittedly not owned by him.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. The short question which arises for decision in this petition is whether the landlord was guilty of suppressing and withholding such relevant facts which would disentitle him from seeking eviction of the tenant. To appreciate these contentions it would be necessary to refer to relevant portion of Section 14(3) of the Act:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Section 14:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1 and 2 xxxxxxxxxxx</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(3) A landlord may apply to the Controller for an order directing the tenant to put the landlord in possession-</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(a) in case of residential building, if</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(i) he required it for his own occupation:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Provided that he is not occupying another residential building owned by him, in the urban area concerned:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Provided further that he has not vacated such a building without sufficient cause within five years of the filing of the application, in the said urban area....</p><p style="text-align: justify;">13. A perusal of the bare provisions of the Act makes it clear that there are certain essential ingredients which the landlord must satisfy before seeking eviction of the tenant under the Act. Not only must he prove that the residential building is bona fide required by him for his own use and occupation but he must also plead and prove that he is not occupying any other residential building owned by him in the urban area concerned and further that he has not vacated such a building without sufficient cause within 5 years of the filing of the application.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">14. Reference may now be made to the relevant allegations made in para 18 of the eviction petition:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(ii) That the petitioner bona fide requires the premises for his own use and occupation and also for the use and occupation of his family.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The petitioner does not own or possess any other such building within the urban area of Simla nor the petitioner has vacated any such premises within five years of the filing of this petition.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The family of the petitioner presently consists of himself and his wife. Due to paucity of accommodation the petitioner has not been able to keep his wife with himself at Simla, where he is working as an Engineer and she has been residing at Chandigarh since 1991 but on account of her ill health she has been brought to Simla by the petitioner. The petitioner at present is seeking temporary shelter, from time to time, with his relations.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">15. The learned Appellate Authority came to the conclusion that the landlord had falsely pleaded that he does not own or possess any other such building within the urban area of Shimla and hence rejected the eviction petition on this ground.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">16. On a close analysis of the proviso to Section 14(3)(a)(i) of the Act it is clear that a landlord is not entitled to seek eviction of a tenant from residential building even in case of bona fide requirement if the landlord is occupying another residential building owned by him in the urban area concerned. One can read three essential ingredients in this proviso i.e. (i) that the landlord is in occupation of another residential building; (ii) that the said residential building is owned by him and (iii) that the said residential building is situated in the concerned urban area.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">17. The question that arises is what is the impact of the landlord not making a disclosure in respect of premises which he is occupying but are not owned by him.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">18. The Apex Court in Onkar Nath v. Ved Vyas ILR 1979 HP 1, held as follows:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">It is common ground that there are three requirements to make out a cause of action for eviction under that provision, and indeed this is apparent from a bare reading of the sub-section. In the present case the finding is to the effect that the landlord requires the residential building for his own occupation. But, the legislation has taken care to insist upon two more conditions, namely; (a) that the landlord is not occupying any other residential building in the area concerned; and (b) that he has not vacated such a building without sufficient cause. There is not a scintilla of evidence nor indeed there is any averment in compliance with these latter conditions. The necessary consequence follows that not merely is there inadequacy of pleadings sufficient to make out a cause of action but total absence of proof of two vital requirements....</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The Supreme Court also said that:.The statute benignly designed to protect tenants from unreasonable evictions has taken case to put restrictions which must be rigorously construed to fulfil the purpose of the statute.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">19. Following the aforesaid judgment and other pronouncements of the Apex Court, a learned Single Judge of this Court in Tara Chand Sharma v. Baij Nath and Ors. 1992 (2) R.C.J. 323, held as follows:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">16. What appears as the legislative intent, in bold relief, is that the landlord, while seeking eviction of a tenant on the ground that he needs a residential building for his own occupation, must come out clearly and honestly with facts relating to the requirement that he is not occupying another residential building owned by him, in the urban area concerned and that he had not vacated such a building without sufficient cause within five years of the filing of the application, in the said urban area. The primal burden of making a clear disclosure would lie upon the landlord, for, the true facts would be in his special knowledge. An order in his favour by the Rent Controller would depend upon the satisfaction of the Rent Controller in regard not only to the claim that the landlord requires the accommodation, from which he wishes to evict a tenant, for his own occupation but also that he was not occupying another residential building owned by him nor had he vacated such building without sufficient cause within five years of the filing of the application in the application in the urban area concerned....</p><p style="text-align: justify;">It was further held as under:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">18. That the landlord should make a full disclosure of the relevant facts, pertaining to the requirements of Sub-section (3)(a)(i) and the two provisos, becomes all the more necessary because the satisfaction of the Rent Controller in regard thereto is the condition precedent for the making of an order in favour of the landlord....</p><p style="text-align: justify;">20. The aforesaid judgment has been followed in a number of other cases including Vijay Kapoor v. Maya Ram 1997 (2) RCR 437, wherein another learned single Judge of this Court following the aforesaid judgment held that the landlord must make complete and proper disclosure of all the material facts.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">21. On the other hand Sh. Ramakant Sharma has relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in Ram Narain Arora v. Asha Rani 1998(2) RCR 268. In that case the Rent Controller came to the conclusion that the landlord had suppressed material information and had not disclosed the fact that he was already in occupation of a house in Subji Mandi. Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act reads as follows:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Section 14(1)(e). That the premises let for residential purposes are required bona fide by the landlord for occupation as a residence for himself or for any member of his family dependent on him, if he is the owner thereof, or for any person for whose benefit the premises are held and that the landlord or such person has no other reasonably suitable residential accommodation.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">22. The difference between Delhi Act and the present Act is that under the Delhi Act the only requirement is that the landlord has no other reasonably suitable accommodation whereas under the Himachal Act the residential premises are required to be owned by the landlord. The Apex Court in Rama Narain Arora's case (supra) held that the nondisclosure of the fact that the landlord was in occupation of certain premises in Subji Mandi was.not a ground to non-suit the landlord in view of the facts and circumstances of the case. The Apex Court held as follows:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. In making a claim that the suit premises is required bona fide for his own occupation as a residence for himself and other members of his family dependent on him and that he has no other reasonably suitable accommodation is a requirement of law before the Court can state whether the landlord requires the premises bona fide for his use and occupation. In doing so, the Court must also find out whether the landlord or such other person for whose benefit the premises is required has no other reasonably suitable residential accommodation. It cannot be said that the requirement of the landlord is not intermixed with the question of finding out whether he has any other reasonably suitable accommodation. If he has other reasonably suitable accommodation, ihen necessarily it would mean that he does not require the suit premises and his requirement may not be bona fide. In such circumstances further inquiry would be whether that premises is more suitable than the suit premises. Therefore, the questions raised before the Court would not necessarily depend upon only the pleadings. It could be a good defence that the landlord has other reasonably suitable residential accommodation and thereby defend the claim of the landlord.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. There cannot be a pedantic or a dogmatic approach in the matter of analysis of pleadings or of the evidence adduced thereto. It is no doubt true that if the pleadings are clearly set out, it would be easy for the Court to decide the matters. But if the pleadings are lacking or vague and if both parties have understood what was the case pleaded and put forth with reference to requirement of law and placed such material before the Court, neither party is prejudiced. If we analyse from this angle, we do not think that the High Court was not justified in interfering with the order made by the Rent Controller.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">23. From the perusal of the judgment of the Apex Court it is apparent that the Rent Controller must approach the matter in a practical manner. In case the non-disclosure is such as that it goes to the very root of the case the Rent Controller would be justified in non-suiting the landlord. However, if the non-disclosure is such that it would not prejudice the rights of the respondent then the landlord should not be non-suited only on this ground.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">24. The decisions of this Court cited hereinabove were delivered prior to the judgment delivered by the Apex Court in Ram Nar'ain Arora's case. Further more both in Tara Chand Sharma's case and Vijay Kapoor's case decided by this Court, no averment had been made ixi respect of other residential buildings owned by a landlord. There was complete non-disclosure as to whether any such residential building owned by the landlord was in his possession or not. In the present case, as I have held above, the residential premises at 31, The Mall, Shimla was not owned by the landlord and hence these two earlier judgments of this Court are distinguishable on facts also.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">25. In the present case, the landlord has been non-suited only on the ground that he did not disclose the fact that he was in occupation of certain premises on the Mall Road. Under law he was not required to disclose this fact. He was only required to disclose the factum of occupying another residential building owned by him in the urban area concerned. True it may be, that it would have been better if the landlord had disclosed all the facts but non-disclosure of a fact which he was not under law required to disclose could not in my opinion be a ground to dismiss his eviction petition.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">26. However, what are the premises in his occupation even as a tenant can be taken into consideration while deciding the question whether he bona fide requires the demised premises for his personal use or occupation or not.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">27. Lastly comes the question with regard to the bona fide requirement of the landlord. The landlord has no children. According to the landlord as well as his other witnesses i.e. his brother-in-law PW-2 and his wife PW-3, the wife now wants to come back and settle in Shimla. There is no reason to disbelieve their statements. Even according to the evidence led by the tenant the accommodation in possession of the landlord consists of two rooms, kitchen, bath room etc. Admittedly, the landlord is also having his office as an Architect in this building. The landlord belongs to the middle class of the Society. It cannot be expected of a landlord who owns sufficient property to reside in a two room set wherein he also runs his office.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">28. The law by now is well settled that the landlord is the best judge of the suitability of the accommodation required by him. This suitability has however to be judged in the context of reasonable expectations. The landlord and his wife who are both well educated can reasonably be expected to entertain guests and they will have visitors to their house. They would obviously require a drawing room, a bed room and a spare bed room for guests. Even at his residence the landlord may require another room for his professional work. This is the minimum accommodation which they would require. Even if the accommodation possessed by the landlord, though not owned by him, at 31, the Mall, Shimla is taken into consideration such accommodation is not sufficient to meet his requirements since admittedly the landlord is running his profession of Architect from some portion of his these premises.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">29. Keeping in view the entire facts and circumstances, I am of the considered view that the learned Appellate Authority gravely erred in rejecting the eviction petition of the landlord solely on the ground that he had not disclosed the factum of being in possession of the premises at 31, the Mall Shimla. Even though I have held that the said premises are residential premises, in view of the above discussion I hold that the landlord cannot be non-suited only on the ground of his being in possession of such premises since same were not owned by him.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">30. In view of the above discussion, the Revision Petition is allowed, the order of the learned Appellate Authority dated 6.5.2003 is seaside and the order of the Rent Controller dated 22.8.2001 is restored.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">31. Keeping in view the fact that the tenant has been in possession of the premises for a long period he is granted time up to 31st October, 2008 to vacate the premises.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">32. No order as to costs.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '2008(2)ShimLC491',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'Shri S.L. Srivastava',
			'sub' => 'Tenancy',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'shri-arun-bhanwara-vs-s-l-srivastava',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '891084',
		(int) 1 => 'shri-arun-bhanwara-vs-s-l-srivastava'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Shri Arun Bhanwara Vs Shri S L Srivastava - Citation 891084 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '891084',
		'acts' => '',
		'appealno' => '',
		'appellant' => 'Shri Arun Bhanwara',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Shri Arun Bhanwara Vs. Shri S.L. Srivastava',
		'casenote' => ' - CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908.[C.A. No. 5/1908]. Order 14, Rule 2 [As amended by Amending Act of 1976]: [V.K. Gupta, CJ, Deepak Gupta & Surjit Singh, JJ] Preliminary issue of law and fact  Court framing all issues both of law and facts together and also  tried all the issues together, including the issue relating to jurisdiction of Court  Held, Except in situations perceived or warranted under sub-rule (2) of Rule 2 of Order 14 where a  Court in fact frames only issues of law in the first instance and postpones settlement of other issues, clearly and explicitly in situations where the Court has framed all issues together, both of law as well as facts and has also tried all these issues together, it is not open to the Court to adopt the principle of severability and proceed to decide issues of law first, without taking up simultaneously other issues for decision. This course of action is not available to a Court because sub-rule (1) does not permit the  Court to adopt any such principle of severability and to dispose of a suit only on preliminary issues, or what can be termed as issues of law. Sub-rule (1)  clearly mandates that in a situation contemplated under it, where all the issues have been together and have also been taken up for adjudication during the course of the trial, these must be decided together and the judgment in the suit as a whole must be pronounced by the Court covering all the issues framed in the suit.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => 'Ram Narain Arora v. Asha Rani;',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => '',
		'counseldef' => '',
		'court' => 'Himachal Pradesh',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2008-07-31',
		'deposition' => 'Petition allowed',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => ' Deepak Gupta, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>Deepak Gupta, J.</p><p>1. This Revision Petition under Section 25(5) of the H.P. Urban Rent Control Act, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) is directed against the order of the learned Appellate Authority, Shimla in CMA No. 60-S/14 of 2001 whereby the appeal filed by the respondent (hereinafter referred to as the tenant) has been allowed, the order of the Rent Controller has been set-aside and the petition for eviction filed by the present petitioner (hereinafter referred to as the Landlord) on the ground of personal bona fide requirement has been set-aside.</p><p>2. The undisputed facts are that the landlord is owner of the demised premises situated in building known as Tunnel View, Sanjauli, Shimla-6 consisting of two bed rooms with attached bath room and latrine, drawing-cum-dining room, kitchen and balcony. These premises were purchased by the landlord in the year 1986. Thereafter, the landlord had rented out the premises to one Sh. B.K. Chauhan. According to the landlord, when he got married he requested Sh. B.K. Chauhan to vacate the said premises. Sh. Chauhan vacated the said premises but admittedly the landlord did not occupy the same but rented out the same to the tenant in the year 1990.</p><p>3. In the year 1997 the landlord filed a petition for eviction of the tenant on two grounds; firstly that the tenant is in arrears of rent from 1.11.1990 to 31.7.1997 and secondly that the premises are bona fide required by the landlord for the use and occupation of himself and his family.</p><p>4. This petition was contested by the tenant. After trial, the Rent Controller ordered the eviction of the tenant on two grounds; (i) that the tenant was in arrears of rent from November, 1999 till date of order i.e. 22nd August, 2001 and (ii) that the landlord required the premises for his own use and occupation.</p><p>5. The tenant deposited the rent within the time prescribed. He also filed an appeal challenging the finding on the issue of bona fide requirement. The learned Appellate Authority came to the conclusion that the landlord had not made a proper and full disclosure of facts as required under the provisions of the Act and had withheld material facts from the Court viz. that the landlord was in occupation of residential premises on 31, Mall Road in the urban area of Shimla and as such rejected this petition on this short ground.</p><p>6. Aggrieved by the said order, the landlord has filed the present Revision Petition.</p><p>7. I have heard Sh. Ramakant Sharma, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sh. Bhupinder Gupta, learned senior Counsel for the tenant.</p><p>8. It has been urged on behalf of the landlord that the building which is alleged to be in possession of the landlord i.e. 31, the Mall Shimla is not a residential building and secondly that the building is not owned by him.</p><p>9. On the other hand Sh. Bhupinder Gupta, learned Counsel of the tenant has strenuously urged that the landlord in para 18 has not stated anything about any building being owned by him and has only made an averment that he does not own or possess any other such building within the urban area Shimla. It is contended by Sh. Bhupinder Gupta that the landlord of his own volition did not state anything about the ownership of the building and since he has kept silent about the building which he is in occupation he has made a false averment and therefore his petition for eviction has rightly been rejected.</p><p>10. I am not at all in agreement with the contention of the landlord that the premises known as 31, the Mall Shimla which are admittedly in the occupation of the landlord are commercial premises only and not being used by him for his residence. As pointed out above, the landlord purchased the demised premises in 1986. They fell vacant when he got married despite that he did not occupy the same and rented out the same to the tenant in the year 1990. The question that arises is where was the landlord living for this entire period. According to the landlord after the year 1994 he has been living with his brother-in-law Rajan (wife's brother) PW-2, since the year 1994. Prior to 1994 the landlord will have this Court to believe that he was living off and on with one friend or the other. This story is impossible to believe. The landlord was married in the year 1999. He is an Architect by profession. His wife is a law graduate. It is not believable that such a person would have no permanent abode and would continue to live as a guest with his friends for almost 5 years after his marriage. Even the story that he has been living with his brother-in-law after the year 1994 does not inspire confidence. It stands proved on record that the brother-in-law PW-2 Rajan lives with his own family i.e. wife and children. From the evidence it is also clear that the parents of the brother-in-law also reside with him, His flat consists of only two rooms. The flat in possession of the landlord at 31, the Mall Shimla, also consists of two rooms, kitchen and bath room. Even assuming that he was running an office in the part of the flat it cannot be believed that he would not live on his own flat on the Mall Road and reside with his brother-in-law in cramped premises. Even in the electoral list the landlord is shown to be a resident of 31, The Mall, Shimla. Therefore, I am of the considered view that the building 31, the Mall, Shimla was also being used as a residence by the landlord.</p><p>11. Having held so, the question that arises is whether the landlord can be non-suited only on the ground that he has not made any disclosure about the residential accommodation available with him which premises were admittedly not owned by him.</p><p>12. The short question which arises for decision in this petition is whether the landlord was guilty of suppressing and withholding such relevant facts which would disentitle him from seeking eviction of the tenant. To appreciate these contentions it would be necessary to refer to relevant portion of Section 14(3) of the Act:</p><p>Section 14:</p><p>1 and 2 xxxxxxxxxxx</p><p>(3) A landlord may apply to the Controller for an order directing the tenant to put the landlord in possession-</p><p>(a) in case of residential building, if</p><p>(i) he required it for his own occupation:</p><p>Provided that he is not occupying another residential building owned by him, in the urban area concerned:</p><p>Provided further that he has not vacated such a building without sufficient cause within five years of the filing of the application, in the said urban area....</p><p>13. A perusal of the bare provisions of the Act makes it clear that there are certain essential ingredients which the landlord must satisfy before seeking eviction of the tenant under the Act. Not only must he prove that the residential building is bona fide required by him for his own use and occupation but he must also plead and prove that he is not occupying any other residential building owned by him in the urban area concerned and further that he has not vacated such a building without sufficient cause within 5 years of the filing of the application.</p><p>14. Reference may now be made to the relevant allegations made in para 18 of the eviction petition:</p><p>(ii) That the petitioner bona fide requires the premises for his own use and occupation and also for the use and occupation of his family.</p><p>The petitioner does not own or possess any other such building within the urban area of Simla nor the petitioner has vacated any such premises within five years of the filing of this petition.</p><p>The family of the petitioner presently consists of himself and his wife. Due to paucity of accommodation the petitioner has not been able to keep his wife with himself at Simla, where he is working as an Engineer and she has been residing at Chandigarh since 1991 but on account of her ill health she has been brought to Simla by the petitioner. The petitioner at present is seeking temporary shelter, from time to time, with his relations.</p><p>15. The learned Appellate Authority came to the conclusion that the landlord had falsely pleaded that he does not own or possess any other such building within the urban area of Shimla and hence rejected the eviction petition on this ground.</p><p>16. On a close analysis of the proviso to Section 14(3)(a)(i) of the Act it is clear that a landlord is not entitled to seek eviction of a tenant from residential building even in case of bona fide requirement if the landlord is occupying another residential building owned by him in the urban area concerned. One can read three essential ingredients in this proviso i.e. (i) that the landlord is in occupation of another residential building; (ii) that the said residential building is owned by him and (iii) that the said residential building is situated in the concerned urban area.</p><p>17. The question that arises is what is the impact of the landlord not making a disclosure in respect of premises which he is occupying but are not owned by him.</p><p>18. The Apex Court in Onkar Nath v. Ved Vyas ILR 1979 HP 1, held as follows:</p><p>It is common ground that there are three requirements to make out a cause of action for eviction under that provision, and indeed this is apparent from a bare reading of the sub-section. In the present case the finding is to the effect that the landlord requires the residential building for his own occupation. But, the legislation has taken care to insist upon two more conditions, namely; (a) that the landlord is not occupying any other residential building in the area concerned; and (b) that he has not vacated such a building without sufficient cause. There is not a scintilla of evidence nor indeed there is any averment in compliance with these latter conditions. The necessary consequence follows that not merely is there inadequacy of pleadings sufficient to make out a cause of action but total absence of proof of two vital requirements....</p><p>The Supreme Court also said that:.The statute benignly designed to protect tenants from unreasonable evictions has taken case to put restrictions which must be rigorously construed to fulfil the purpose of the statute.</p><p>19. Following the aforesaid judgment and other pronouncements of the Apex Court, a learned Single Judge of this Court in Tara Chand Sharma v. Baij Nath and Ors. 1992 (2) R.C.J. 323, held as follows:</p><p>16. What appears as the legislative intent, in bold relief, is that the landlord, while seeking eviction of a tenant on the ground that he needs a residential building for his own occupation, must come out clearly and honestly with facts relating to the requirement that he is not occupying another residential building owned by him, in the urban area concerned and that he had not vacated such a building without sufficient cause within five years of the filing of the application, in the said urban area. The primal burden of making a clear disclosure would lie upon the landlord, for, the true facts would be in his special knowledge. An order in his favour by the Rent Controller would depend upon the satisfaction of the Rent Controller in regard not only to the claim that the landlord requires the accommodation, from which he wishes to evict a tenant, for his own occupation but also that he was not occupying another residential building owned by him nor had he vacated such building without sufficient cause within five years of the filing of the application in the application in the urban area concerned....</p><p>It was further held as under:</p><p>18. That the landlord should make a full disclosure of the relevant facts, pertaining to the requirements of Sub-section (3)(a)(i) and the two provisos, becomes all the more necessary because the satisfaction of the Rent Controller in regard thereto is the condition precedent for the making of an order in favour of the landlord....</p><p>20. The aforesaid judgment has been followed in a number of other cases including Vijay Kapoor v. Maya Ram 1997 (2) RCR 437, wherein another learned single Judge of this Court following the aforesaid judgment held that the landlord must make complete and proper disclosure of all the material facts.</p><p>21. On the other hand Sh. Ramakant Sharma has relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in Ram Narain Arora v. Asha Rani 1998(2) RCR 268. In that case the Rent Controller came to the conclusion that the landlord had suppressed material information and had not disclosed the fact that he was already in occupation of a house in Subji Mandi. Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act reads as follows:</p><p>Section 14(1)(e). That the premises let for residential purposes are required bona fide by the landlord for occupation as a residence for himself or for any member of his family dependent on him, if he is the owner thereof, or for any person for whose benefit the premises are held and that the landlord or such person has no other reasonably suitable residential accommodation.</p><p>22. The difference between Delhi Act and the present Act is that under the Delhi Act the only requirement is that the landlord has no other reasonably suitable accommodation whereas under the Himachal Act the residential premises are required to be owned by the landlord. The Apex Court in Rama Narain Arora's case (supra) held that the nondisclosure of the fact that the landlord was in occupation of certain premises in Subji Mandi was.not a ground to non-suit the landlord in view of the facts and circumstances of the case. The Apex Court held as follows:</p><p>9. In making a claim that the suit premises is required bona fide for his own occupation as a residence for himself and other members of his family dependent on him and that he has no other reasonably suitable accommodation is a requirement of law before the Court can state whether the landlord requires the premises bona fide for his use and occupation. In doing so, the Court must also find out whether the landlord or such other person for whose benefit the premises is required has no other reasonably suitable residential accommodation. It cannot be said that the requirement of the landlord is not intermixed with the question of finding out whether he has any other reasonably suitable accommodation. If he has other reasonably suitable accommodation, ihen necessarily it would mean that he does not require the suit premises and his requirement may not be bona fide. In such circumstances further inquiry would be whether that premises is more suitable than the suit premises. Therefore, the questions raised before the Court would not necessarily depend upon only the pleadings. It could be a good defence that the landlord has other reasonably suitable residential accommodation and thereby defend the claim of the landlord.</p><p>10. There cannot be a pedantic or a dogmatic approach in the matter of analysis of pleadings or of the evidence adduced thereto. It is no doubt true that if the pleadings are clearly set out, it would be easy for the Court to decide the matters. But if the pleadings are lacking or vague and if both parties have understood what was the case pleaded and put forth with reference to requirement of law and placed such material before the Court, neither party is prejudiced. If we analyse from this angle, we do not think that the High Court was not justified in interfering with the order made by the Rent Controller.</p><p>23. From the perusal of the judgment of the Apex Court it is apparent that the Rent Controller must approach the matter in a practical manner. In case the non-disclosure is such as that it goes to the very root of the case the Rent Controller would be justified in non-suiting the landlord. However, if the non-disclosure is such that it would not prejudice the rights of the respondent then the landlord should not be non-suited only on this ground.</p><p>24. The decisions of this Court cited hereinabove were delivered prior to the judgment delivered by the Apex Court in Ram Nar'ain Arora's case. Further more both in Tara Chand Sharma's case and Vijay Kapoor's case decided by this Court, no averment had been made ixi respect of other residential buildings owned by a landlord. There was complete non-disclosure as to whether any such residential building owned by the landlord was in his possession or not. In the present case, as I have held above, the residential premises at 31, The Mall, Shimla was not owned by the landlord and hence these two earlier judgments of this Court are distinguishable on facts also.</p><p>25. In the present case, the landlord has been non-suited only on the ground that he did not disclose the fact that he was in occupation of certain premises on the Mall Road. Under law he was not required to disclose this fact. He was only required to disclose the factum of occupying another residential building owned by him in the urban area concerned. True it may be, that it would have been better if the landlord had disclosed all the facts but non-disclosure of a fact which he was not under law required to disclose could not in my opinion be a ground to dismiss his eviction petition.</p><p>26. However, what are the premises in his occupation even as a tenant can be taken into consideration while deciding the question whether he bona fide requires the demised premises for his personal use or occupation or not.</p><p>27. Lastly comes the question with regard to the bona fide requirement of the landlord. The landlord has no children. According to the landlord as well as his other witnesses i.e. his brother-in-law PW-2 and his wife PW-3, the wife now wants to come back and settle in Shimla. There is no reason to disbelieve their statements. Even according to the evidence led by the tenant the accommodation in possession of the landlord consists of two rooms, kitchen, bath room etc. Admittedly, the landlord is also having his office as an Architect in this building. The landlord belongs to the middle class of the Society. It cannot be expected of a landlord who owns sufficient property to reside in a two room set wherein he also runs his office.</p><p>28. The law by now is well settled that the landlord is the best judge of the suitability of the accommodation required by him. This suitability has however to be judged in the context of reasonable expectations. The landlord and his wife who are both well educated can reasonably be expected to entertain guests and they will have visitors to their house. They would obviously require a drawing room, a bed room and a spare bed room for guests. Even at his residence the landlord may require another room for his professional work. This is the minimum accommodation which they would require. Even if the accommodation possessed by the landlord, though not owned by him, at 31, the Mall, Shimla is taken into consideration such accommodation is not sufficient to meet his requirements since admittedly the landlord is running his profession of Architect from some portion of his these premises.</p><p>29. Keeping in view the entire facts and circumstances, I am of the considered view that the learned Appellate Authority gravely erred in rejecting the eviction petition of the landlord solely on the ground that he had not disclosed the factum of being in possession of the premises at 31, the Mall Shimla. Even though I have held that the said premises are residential premises, in view of the above discussion I hold that the landlord cannot be non-suited only on the ground of his being in possession of such premises since same were not owned by him.</p><p>30. In view of the above discussion, the Revision Petition is allowed, the order of the learned Appellate Authority dated 6.5.2003 is seaside and the order of the Rent Controller dated 22.8.2001 is restored.</p><p>31. Keeping in view the fact that the tenant has been in possession of the premises for a long period he is granted time up to 31st October, 2008 to vacate the premises.</p><p>32. No order as to costs.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '2008(2)ShimLC491',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'Shri S.L. Srivastava',
		'sub' => 'Tenancy',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'shri-arun-bhanwara-vs-s-l-srivastava'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '891084',
	(int) 1 => 'shri-arun-bhanwara-vs-s-l-srivastava'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/891084/shri-arun-bhanwara-vs-s-l-srivastava'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$caseref = 'Ram Narain Arora v. Asha Rani<br>'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>Deepak Gupta, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. This Revision Petition under Section 25(5) of the H.P. Urban Rent Control Act, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) is directed against the order of the learned Appellate Authority, Shimla in CMA No. 60-S/14 of 2001 whereby the appeal filed by the respondent (hereinafter referred to as the tenant) has been allowed, the order of the Rent Controller has been set-aside and the petition for eviction filed by the present petitioner (hereinafter referred to as the Landlord) on the ground of personal bona fide requirement has been set-aside.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. The undisputed facts are that the landlord is owner of the demised premises situated in building known as Tunnel View, Sanjauli, Shimla-6 consisting of two bed rooms with attached bath room and latrine, drawing-cum-dining room, kitchen and balcony. These premises were purchased by the landlord in the year 1986. Thereafter, the landlord had rented out the premises to one Sh. B.K. Chauhan. According to the landlord, when he got married he requested Sh. B.K. Chauhan to vacate the said premises. Sh. Chauhan vacated the said premises but admittedly the landlord did not occupy the same but rented out the same to the tenant in the year 1990.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. In the year 1997 the landlord filed a petition for eviction of the tenant on two grounds; firstly that the tenant is in arrears of rent from 1.11.1990 to 31.7.1997 and secondly that the premises are bona fide required by the landlord for the use and occupation of himself and his family.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>4. This petition was contested by the tenant. After trial, the Rent Controller ordered the eviction of the tenant on two grounds; (i) that the tenant was in arrears of rent from November, 1999 till date of order i.e. 22nd August, 2001 and (ii) that the landlord required the premises for his own use and occupation.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>5. The tenant deposited the rent within the time prescribed. He also filed an appeal challenging the finding on the issue of bona fide requirement. The learned Appellate Authority came to the conclusion that the landlord had not made a proper and full disclosure of facts as required under the provisions of the Act and had withheld material facts from the Court viz. that the landlord was in occupation of residential premises on 31, Mall Road in the urban area of Shimla and as such rejected this petition on this short ground.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>6. Aggrieved by the said order, the landlord has filed the present Revision Petition.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>7. I have heard Sh. Ramakant Sharma, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sh. Bhupinder Gupta, learned senior Counsel for the tenant.',
	(int) 8 => '<p>8. It has been urged on behalf of the landlord that the building which is alleged to be in possession of the landlord i.e. 31, the Mall Shimla is not a residential building and secondly that the building is not owned by him.',
	(int) 9 => '<p>9. On the other hand Sh. Bhupinder Gupta, learned Counsel of the tenant has strenuously urged that the landlord in para 18 has not stated anything about any building being owned by him and has only made an averment that he does not own or possess any other such building within the urban area Shimla. It is contended by Sh. Bhupinder Gupta that the landlord of his own volition did not state anything about the ownership of the building and since he has kept silent about the building which he is in occupation he has made a false averment and therefore his petition for eviction has rightly been rejected.',
	(int) 10 => '<p>10. I am not at all in agreement with the contention of the landlord that the premises known as 31, the Mall Shimla which are admittedly in the occupation of the landlord are commercial premises only and not being used by him for his residence. As pointed out above, the landlord purchased the demised premises in 1986. They fell vacant when he got married despite that he did not occupy the same and rented out the same to the tenant in the year 1990. The question that arises is where was the landlord living for this entire period. According to the landlord after the year 1994 he has been living with his brother-in-law Rajan (wife's brother) PW-2, since the year 1994. Prior to 1994 the landlord will have this Court to believe that he was living off and on with one friend or the other. This story is impossible to believe. The landlord was married in the year 1999. He is an Architect by profession. His wife is a law graduate. It is not believable that such a person would have no permanent abode and would continue to live as a guest with his friends for almost 5 years after his marriage. Even the story that he has been living with his brother-in-law after the year 1994 does not inspire confidence. It stands proved on record that the brother-in-law PW-2 Rajan lives with his own family i.e. wife and children. From the evidence it is also clear that the parents of the brother-in-law also reside with him, His flat consists of only two rooms. The flat in possession of the landlord at 31, the Mall Shimla, also consists of two rooms, kitchen and bath room. Even assuming that he was running an office in the part of the flat it cannot be believed that he would not live on his own flat on the Mall Road and reside with his brother-in-law in cramped premises. Even in the electoral list the landlord is shown to be a resident of 31, The Mall, Shimla. Therefore, I am of the considered view that the building 31, the Mall, Shimla was also being used as a residence by the landlord.',
	(int) 11 => '<p>11. Having held so, the question that arises is whether the landlord can be non-suited only on the ground that he has not made any disclosure about the residential accommodation available with him which premises were admittedly not owned by him.',
	(int) 12 => '<p>12. The short question which arises for decision in this petition is whether the landlord was guilty of suppressing and withholding such relevant facts which would disentitle him from seeking eviction of the tenant. To appreciate these contentions it would be necessary to refer to relevant portion of Section 14(3) of the Act:',
	(int) 13 => '<p>Section 14:',
	(int) 14 => '<p>1 and 2 xxxxxxxxxxx',
	(int) 15 => '<p>(3) A landlord may apply to the Controller for an order directing the tenant to put the landlord in possession-',
	(int) 16 => '<p>(a) in case of residential building, if',
	(int) 17 => '<p>(i) he required it for his own occupation:',
	(int) 18 => '<p>Provided that he is not occupying another residential building owned by him, in the urban area concerned:',
	(int) 19 => '<p>Provided further that he has not vacated such a building without sufficient cause within five years of the filing of the application, in the said urban area....',
	(int) 20 => '<p>13. A perusal of the bare provisions of the Act makes it clear that there are certain essential ingredients which the landlord must satisfy before seeking eviction of the tenant under the Act. Not only must he prove that the residential building is bona fide required by him for his own use and occupation but he must also plead and prove that he is not occupying any other residential building owned by him in the urban area concerned and further that he has not vacated such a building without sufficient cause within 5 years of the filing of the application.',
	(int) 21 => '<p>14. Reference may now be made to the relevant allegations made in para 18 of the eviction petition:',
	(int) 22 => '<p>(ii) That the petitioner bona fide requires the premises for his own use and occupation and also for the use and occupation of his family.',
	(int) 23 => '<p>The petitioner does not own or possess any other such building within the urban area of Simla nor the petitioner has vacated any such premises within five years of the filing of this petition.',
	(int) 24 => '<p>The family of the petitioner presently consists of himself and his wife. Due to paucity of accommodation the petitioner has not been able to keep his wife with himself at Simla, where he is working as an Engineer and she has been residing at Chandigarh since 1991 but on account of her ill health she has been brought to Simla by the petitioner. The petitioner at present is seeking temporary shelter, from time to time, with his relations.',
	(int) 25 => '<p>15. The learned Appellate Authority came to the conclusion that the landlord had falsely pleaded that he does not own or possess any other such building within the urban area of Shimla and hence rejected the eviction petition on this ground.',
	(int) 26 => '<p>16. On a close analysis of the proviso to Section 14(3)(a)(i) of the Act it is clear that a landlord is not entitled to seek eviction of a tenant from residential building even in case of bona fide requirement if the landlord is occupying another residential building owned by him in the urban area concerned. One can read three essential ingredients in this proviso i.e. (i) that the landlord is in occupation of another residential building; (ii) that the said residential building is owned by him and (iii) that the said residential building is situated in the concerned urban area.',
	(int) 27 => '<p>17. The question that arises is what is the impact of the landlord not making a disclosure in respect of premises which he is occupying but are not owned by him.',
	(int) 28 => '<p>18. The Apex Court in Onkar Nath v. Ved Vyas ILR 1979 HP 1, held as follows:',
	(int) 29 => '<p>It is common ground that there are three requirements to make out a cause of action for eviction under that provision, and indeed this is apparent from a bare reading of the sub-section. In the present case the finding is to the effect that the landlord requires the residential building for his own occupation. But, the legislation has taken care to insist upon two more conditions, namely; (a) that the landlord is not occupying any other residential building in the area concerned; and (b) that he has not vacated such a building without sufficient cause. There is not a scintilla of evidence nor indeed there is any averment in compliance with these latter conditions. The necessary consequence follows that not merely is there inadequacy of pleadings sufficient to make out a cause of action but total absence of proof of two vital requirements....',
	(int) 30 => '<p>The Supreme Court also said that:.The statute benignly designed to protect tenants from unreasonable evictions has taken case to put restrictions which must be rigorously construed to fulfil the purpose of the statute.',
	(int) 31 => '<p>19. Following the aforesaid judgment and other pronouncements of the Apex Court, a learned Single Judge of this Court in Tara Chand Sharma v. Baij Nath and Ors. 1992 (2) R.C.J. 323, held as follows:',
	(int) 32 => '<p>16. What appears as the legislative intent, in bold relief, is that the landlord, while seeking eviction of a tenant on the ground that he needs a residential building for his own occupation, must come out clearly and honestly with facts relating to the requirement that he is not occupying another residential building owned by him, in the urban area concerned and that he had not vacated such a building without sufficient cause within five years of the filing of the application, in the said urban area. The primal burden of making a clear disclosure would lie upon the landlord, for, the true facts would be in his special knowledge. An order in his favour by the Rent Controller would depend upon the satisfaction of the Rent Controller in regard not only to the claim that the landlord requires the accommodation, from which he wishes to evict a tenant, for his own occupation but also that he was not occupying another residential building owned by him nor had he vacated such building without sufficient cause within five years of the filing of the application in the application in the urban area concerned....',
	(int) 33 => '<p>It was further held as under:',
	(int) 34 => '<p>18. That the landlord should make a full disclosure of the relevant facts, pertaining to the requirements of Sub-section (3)(a)(i) and the two provisos, becomes all the more necessary because the satisfaction of the Rent Controller in regard thereto is the condition precedent for the making of an order in favour of the landlord....',
	(int) 35 => '<p>20. The aforesaid judgment has been followed in a number of other cases including Vijay Kapoor v. Maya Ram 1997 (2) RCR 437, wherein another learned single Judge of this Court following the aforesaid judgment held that the landlord must make complete and proper disclosure of all the material facts.',
	(int) 36 => '<p>21. On the other hand Sh. Ramakant Sharma has relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in Ram Narain Arora v. Asha Rani 1998(2) RCR 268. In that case the Rent Controller came to the conclusion that the landlord had suppressed material information and had not disclosed the fact that he was already in occupation of a house in Subji Mandi. Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act reads as follows:',
	(int) 37 => '<p>Section 14(1)(e). That the premises let for residential purposes are required bona fide by the landlord for occupation as a residence for himself or for any member of his family dependent on him, if he is the owner thereof, or for any person for whose benefit the premises are held and that the landlord or such person has no other reasonably suitable residential accommodation.',
	(int) 38 => '<p>22. The difference between Delhi Act and the present Act is that under the Delhi Act the only requirement is that the landlord has no other reasonably suitable accommodation whereas under the Himachal Act the residential premises are required to be owned by the landlord. The Apex Court in Rama Narain Arora's case (supra) held that the nondisclosure of the fact that the landlord was in occupation of certain premises in Subji Mandi was.not a ground to non-suit the landlord in view of the facts and circumstances of the case. The Apex Court held as follows:',
	(int) 39 => '<p>9. In making a claim that the suit premises is required bona fide for his own occupation as a residence for himself and other members of his family dependent on him and that he has no other reasonably suitable accommodation is a requirement of law before the Court can state whether the landlord requires the premises bona fide for his use and occupation. In doing so, the Court must also find out whether the landlord or such other person for whose benefit the premises is required has no other reasonably suitable residential accommodation. It cannot be said that the requirement of the landlord is not intermixed with the question of finding out whether he has any other reasonably suitable accommodation. If he has other reasonably suitable accommodation, ihen necessarily it would mean that he does not require the suit premises and his requirement may not be bona fide. In such circumstances further inquiry would be whether that premises is more suitable than the suit premises. Therefore, the questions raised before the Court would not necessarily depend upon only the pleadings. It could be a good defence that the landlord has other reasonably suitable residential accommodation and thereby defend the claim of the landlord.',
	(int) 40 => '<p>10. There cannot be a pedantic or a dogmatic approach in the matter of analysis of pleadings or of the evidence adduced thereto. It is no doubt true that if the pleadings are clearly set out, it would be easy for the Court to decide the matters. But if the pleadings are lacking or vague and if both parties have understood what was the case pleaded and put forth with reference to requirement of law and placed such material before the Court, neither party is prejudiced. If we analyse from this angle, we do not think that the High Court was not justified in interfering with the order made by the Rent Controller.',
	(int) 41 => '<p>23. From the perusal of the judgment of the Apex Court it is apparent that the Rent Controller must approach the matter in a practical manner. In case the non-disclosure is such as that it goes to the very root of the case the Rent Controller would be justified in non-suiting the landlord. However, if the non-disclosure is such that it would not prejudice the rights of the respondent then the landlord should not be non-suited only on this ground.',
	(int) 42 => '<p>24. The decisions of this Court cited hereinabove were delivered prior to the judgment delivered by the Apex Court in Ram Nar'ain Arora's case. Further more both in Tara Chand Sharma's case and Vijay Kapoor's case decided by this Court, no averment had been made ixi respect of other residential buildings owned by a landlord. There was complete non-disclosure as to whether any such residential building owned by the landlord was in his possession or not. In the present case, as I have held above, the residential premises at 31, The Mall, Shimla was not owned by the landlord and hence these two earlier judgments of this Court are distinguishable on facts also.',
	(int) 43 => '<p>25. In the present case, the landlord has been non-suited only on the ground that he did not disclose the fact that he was in occupation of certain premises on the Mall Road. Under law he was not required to disclose this fact. He was only required to disclose the factum of occupying another residential building owned by him in the urban area concerned. True it may be, that it would have been better if the landlord had disclosed all the facts but non-disclosure of a fact which he was not under law required to disclose could not in my opinion be a ground to dismiss his eviction petition.',
	(int) 44 => '<p>26. However, what are the premises in his occupation even as a tenant can be taken into consideration while deciding the question whether he bona fide requires the demised premises for his personal use or occupation or not.',
	(int) 45 => '<p>27. Lastly comes the question with regard to the bona fide requirement of the landlord. The landlord has no children. According to the landlord as well as his other witnesses i.e. his brother-in-law PW-2 and his wife PW-3, the wife now wants to come back and settle in Shimla. There is no reason to disbelieve their statements. Even according to the evidence led by the tenant the accommodation in possession of the landlord consists of two rooms, kitchen, bath room etc. Admittedly, the landlord is also having his office as an Architect in this building. The landlord belongs to the middle class of the Society. It cannot be expected of a landlord who owns sufficient property to reside in a two room set wherein he also runs his office.',
	(int) 46 => '<p>28. The law by now is well settled that the landlord is the best judge of the suitability of the accommodation required by him. This suitability has however to be judged in the context of reasonable expectations. The landlord and his wife who are both well educated can reasonably be expected to entertain guests and they will have visitors to their house. They would obviously require a drawing room, a bed room and a spare bed room for guests. Even at his residence the landlord may require another room for his professional work. This is the minimum accommodation which they would require. Even if the accommodation possessed by the landlord, though not owned by him, at 31, the Mall, Shimla is taken into consideration such accommodation is not sufficient to meet his requirements since admittedly the landlord is running his profession of Architect from some portion of his these premises.',
	(int) 47 => '<p>29. Keeping in view the entire facts and circumstances, I am of the considered view that the learned Appellate Authority gravely erred in rejecting the eviction petition of the landlord solely on the ground that he had not disclosed the factum of being in possession of the premises at 31, the Mall Shimla. Even though I have held that the said premises are residential premises, in view of the above discussion I hold that the landlord cannot be non-suited only on the ground of his being in possession of such premises since same were not owned by him.',
	(int) 48 => '<p>30. In view of the above discussion, the Revision Petition is allowed, the order of the learned Appellate Authority dated 6.5.2003 is seaside and the order of the Rent Controller dated 22.8.2001 is restored.',
	(int) 49 => '<p>31. Keeping in view the fact that the tenant has been in possession of the premises for a long period he is granted time up to 31st October, 2008 to vacate the premises.',
	(int) 50 => '<p>32. No order as to costs.<p>',
	(int) 51 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 52
$i = (int) 19
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

Provided further that he has not vacated such a building without sufficient cause within five years of the filing of the application, in the said urban area....

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Shri Arun Bhanwara Vs Shri S L Srivastava - Citation 891084 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '891084',
			'acts' => '',
			'appealno' => '',
			'appellant' => 'Shri Arun Bhanwara',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Shri Arun Bhanwara Vs. Shri S.L. Srivastava',
			'casenote' => ' - CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908.[C.A. No. 5/1908]. Order 14, Rule 2 [As amended by Amending Act of 1976]: [V.K. Gupta, CJ, Deepak Gupta & Surjit Singh, JJ] Preliminary issue of law and fact  Court framing all issues both of law and facts together and also  tried all the issues together, including the issue relating to jurisdiction of Court  Held, Except in situations perceived or warranted under sub-rule (2) of Rule 2 of Order 14 where a  Court in fact frames only issues of law in the first instance and postpones settlement of other issues, clearly and explicitly in situations where the Court has framed all issues together, both of law as well as facts and has also tried all these issues together, it is not open to the Court to adopt the principle of severability and proceed to decide issues of law first, without taking up simultaneously other issues for decision. This course of action is not available to a Court because sub-rule (1) does not permit the  Court to adopt any such principle of severability and to dispose of a suit only on preliminary issues, or what can be termed as issues of law. Sub-rule (1)  clearly mandates that in a situation contemplated under it, where all the issues have been together and have also been taken up for adjudication during the course of the trial, these must be decided together and the judgment in the suit as a whole must be pronounced by the Court covering all the issues framed in the suit.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => 'Ram Narain Arora v. Asha Rani;',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => '',
			'counseldef' => '',
			'court' => 'Himachal Pradesh',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2008-07-31',
			'deposition' => 'Petition allowed',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => ' Deepak Gupta, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">Deepak Gupta, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. This Revision Petition under Section 25(5) of the H.P. Urban Rent Control Act, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) is directed against the order of the learned Appellate Authority, Shimla in CMA No. 60-S/14 of 2001 whereby the appeal filed by the respondent (hereinafter referred to as the tenant) has been allowed, the order of the Rent Controller has been set-aside and the petition for eviction filed by the present petitioner (hereinafter referred to as the Landlord) on the ground of personal bona fide requirement has been set-aside.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The undisputed facts are that the landlord is owner of the demised premises situated in building known as Tunnel View, Sanjauli, Shimla-6 consisting of two bed rooms with attached bath room and latrine, drawing-cum-dining room, kitchen and balcony. These premises were purchased by the landlord in the year 1986. Thereafter, the landlord had rented out the premises to one Sh. B.K. Chauhan. According to the landlord, when he got married he requested Sh. B.K. Chauhan to vacate the said premises. Sh. Chauhan vacated the said premises but admittedly the landlord did not occupy the same but rented out the same to the tenant in the year 1990.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. In the year 1997 the landlord filed a petition for eviction of the tenant on two grounds; firstly that the tenant is in arrears of rent from 1.11.1990 to 31.7.1997 and secondly that the premises are bona fide required by the landlord for the use and occupation of himself and his family.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. This petition was contested by the tenant. After trial, the Rent Controller ordered the eviction of the tenant on two grounds; (i) that the tenant was in arrears of rent from November, 1999 till date of order i.e. 22nd August, 2001 and (ii) that the landlord required the premises for his own use and occupation.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. The tenant deposited the rent within the time prescribed. He also filed an appeal challenging the finding on the issue of bona fide requirement. The learned Appellate Authority came to the conclusion that the landlord had not made a proper and full disclosure of facts as required under the provisions of the Act and had withheld material facts from the Court viz. that the landlord was in occupation of residential premises on 31, Mall Road in the urban area of Shimla and as such rejected this petition on this short ground.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. Aggrieved by the said order, the landlord has filed the present Revision Petition.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. I have heard Sh. Ramakant Sharma, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sh. Bhupinder Gupta, learned senior Counsel for the tenant.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. It has been urged on behalf of the landlord that the building which is alleged to be in possession of the landlord i.e. 31, the Mall Shimla is not a residential building and secondly that the building is not owned by him.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. On the other hand Sh. Bhupinder Gupta, learned Counsel of the tenant has strenuously urged that the landlord in para 18 has not stated anything about any building being owned by him and has only made an averment that he does not own or possess any other such building within the urban area Shimla. It is contended by Sh. Bhupinder Gupta that the landlord of his own volition did not state anything about the ownership of the building and since he has kept silent about the building which he is in occupation he has made a false averment and therefore his petition for eviction has rightly been rejected.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. I am not at all in agreement with the contention of the landlord that the premises known as 31, the Mall Shimla which are admittedly in the occupation of the landlord are commercial premises only and not being used by him for his residence. As pointed out above, the landlord purchased the demised premises in 1986. They fell vacant when he got married despite that he did not occupy the same and rented out the same to the tenant in the year 1990. The question that arises is where was the landlord living for this entire period. According to the landlord after the year 1994 he has been living with his brother-in-law Rajan (wife's brother) PW-2, since the year 1994. Prior to 1994 the landlord will have this Court to believe that he was living off and on with one friend or the other. This story is impossible to believe. The landlord was married in the year 1999. He is an Architect by profession. His wife is a law graduate. It is not believable that such a person would have no permanent abode and would continue to live as a guest with his friends for almost 5 years after his marriage. Even the story that he has been living with his brother-in-law after the year 1994 does not inspire confidence. It stands proved on record that the brother-in-law PW-2 Rajan lives with his own family i.e. wife and children. From the evidence it is also clear that the parents of the brother-in-law also reside with him, His flat consists of only two rooms. The flat in possession of the landlord at 31, the Mall Shimla, also consists of two rooms, kitchen and bath room. Even assuming that he was running an office in the part of the flat it cannot be believed that he would not live on his own flat on the Mall Road and reside with his brother-in-law in cramped premises. Even in the electoral list the landlord is shown to be a resident of 31, The Mall, Shimla. Therefore, I am of the considered view that the building 31, the Mall, Shimla was also being used as a residence by the landlord.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. Having held so, the question that arises is whether the landlord can be non-suited only on the ground that he has not made any disclosure about the residential accommodation available with him which premises were admittedly not owned by him.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. The short question which arises for decision in this petition is whether the landlord was guilty of suppressing and withholding such relevant facts which would disentitle him from seeking eviction of the tenant. To appreciate these contentions it would be necessary to refer to relevant portion of Section 14(3) of the Act:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Section 14:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1 and 2 xxxxxxxxxxx</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(3) A landlord may apply to the Controller for an order directing the tenant to put the landlord in possession-</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(a) in case of residential building, if</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(i) he required it for his own occupation:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Provided that he is not occupying another residential building owned by him, in the urban area concerned:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Provided further that he has not vacated such a building without sufficient cause within five years of the filing of the application, in the said urban area....</p><p style="text-align: justify;">13. A perusal of the bare provisions of the Act makes it clear that there are certain essential ingredients which the landlord must satisfy before seeking eviction of the tenant under the Act. Not only must he prove that the residential building is bona fide required by him for his own use and occupation but he must also plead and prove that he is not occupying any other residential building owned by him in the urban area concerned and further that he has not vacated such a building without sufficient cause within 5 years of the filing of the application.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">14. Reference may now be made to the relevant allegations made in para 18 of the eviction petition:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(ii) That the petitioner bona fide requires the premises for his own use and occupation and also for the use and occupation of his family.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The petitioner does not own or possess any other such building within the urban area of Simla nor the petitioner has vacated any such premises within five years of the filing of this petition.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The family of the petitioner presently consists of himself and his wife. Due to paucity of accommodation the petitioner has not been able to keep his wife with himself at Simla, where he is working as an Engineer and she has been residing at Chandigarh since 1991 but on account of her ill health she has been brought to Simla by the petitioner. The petitioner at present is seeking temporary shelter, from time to time, with his relations.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">15. The learned Appellate Authority came to the conclusion that the landlord had falsely pleaded that he does not own or possess any other such building within the urban area of Shimla and hence rejected the eviction petition on this ground.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">16. On a close analysis of the proviso to Section 14(3)(a)(i) of the Act it is clear that a landlord is not entitled to seek eviction of a tenant from residential building even in case of bona fide requirement if the landlord is occupying another residential building owned by him in the urban area concerned. One can read three essential ingredients in this proviso i.e. (i) that the landlord is in occupation of another residential building; (ii) that the said residential building is owned by him and (iii) that the said residential building is situated in the concerned urban area.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">17. The question that arises is what is the impact of the landlord not making a disclosure in respect of premises which he is occupying but are not owned by him.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">18. The Apex Court in Onkar Nath v. Ved Vyas ILR 1979 HP 1, held as follows:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">It is common ground that there are three requirements to make out a cause of action for eviction under that provision, and indeed this is apparent from a bare reading of the sub-section. In the present case the finding is to the effect that the landlord requires the residential building for his own occupation. But, the legislation has taken care to insist upon two more conditions, namely; (a) that the landlord is not occupying any other residential building in the area concerned; and (b) that he has not vacated such a building without sufficient cause. There is not a scintilla of evidence nor indeed there is any averment in compliance with these latter conditions. The necessary consequence follows that not merely is there inadequacy of pleadings sufficient to make out a cause of action but total absence of proof of two vital requirements....</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The Supreme Court also said that:.The statute benignly designed to protect tenants from unreasonable evictions has taken case to put restrictions which must be rigorously construed to fulfil the purpose of the statute.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">19. Following the aforesaid judgment and other pronouncements of the Apex Court, a learned Single Judge of this Court in Tara Chand Sharma v. Baij Nath and Ors. 1992 (2) R.C.J. 323, held as follows:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">16. What appears as the legislative intent, in bold relief, is that the landlord, while seeking eviction of a tenant on the ground that he needs a residential building for his own occupation, must come out clearly and honestly with facts relating to the requirement that he is not occupying another residential building owned by him, in the urban area concerned and that he had not vacated such a building without sufficient cause within five years of the filing of the application, in the said urban area. The primal burden of making a clear disclosure would lie upon the landlord, for, the true facts would be in his special knowledge. An order in his favour by the Rent Controller would depend upon the satisfaction of the Rent Controller in regard not only to the claim that the landlord requires the accommodation, from which he wishes to evict a tenant, for his own occupation but also that he was not occupying another residential building owned by him nor had he vacated such building without sufficient cause within five years of the filing of the application in the application in the urban area concerned....</p><p style="text-align: justify;">It was further held as under:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">18. That the landlord should make a full disclosure of the relevant facts, pertaining to the requirements of Sub-section (3)(a)(i) and the two provisos, becomes all the more necessary because the satisfaction of the Rent Controller in regard thereto is the condition precedent for the making of an order in favour of the landlord....</p><p style="text-align: justify;">20. The aforesaid judgment has been followed in a number of other cases including Vijay Kapoor v. Maya Ram 1997 (2) RCR 437, wherein another learned single Judge of this Court following the aforesaid judgment held that the landlord must make complete and proper disclosure of all the material facts.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">21. On the other hand Sh. Ramakant Sharma has relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in Ram Narain Arora v. Asha Rani 1998(2) RCR 268. In that case the Rent Controller came to the conclusion that the landlord had suppressed material information and had not disclosed the fact that he was already in occupation of a house in Subji Mandi. Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act reads as follows:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Section 14(1)(e). That the premises let for residential purposes are required bona fide by the landlord for occupation as a residence for himself or for any member of his family dependent on him, if he is the owner thereof, or for any person for whose benefit the premises are held and that the landlord or such person has no other reasonably suitable residential accommodation.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">22. The difference between Delhi Act and the present Act is that under the Delhi Act the only requirement is that the landlord has no other reasonably suitable accommodation whereas under the Himachal Act the residential premises are required to be owned by the landlord. The Apex Court in Rama Narain Arora's case (supra) held that the nondisclosure of the fact that the landlord was in occupation of certain premises in Subji Mandi was.not a ground to non-suit the landlord in view of the facts and circumstances of the case. The Apex Court held as follows:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. In making a claim that the suit premises is required bona fide for his own occupation as a residence for himself and other members of his family dependent on him and that he has no other reasonably suitable accommodation is a requirement of law before the Court can state whether the landlord requires the premises bona fide for his use and occupation. In doing so, the Court must also find out whether the landlord or such other person for whose benefit the premises is required has no other reasonably suitable residential accommodation. It cannot be said that the requirement of the landlord is not intermixed with the question of finding out whether he has any other reasonably suitable accommodation. If he has other reasonably suitable accommodation, ihen necessarily it would mean that he does not require the suit premises and his requirement may not be bona fide. In such circumstances further inquiry would be whether that premises is more suitable than the suit premises. Therefore, the questions raised before the Court would not necessarily depend upon only the pleadings. It could be a good defence that the landlord has other reasonably suitable residential accommodation and thereby defend the claim of the landlord.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. There cannot be a pedantic or a dogmatic approach in the matter of analysis of pleadings or of the evidence adduced thereto. It is no doubt true that if the pleadings are clearly set out, it would be easy for the Court to decide the matters. But if the pleadings are lacking or vague and if both parties have understood what was the case pleaded and put forth with reference to requirement of law and placed such material before the Court, neither party is prejudiced. If we analyse from this angle, we do not think that the High Court was not justified in interfering with the order made by the Rent Controller.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">23. From the perusal of the judgment of the Apex Court it is apparent that the Rent Controller must approach the matter in a practical manner. In case the non-disclosure is such as that it goes to the very root of the case the Rent Controller would be justified in non-suiting the landlord. However, if the non-disclosure is such that it would not prejudice the rights of the respondent then the landlord should not be non-suited only on this ground.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">24. The decisions of this Court cited hereinabove were delivered prior to the judgment delivered by the Apex Court in Ram Nar'ain Arora's case. Further more both in Tara Chand Sharma's case and Vijay Kapoor's case decided by this Court, no averment had been made ixi respect of other residential buildings owned by a landlord. There was complete non-disclosure as to whether any such residential building owned by the landlord was in his possession or not. In the present case, as I have held above, the residential premises at 31, The Mall, Shimla was not owned by the landlord and hence these two earlier judgments of this Court are distinguishable on facts also.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">25. In the present case, the landlord has been non-suited only on the ground that he did not disclose the fact that he was in occupation of certain premises on the Mall Road. Under law he was not required to disclose this fact. He was only required to disclose the factum of occupying another residential building owned by him in the urban area concerned. True it may be, that it would have been better if the landlord had disclosed all the facts but non-disclosure of a fact which he was not under law required to disclose could not in my opinion be a ground to dismiss his eviction petition.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">26. However, what are the premises in his occupation even as a tenant can be taken into consideration while deciding the question whether he bona fide requires the demised premises for his personal use or occupation or not.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">27. Lastly comes the question with regard to the bona fide requirement of the landlord. The landlord has no children. According to the landlord as well as his other witnesses i.e. his brother-in-law PW-2 and his wife PW-3, the wife now wants to come back and settle in Shimla. There is no reason to disbelieve their statements. Even according to the evidence led by the tenant the accommodation in possession of the landlord consists of two rooms, kitchen, bath room etc. Admittedly, the landlord is also having his office as an Architect in this building. The landlord belongs to the middle class of the Society. It cannot be expected of a landlord who owns sufficient property to reside in a two room set wherein he also runs his office.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">28. The law by now is well settled that the landlord is the best judge of the suitability of the accommodation required by him. This suitability has however to be judged in the context of reasonable expectations. The landlord and his wife who are both well educated can reasonably be expected to entertain guests and they will have visitors to their house. They would obviously require a drawing room, a bed room and a spare bed room for guests. Even at his residence the landlord may require another room for his professional work. This is the minimum accommodation which they would require. Even if the accommodation possessed by the landlord, though not owned by him, at 31, the Mall, Shimla is taken into consideration such accommodation is not sufficient to meet his requirements since admittedly the landlord is running his profession of Architect from some portion of his these premises.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">29. Keeping in view the entire facts and circumstances, I am of the considered view that the learned Appellate Authority gravely erred in rejecting the eviction petition of the landlord solely on the ground that he had not disclosed the factum of being in possession of the premises at 31, the Mall Shimla. Even though I have held that the said premises are residential premises, in view of the above discussion I hold that the landlord cannot be non-suited only on the ground of his being in possession of such premises since same were not owned by him.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">30. In view of the above discussion, the Revision Petition is allowed, the order of the learned Appellate Authority dated 6.5.2003 is seaside and the order of the Rent Controller dated 22.8.2001 is restored.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">31. Keeping in view the fact that the tenant has been in possession of the premises for a long period he is granted time up to 31st October, 2008 to vacate the premises.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">32. No order as to costs.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '2008(2)ShimLC491',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'Shri S.L. Srivastava',
			'sub' => 'Tenancy',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'shri-arun-bhanwara-vs-s-l-srivastava',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '891084',
		(int) 1 => 'shri-arun-bhanwara-vs-s-l-srivastava'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Shri Arun Bhanwara Vs Shri S L Srivastava - Citation 891084 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '891084',
		'acts' => '',
		'appealno' => '',
		'appellant' => 'Shri Arun Bhanwara',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Shri Arun Bhanwara Vs. Shri S.L. Srivastava',
		'casenote' => ' - CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908.[C.A. No. 5/1908]. Order 14, Rule 2 [As amended by Amending Act of 1976]: [V.K. Gupta, CJ, Deepak Gupta & Surjit Singh, JJ] Preliminary issue of law and fact  Court framing all issues both of law and facts together and also  tried all the issues together, including the issue relating to jurisdiction of Court  Held, Except in situations perceived or warranted under sub-rule (2) of Rule 2 of Order 14 where a  Court in fact frames only issues of law in the first instance and postpones settlement of other issues, clearly and explicitly in situations where the Court has framed all issues together, both of law as well as facts and has also tried all these issues together, it is not open to the Court to adopt the principle of severability and proceed to decide issues of law first, without taking up simultaneously other issues for decision. This course of action is not available to a Court because sub-rule (1) does not permit the  Court to adopt any such principle of severability and to dispose of a suit only on preliminary issues, or what can be termed as issues of law. Sub-rule (1)  clearly mandates that in a situation contemplated under it, where all the issues have been together and have also been taken up for adjudication during the course of the trial, these must be decided together and the judgment in the suit as a whole must be pronounced by the Court covering all the issues framed in the suit.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => 'Ram Narain Arora v. Asha Rani;',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => '',
		'counseldef' => '',
		'court' => 'Himachal Pradesh',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2008-07-31',
		'deposition' => 'Petition allowed',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => ' Deepak Gupta, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>Deepak Gupta, J.</p><p>1. This Revision Petition under Section 25(5) of the H.P. Urban Rent Control Act, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) is directed against the order of the learned Appellate Authority, Shimla in CMA No. 60-S/14 of 2001 whereby the appeal filed by the respondent (hereinafter referred to as the tenant) has been allowed, the order of the Rent Controller has been set-aside and the petition for eviction filed by the present petitioner (hereinafter referred to as the Landlord) on the ground of personal bona fide requirement has been set-aside.</p><p>2. The undisputed facts are that the landlord is owner of the demised premises situated in building known as Tunnel View, Sanjauli, Shimla-6 consisting of two bed rooms with attached bath room and latrine, drawing-cum-dining room, kitchen and balcony. These premises were purchased by the landlord in the year 1986. Thereafter, the landlord had rented out the premises to one Sh. B.K. Chauhan. According to the landlord, when he got married he requested Sh. B.K. Chauhan to vacate the said premises. Sh. Chauhan vacated the said premises but admittedly the landlord did not occupy the same but rented out the same to the tenant in the year 1990.</p><p>3. In the year 1997 the landlord filed a petition for eviction of the tenant on two grounds; firstly that the tenant is in arrears of rent from 1.11.1990 to 31.7.1997 and secondly that the premises are bona fide required by the landlord for the use and occupation of himself and his family.</p><p>4. This petition was contested by the tenant. After trial, the Rent Controller ordered the eviction of the tenant on two grounds; (i) that the tenant was in arrears of rent from November, 1999 till date of order i.e. 22nd August, 2001 and (ii) that the landlord required the premises for his own use and occupation.</p><p>5. The tenant deposited the rent within the time prescribed. He also filed an appeal challenging the finding on the issue of bona fide requirement. The learned Appellate Authority came to the conclusion that the landlord had not made a proper and full disclosure of facts as required under the provisions of the Act and had withheld material facts from the Court viz. that the landlord was in occupation of residential premises on 31, Mall Road in the urban area of Shimla and as such rejected this petition on this short ground.</p><p>6. Aggrieved by the said order, the landlord has filed the present Revision Petition.</p><p>7. I have heard Sh. Ramakant Sharma, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sh. Bhupinder Gupta, learned senior Counsel for the tenant.</p><p>8. It has been urged on behalf of the landlord that the building which is alleged to be in possession of the landlord i.e. 31, the Mall Shimla is not a residential building and secondly that the building is not owned by him.</p><p>9. On the other hand Sh. Bhupinder Gupta, learned Counsel of the tenant has strenuously urged that the landlord in para 18 has not stated anything about any building being owned by him and has only made an averment that he does not own or possess any other such building within the urban area Shimla. It is contended by Sh. Bhupinder Gupta that the landlord of his own volition did not state anything about the ownership of the building and since he has kept silent about the building which he is in occupation he has made a false averment and therefore his petition for eviction has rightly been rejected.</p><p>10. I am not at all in agreement with the contention of the landlord that the premises known as 31, the Mall Shimla which are admittedly in the occupation of the landlord are commercial premises only and not being used by him for his residence. As pointed out above, the landlord purchased the demised premises in 1986. They fell vacant when he got married despite that he did not occupy the same and rented out the same to the tenant in the year 1990. The question that arises is where was the landlord living for this entire period. According to the landlord after the year 1994 he has been living with his brother-in-law Rajan (wife's brother) PW-2, since the year 1994. Prior to 1994 the landlord will have this Court to believe that he was living off and on with one friend or the other. This story is impossible to believe. The landlord was married in the year 1999. He is an Architect by profession. His wife is a law graduate. It is not believable that such a person would have no permanent abode and would continue to live as a guest with his friends for almost 5 years after his marriage. Even the story that he has been living with his brother-in-law after the year 1994 does not inspire confidence. It stands proved on record that the brother-in-law PW-2 Rajan lives with his own family i.e. wife and children. From the evidence it is also clear that the parents of the brother-in-law also reside with him, His flat consists of only two rooms. The flat in possession of the landlord at 31, the Mall Shimla, also consists of two rooms, kitchen and bath room. Even assuming that he was running an office in the part of the flat it cannot be believed that he would not live on his own flat on the Mall Road and reside with his brother-in-law in cramped premises. Even in the electoral list the landlord is shown to be a resident of 31, The Mall, Shimla. Therefore, I am of the considered view that the building 31, the Mall, Shimla was also being used as a residence by the landlord.</p><p>11. Having held so, the question that arises is whether the landlord can be non-suited only on the ground that he has not made any disclosure about the residential accommodation available with him which premises were admittedly not owned by him.</p><p>12. The short question which arises for decision in this petition is whether the landlord was guilty of suppressing and withholding such relevant facts which would disentitle him from seeking eviction of the tenant. To appreciate these contentions it would be necessary to refer to relevant portion of Section 14(3) of the Act:</p><p>Section 14:</p><p>1 and 2 xxxxxxxxxxx</p><p>(3) A landlord may apply to the Controller for an order directing the tenant to put the landlord in possession-</p><p>(a) in case of residential building, if</p><p>(i) he required it for his own occupation:</p><p>Provided that he is not occupying another residential building owned by him, in the urban area concerned:</p><p>Provided further that he has not vacated such a building without sufficient cause within five years of the filing of the application, in the said urban area....</p><p>13. A perusal of the bare provisions of the Act makes it clear that there are certain essential ingredients which the landlord must satisfy before seeking eviction of the tenant under the Act. Not only must he prove that the residential building is bona fide required by him for his own use and occupation but he must also plead and prove that he is not occupying any other residential building owned by him in the urban area concerned and further that he has not vacated such a building without sufficient cause within 5 years of the filing of the application.</p><p>14. Reference may now be made to the relevant allegations made in para 18 of the eviction petition:</p><p>(ii) That the petitioner bona fide requires the premises for his own use and occupation and also for the use and occupation of his family.</p><p>The petitioner does not own or possess any other such building within the urban area of Simla nor the petitioner has vacated any such premises within five years of the filing of this petition.</p><p>The family of the petitioner presently consists of himself and his wife. Due to paucity of accommodation the petitioner has not been able to keep his wife with himself at Simla, where he is working as an Engineer and she has been residing at Chandigarh since 1991 but on account of her ill health she has been brought to Simla by the petitioner. The petitioner at present is seeking temporary shelter, from time to time, with his relations.</p><p>15. The learned Appellate Authority came to the conclusion that the landlord had falsely pleaded that he does not own or possess any other such building within the urban area of Shimla and hence rejected the eviction petition on this ground.</p><p>16. On a close analysis of the proviso to Section 14(3)(a)(i) of the Act it is clear that a landlord is not entitled to seek eviction of a tenant from residential building even in case of bona fide requirement if the landlord is occupying another residential building owned by him in the urban area concerned. One can read three essential ingredients in this proviso i.e. (i) that the landlord is in occupation of another residential building; (ii) that the said residential building is owned by him and (iii) that the said residential building is situated in the concerned urban area.</p><p>17. The question that arises is what is the impact of the landlord not making a disclosure in respect of premises which he is occupying but are not owned by him.</p><p>18. The Apex Court in Onkar Nath v. Ved Vyas ILR 1979 HP 1, held as follows:</p><p>It is common ground that there are three requirements to make out a cause of action for eviction under that provision, and indeed this is apparent from a bare reading of the sub-section. In the present case the finding is to the effect that the landlord requires the residential building for his own occupation. But, the legislation has taken care to insist upon two more conditions, namely; (a) that the landlord is not occupying any other residential building in the area concerned; and (b) that he has not vacated such a building without sufficient cause. There is not a scintilla of evidence nor indeed there is any averment in compliance with these latter conditions. The necessary consequence follows that not merely is there inadequacy of pleadings sufficient to make out a cause of action but total absence of proof of two vital requirements....</p><p>The Supreme Court also said that:.The statute benignly designed to protect tenants from unreasonable evictions has taken case to put restrictions which must be rigorously construed to fulfil the purpose of the statute.</p><p>19. Following the aforesaid judgment and other pronouncements of the Apex Court, a learned Single Judge of this Court in Tara Chand Sharma v. Baij Nath and Ors. 1992 (2) R.C.J. 323, held as follows:</p><p>16. What appears as the legislative intent, in bold relief, is that the landlord, while seeking eviction of a tenant on the ground that he needs a residential building for his own occupation, must come out clearly and honestly with facts relating to the requirement that he is not occupying another residential building owned by him, in the urban area concerned and that he had not vacated such a building without sufficient cause within five years of the filing of the application, in the said urban area. The primal burden of making a clear disclosure would lie upon the landlord, for, the true facts would be in his special knowledge. An order in his favour by the Rent Controller would depend upon the satisfaction of the Rent Controller in regard not only to the claim that the landlord requires the accommodation, from which he wishes to evict a tenant, for his own occupation but also that he was not occupying another residential building owned by him nor had he vacated such building without sufficient cause within five years of the filing of the application in the application in the urban area concerned....</p><p>It was further held as under:</p><p>18. That the landlord should make a full disclosure of the relevant facts, pertaining to the requirements of Sub-section (3)(a)(i) and the two provisos, becomes all the more necessary because the satisfaction of the Rent Controller in regard thereto is the condition precedent for the making of an order in favour of the landlord....</p><p>20. The aforesaid judgment has been followed in a number of other cases including Vijay Kapoor v. Maya Ram 1997 (2) RCR 437, wherein another learned single Judge of this Court following the aforesaid judgment held that the landlord must make complete and proper disclosure of all the material facts.</p><p>21. On the other hand Sh. Ramakant Sharma has relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in Ram Narain Arora v. Asha Rani 1998(2) RCR 268. In that case the Rent Controller came to the conclusion that the landlord had suppressed material information and had not disclosed the fact that he was already in occupation of a house in Subji Mandi. Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act reads as follows:</p><p>Section 14(1)(e). That the premises let for residential purposes are required bona fide by the landlord for occupation as a residence for himself or for any member of his family dependent on him, if he is the owner thereof, or for any person for whose benefit the premises are held and that the landlord or such person has no other reasonably suitable residential accommodation.</p><p>22. The difference between Delhi Act and the present Act is that under the Delhi Act the only requirement is that the landlord has no other reasonably suitable accommodation whereas under the Himachal Act the residential premises are required to be owned by the landlord. The Apex Court in Rama Narain Arora's case (supra) held that the nondisclosure of the fact that the landlord was in occupation of certain premises in Subji Mandi was.not a ground to non-suit the landlord in view of the facts and circumstances of the case. The Apex Court held as follows:</p><p>9. In making a claim that the suit premises is required bona fide for his own occupation as a residence for himself and other members of his family dependent on him and that he has no other reasonably suitable accommodation is a requirement of law before the Court can state whether the landlord requires the premises bona fide for his use and occupation. In doing so, the Court must also find out whether the landlord or such other person for whose benefit the premises is required has no other reasonably suitable residential accommodation. It cannot be said that the requirement of the landlord is not intermixed with the question of finding out whether he has any other reasonably suitable accommodation. If he has other reasonably suitable accommodation, ihen necessarily it would mean that he does not require the suit premises and his requirement may not be bona fide. In such circumstances further inquiry would be whether that premises is more suitable than the suit premises. Therefore, the questions raised before the Court would not necessarily depend upon only the pleadings. It could be a good defence that the landlord has other reasonably suitable residential accommodation and thereby defend the claim of the landlord.</p><p>10. There cannot be a pedantic or a dogmatic approach in the matter of analysis of pleadings or of the evidence adduced thereto. It is no doubt true that if the pleadings are clearly set out, it would be easy for the Court to decide the matters. But if the pleadings are lacking or vague and if both parties have understood what was the case pleaded and put forth with reference to requirement of law and placed such material before the Court, neither party is prejudiced. If we analyse from this angle, we do not think that the High Court was not justified in interfering with the order made by the Rent Controller.</p><p>23. From the perusal of the judgment of the Apex Court it is apparent that the Rent Controller must approach the matter in a practical manner. In case the non-disclosure is such as that it goes to the very root of the case the Rent Controller would be justified in non-suiting the landlord. However, if the non-disclosure is such that it would not prejudice the rights of the respondent then the landlord should not be non-suited only on this ground.</p><p>24. The decisions of this Court cited hereinabove were delivered prior to the judgment delivered by the Apex Court in Ram Nar'ain Arora's case. Further more both in Tara Chand Sharma's case and Vijay Kapoor's case decided by this Court, no averment had been made ixi respect of other residential buildings owned by a landlord. There was complete non-disclosure as to whether any such residential building owned by the landlord was in his possession or not. In the present case, as I have held above, the residential premises at 31, The Mall, Shimla was not owned by the landlord and hence these two earlier judgments of this Court are distinguishable on facts also.</p><p>25. In the present case, the landlord has been non-suited only on the ground that he did not disclose the fact that he was in occupation of certain premises on the Mall Road. Under law he was not required to disclose this fact. He was only required to disclose the factum of occupying another residential building owned by him in the urban area concerned. True it may be, that it would have been better if the landlord had disclosed all the facts but non-disclosure of a fact which he was not under law required to disclose could not in my opinion be a ground to dismiss his eviction petition.</p><p>26. However, what are the premises in his occupation even as a tenant can be taken into consideration while deciding the question whether he bona fide requires the demised premises for his personal use or occupation or not.</p><p>27. Lastly comes the question with regard to the bona fide requirement of the landlord. The landlord has no children. According to the landlord as well as his other witnesses i.e. his brother-in-law PW-2 and his wife PW-3, the wife now wants to come back and settle in Shimla. There is no reason to disbelieve their statements. Even according to the evidence led by the tenant the accommodation in possession of the landlord consists of two rooms, kitchen, bath room etc. Admittedly, the landlord is also having his office as an Architect in this building. The landlord belongs to the middle class of the Society. It cannot be expected of a landlord who owns sufficient property to reside in a two room set wherein he also runs his office.</p><p>28. The law by now is well settled that the landlord is the best judge of the suitability of the accommodation required by him. This suitability has however to be judged in the context of reasonable expectations. The landlord and his wife who are both well educated can reasonably be expected to entertain guests and they will have visitors to their house. They would obviously require a drawing room, a bed room and a spare bed room for guests. Even at his residence the landlord may require another room for his professional work. This is the minimum accommodation which they would require. Even if the accommodation possessed by the landlord, though not owned by him, at 31, the Mall, Shimla is taken into consideration such accommodation is not sufficient to meet his requirements since admittedly the landlord is running his profession of Architect from some portion of his these premises.</p><p>29. Keeping in view the entire facts and circumstances, I am of the considered view that the learned Appellate Authority gravely erred in rejecting the eviction petition of the landlord solely on the ground that he had not disclosed the factum of being in possession of the premises at 31, the Mall Shimla. Even though I have held that the said premises are residential premises, in view of the above discussion I hold that the landlord cannot be non-suited only on the ground of his being in possession of such premises since same were not owned by him.</p><p>30. In view of the above discussion, the Revision Petition is allowed, the order of the learned Appellate Authority dated 6.5.2003 is seaside and the order of the Rent Controller dated 22.8.2001 is restored.</p><p>31. Keeping in view the fact that the tenant has been in possession of the premises for a long period he is granted time up to 31st October, 2008 to vacate the premises.</p><p>32. No order as to costs.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '2008(2)ShimLC491',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'Shri S.L. Srivastava',
		'sub' => 'Tenancy',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'shri-arun-bhanwara-vs-s-l-srivastava'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '891084',
	(int) 1 => 'shri-arun-bhanwara-vs-s-l-srivastava'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/891084/shri-arun-bhanwara-vs-s-l-srivastava'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$caseref = 'Ram Narain Arora v. Asha Rani<br>'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>Deepak Gupta, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. This Revision Petition under Section 25(5) of the H.P. Urban Rent Control Act, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) is directed against the order of the learned Appellate Authority, Shimla in CMA No. 60-S/14 of 2001 whereby the appeal filed by the respondent (hereinafter referred to as the tenant) has been allowed, the order of the Rent Controller has been set-aside and the petition for eviction filed by the present petitioner (hereinafter referred to as the Landlord) on the ground of personal bona fide requirement has been set-aside.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. The undisputed facts are that the landlord is owner of the demised premises situated in building known as Tunnel View, Sanjauli, Shimla-6 consisting of two bed rooms with attached bath room and latrine, drawing-cum-dining room, kitchen and balcony. These premises were purchased by the landlord in the year 1986. Thereafter, the landlord had rented out the premises to one Sh. B.K. Chauhan. According to the landlord, when he got married he requested Sh. B.K. Chauhan to vacate the said premises. Sh. Chauhan vacated the said premises but admittedly the landlord did not occupy the same but rented out the same to the tenant in the year 1990.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. In the year 1997 the landlord filed a petition for eviction of the tenant on two grounds; firstly that the tenant is in arrears of rent from 1.11.1990 to 31.7.1997 and secondly that the premises are bona fide required by the landlord for the use and occupation of himself and his family.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>4. This petition was contested by the tenant. After trial, the Rent Controller ordered the eviction of the tenant on two grounds; (i) that the tenant was in arrears of rent from November, 1999 till date of order i.e. 22nd August, 2001 and (ii) that the landlord required the premises for his own use and occupation.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>5. The tenant deposited the rent within the time prescribed. He also filed an appeal challenging the finding on the issue of bona fide requirement. The learned Appellate Authority came to the conclusion that the landlord had not made a proper and full disclosure of facts as required under the provisions of the Act and had withheld material facts from the Court viz. that the landlord was in occupation of residential premises on 31, Mall Road in the urban area of Shimla and as such rejected this petition on this short ground.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>6. Aggrieved by the said order, the landlord has filed the present Revision Petition.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>7. I have heard Sh. Ramakant Sharma, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sh. Bhupinder Gupta, learned senior Counsel for the tenant.',
	(int) 8 => '<p>8. It has been urged on behalf of the landlord that the building which is alleged to be in possession of the landlord i.e. 31, the Mall Shimla is not a residential building and secondly that the building is not owned by him.',
	(int) 9 => '<p>9. On the other hand Sh. Bhupinder Gupta, learned Counsel of the tenant has strenuously urged that the landlord in para 18 has not stated anything about any building being owned by him and has only made an averment that he does not own or possess any other such building within the urban area Shimla. It is contended by Sh. Bhupinder Gupta that the landlord of his own volition did not state anything about the ownership of the building and since he has kept silent about the building which he is in occupation he has made a false averment and therefore his petition for eviction has rightly been rejected.',
	(int) 10 => '<p>10. I am not at all in agreement with the contention of the landlord that the premises known as 31, the Mall Shimla which are admittedly in the occupation of the landlord are commercial premises only and not being used by him for his residence. As pointed out above, the landlord purchased the demised premises in 1986. They fell vacant when he got married despite that he did not occupy the same and rented out the same to the tenant in the year 1990. The question that arises is where was the landlord living for this entire period. According to the landlord after the year 1994 he has been living with his brother-in-law Rajan (wife's brother) PW-2, since the year 1994. Prior to 1994 the landlord will have this Court to believe that he was living off and on with one friend or the other. This story is impossible to believe. The landlord was married in the year 1999. He is an Architect by profession. His wife is a law graduate. It is not believable that such a person would have no permanent abode and would continue to live as a guest with his friends for almost 5 years after his marriage. Even the story that he has been living with his brother-in-law after the year 1994 does not inspire confidence. It stands proved on record that the brother-in-law PW-2 Rajan lives with his own family i.e. wife and children. From the evidence it is also clear that the parents of the brother-in-law also reside with him, His flat consists of only two rooms. The flat in possession of the landlord at 31, the Mall Shimla, also consists of two rooms, kitchen and bath room. Even assuming that he was running an office in the part of the flat it cannot be believed that he would not live on his own flat on the Mall Road and reside with his brother-in-law in cramped premises. Even in the electoral list the landlord is shown to be a resident of 31, The Mall, Shimla. Therefore, I am of the considered view that the building 31, the Mall, Shimla was also being used as a residence by the landlord.',
	(int) 11 => '<p>11. Having held so, the question that arises is whether the landlord can be non-suited only on the ground that he has not made any disclosure about the residential accommodation available with him which premises were admittedly not owned by him.',
	(int) 12 => '<p>12. The short question which arises for decision in this petition is whether the landlord was guilty of suppressing and withholding such relevant facts which would disentitle him from seeking eviction of the tenant. To appreciate these contentions it would be necessary to refer to relevant portion of Section 14(3) of the Act:',
	(int) 13 => '<p>Section 14:',
	(int) 14 => '<p>1 and 2 xxxxxxxxxxx',
	(int) 15 => '<p>(3) A landlord may apply to the Controller for an order directing the tenant to put the landlord in possession-',
	(int) 16 => '<p>(a) in case of residential building, if',
	(int) 17 => '<p>(i) he required it for his own occupation:',
	(int) 18 => '<p>Provided that he is not occupying another residential building owned by him, in the urban area concerned:',
	(int) 19 => '<p>Provided further that he has not vacated such a building without sufficient cause within five years of the filing of the application, in the said urban area....',
	(int) 20 => '<p>13. A perusal of the bare provisions of the Act makes it clear that there are certain essential ingredients which the landlord must satisfy before seeking eviction of the tenant under the Act. Not only must he prove that the residential building is bona fide required by him for his own use and occupation but he must also plead and prove that he is not occupying any other residential building owned by him in the urban area concerned and further that he has not vacated such a building without sufficient cause within 5 years of the filing of the application.',
	(int) 21 => '<p>14. Reference may now be made to the relevant allegations made in para 18 of the eviction petition:',
	(int) 22 => '<p>(ii) That the petitioner bona fide requires the premises for his own use and occupation and also for the use and occupation of his family.',
	(int) 23 => '<p>The petitioner does not own or possess any other such building within the urban area of Simla nor the petitioner has vacated any such premises within five years of the filing of this petition.',
	(int) 24 => '<p>The family of the petitioner presently consists of himself and his wife. Due to paucity of accommodation the petitioner has not been able to keep his wife with himself at Simla, where he is working as an Engineer and she has been residing at Chandigarh since 1991 but on account of her ill health she has been brought to Simla by the petitioner. The petitioner at present is seeking temporary shelter, from time to time, with his relations.',
	(int) 25 => '<p>15. The learned Appellate Authority came to the conclusion that the landlord had falsely pleaded that he does not own or possess any other such building within the urban area of Shimla and hence rejected the eviction petition on this ground.',
	(int) 26 => '<p>16. On a close analysis of the proviso to Section 14(3)(a)(i) of the Act it is clear that a landlord is not entitled to seek eviction of a tenant from residential building even in case of bona fide requirement if the landlord is occupying another residential building owned by him in the urban area concerned. One can read three essential ingredients in this proviso i.e. (i) that the landlord is in occupation of another residential building; (ii) that the said residential building is owned by him and (iii) that the said residential building is situated in the concerned urban area.',
	(int) 27 => '<p>17. The question that arises is what is the impact of the landlord not making a disclosure in respect of premises which he is occupying but are not owned by him.',
	(int) 28 => '<p>18. The Apex Court in Onkar Nath v. Ved Vyas ILR 1979 HP 1, held as follows:',
	(int) 29 => '<p>It is common ground that there are three requirements to make out a cause of action for eviction under that provision, and indeed this is apparent from a bare reading of the sub-section. In the present case the finding is to the effect that the landlord requires the residential building for his own occupation. But, the legislation has taken care to insist upon two more conditions, namely; (a) that the landlord is not occupying any other residential building in the area concerned; and (b) that he has not vacated such a building without sufficient cause. There is not a scintilla of evidence nor indeed there is any averment in compliance with these latter conditions. The necessary consequence follows that not merely is there inadequacy of pleadings sufficient to make out a cause of action but total absence of proof of two vital requirements....',
	(int) 30 => '<p>The Supreme Court also said that:.The statute benignly designed to protect tenants from unreasonable evictions has taken case to put restrictions which must be rigorously construed to fulfil the purpose of the statute.',
	(int) 31 => '<p>19. Following the aforesaid judgment and other pronouncements of the Apex Court, a learned Single Judge of this Court in Tara Chand Sharma v. Baij Nath and Ors. 1992 (2) R.C.J. 323, held as follows:',
	(int) 32 => '<p>16. What appears as the legislative intent, in bold relief, is that the landlord, while seeking eviction of a tenant on the ground that he needs a residential building for his own occupation, must come out clearly and honestly with facts relating to the requirement that he is not occupying another residential building owned by him, in the urban area concerned and that he had not vacated such a building without sufficient cause within five years of the filing of the application, in the said urban area. The primal burden of making a clear disclosure would lie upon the landlord, for, the true facts would be in his special knowledge. An order in his favour by the Rent Controller would depend upon the satisfaction of the Rent Controller in regard not only to the claim that the landlord requires the accommodation, from which he wishes to evict a tenant, for his own occupation but also that he was not occupying another residential building owned by him nor had he vacated such building without sufficient cause within five years of the filing of the application in the application in the urban area concerned....',
	(int) 33 => '<p>It was further held as under:',
	(int) 34 => '<p>18. That the landlord should make a full disclosure of the relevant facts, pertaining to the requirements of Sub-section (3)(a)(i) and the two provisos, becomes all the more necessary because the satisfaction of the Rent Controller in regard thereto is the condition precedent for the making of an order in favour of the landlord....',
	(int) 35 => '<p>20. The aforesaid judgment has been followed in a number of other cases including Vijay Kapoor v. Maya Ram 1997 (2) RCR 437, wherein another learned single Judge of this Court following the aforesaid judgment held that the landlord must make complete and proper disclosure of all the material facts.',
	(int) 36 => '<p>21. On the other hand Sh. Ramakant Sharma has relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in Ram Narain Arora v. Asha Rani 1998(2) RCR 268. In that case the Rent Controller came to the conclusion that the landlord had suppressed material information and had not disclosed the fact that he was already in occupation of a house in Subji Mandi. Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act reads as follows:',
	(int) 37 => '<p>Section 14(1)(e). That the premises let for residential purposes are required bona fide by the landlord for occupation as a residence for himself or for any member of his family dependent on him, if he is the owner thereof, or for any person for whose benefit the premises are held and that the landlord or such person has no other reasonably suitable residential accommodation.',
	(int) 38 => '<p>22. The difference between Delhi Act and the present Act is that under the Delhi Act the only requirement is that the landlord has no other reasonably suitable accommodation whereas under the Himachal Act the residential premises are required to be owned by the landlord. The Apex Court in Rama Narain Arora's case (supra) held that the nondisclosure of the fact that the landlord was in occupation of certain premises in Subji Mandi was.not a ground to non-suit the landlord in view of the facts and circumstances of the case. The Apex Court held as follows:',
	(int) 39 => '<p>9. In making a claim that the suit premises is required bona fide for his own occupation as a residence for himself and other members of his family dependent on him and that he has no other reasonably suitable accommodation is a requirement of law before the Court can state whether the landlord requires the premises bona fide for his use and occupation. In doing so, the Court must also find out whether the landlord or such other person for whose benefit the premises is required has no other reasonably suitable residential accommodation. It cannot be said that the requirement of the landlord is not intermixed with the question of finding out whether he has any other reasonably suitable accommodation. If he has other reasonably suitable accommodation, ihen necessarily it would mean that he does not require the suit premises and his requirement may not be bona fide. In such circumstances further inquiry would be whether that premises is more suitable than the suit premises. Therefore, the questions raised before the Court would not necessarily depend upon only the pleadings. It could be a good defence that the landlord has other reasonably suitable residential accommodation and thereby defend the claim of the landlord.',
	(int) 40 => '<p>10. There cannot be a pedantic or a dogmatic approach in the matter of analysis of pleadings or of the evidence adduced thereto. It is no doubt true that if the pleadings are clearly set out, it would be easy for the Court to decide the matters. But if the pleadings are lacking or vague and if both parties have understood what was the case pleaded and put forth with reference to requirement of law and placed such material before the Court, neither party is prejudiced. If we analyse from this angle, we do not think that the High Court was not justified in interfering with the order made by the Rent Controller.',
	(int) 41 => '<p>23. From the perusal of the judgment of the Apex Court it is apparent that the Rent Controller must approach the matter in a practical manner. In case the non-disclosure is such as that it goes to the very root of the case the Rent Controller would be justified in non-suiting the landlord. However, if the non-disclosure is such that it would not prejudice the rights of the respondent then the landlord should not be non-suited only on this ground.',
	(int) 42 => '<p>24. The decisions of this Court cited hereinabove were delivered prior to the judgment delivered by the Apex Court in Ram Nar'ain Arora's case. Further more both in Tara Chand Sharma's case and Vijay Kapoor's case decided by this Court, no averment had been made ixi respect of other residential buildings owned by a landlord. There was complete non-disclosure as to whether any such residential building owned by the landlord was in his possession or not. In the present case, as I have held above, the residential premises at 31, The Mall, Shimla was not owned by the landlord and hence these two earlier judgments of this Court are distinguishable on facts also.',
	(int) 43 => '<p>25. In the present case, the landlord has been non-suited only on the ground that he did not disclose the fact that he was in occupation of certain premises on the Mall Road. Under law he was not required to disclose this fact. He was only required to disclose the factum of occupying another residential building owned by him in the urban area concerned. True it may be, that it would have been better if the landlord had disclosed all the facts but non-disclosure of a fact which he was not under law required to disclose could not in my opinion be a ground to dismiss his eviction petition.',
	(int) 44 => '<p>26. However, what are the premises in his occupation even as a tenant can be taken into consideration while deciding the question whether he bona fide requires the demised premises for his personal use or occupation or not.',
	(int) 45 => '<p>27. Lastly comes the question with regard to the bona fide requirement of the landlord. The landlord has no children. According to the landlord as well as his other witnesses i.e. his brother-in-law PW-2 and his wife PW-3, the wife now wants to come back and settle in Shimla. There is no reason to disbelieve their statements. Even according to the evidence led by the tenant the accommodation in possession of the landlord consists of two rooms, kitchen, bath room etc. Admittedly, the landlord is also having his office as an Architect in this building. The landlord belongs to the middle class of the Society. It cannot be expected of a landlord who owns sufficient property to reside in a two room set wherein he also runs his office.',
	(int) 46 => '<p>28. The law by now is well settled that the landlord is the best judge of the suitability of the accommodation required by him. This suitability has however to be judged in the context of reasonable expectations. The landlord and his wife who are both well educated can reasonably be expected to entertain guests and they will have visitors to their house. They would obviously require a drawing room, a bed room and a spare bed room for guests. Even at his residence the landlord may require another room for his professional work. This is the minimum accommodation which they would require. Even if the accommodation possessed by the landlord, though not owned by him, at 31, the Mall, Shimla is taken into consideration such accommodation is not sufficient to meet his requirements since admittedly the landlord is running his profession of Architect from some portion of his these premises.',
	(int) 47 => '<p>29. Keeping in view the entire facts and circumstances, I am of the considered view that the learned Appellate Authority gravely erred in rejecting the eviction petition of the landlord solely on the ground that he had not disclosed the factum of being in possession of the premises at 31, the Mall Shimla. Even though I have held that the said premises are residential premises, in view of the above discussion I hold that the landlord cannot be non-suited only on the ground of his being in possession of such premises since same were not owned by him.',
	(int) 48 => '<p>30. In view of the above discussion, the Revision Petition is allowed, the order of the learned Appellate Authority dated 6.5.2003 is seaside and the order of the Rent Controller dated 22.8.2001 is restored.',
	(int) 49 => '<p>31. Keeping in view the fact that the tenant has been in possession of the premises for a long period he is granted time up to 31st October, 2008 to vacate the premises.',
	(int) 50 => '<p>32. No order as to costs.<p>',
	(int) 51 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 52
$i = (int) 20
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

13. A perusal of the bare provisions of the Act makes it clear that there are certain essential ingredients which the landlord must satisfy before seeking eviction of the tenant under the Act. Not only must he prove that the residential building is bona fide required by him for his own use and occupation but he must also plead and prove that he is not occupying any other residential building owned by him in the urban area concerned and further that he has not vacated such a building without sufficient cause within 5 years of the filing of the application.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Shri Arun Bhanwara Vs Shri S L Srivastava - Citation 891084 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '891084',
			'acts' => '',
			'appealno' => '',
			'appellant' => 'Shri Arun Bhanwara',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Shri Arun Bhanwara Vs. Shri S.L. Srivastava',
			'casenote' => ' - CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908.[C.A. No. 5/1908]. Order 14, Rule 2 [As amended by Amending Act of 1976]: [V.K. Gupta, CJ, Deepak Gupta & Surjit Singh, JJ] Preliminary issue of law and fact  Court framing all issues both of law and facts together and also  tried all the issues together, including the issue relating to jurisdiction of Court  Held, Except in situations perceived or warranted under sub-rule (2) of Rule 2 of Order 14 where a  Court in fact frames only issues of law in the first instance and postpones settlement of other issues, clearly and explicitly in situations where the Court has framed all issues together, both of law as well as facts and has also tried all these issues together, it is not open to the Court to adopt the principle of severability and proceed to decide issues of law first, without taking up simultaneously other issues for decision. This course of action is not available to a Court because sub-rule (1) does not permit the  Court to adopt any such principle of severability and to dispose of a suit only on preliminary issues, or what can be termed as issues of law. Sub-rule (1)  clearly mandates that in a situation contemplated under it, where all the issues have been together and have also been taken up for adjudication during the course of the trial, these must be decided together and the judgment in the suit as a whole must be pronounced by the Court covering all the issues framed in the suit.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => 'Ram Narain Arora v. Asha Rani;',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => '',
			'counseldef' => '',
			'court' => 'Himachal Pradesh',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2008-07-31',
			'deposition' => 'Petition allowed',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => ' Deepak Gupta, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">Deepak Gupta, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. This Revision Petition under Section 25(5) of the H.P. Urban Rent Control Act, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) is directed against the order of the learned Appellate Authority, Shimla in CMA No. 60-S/14 of 2001 whereby the appeal filed by the respondent (hereinafter referred to as the tenant) has been allowed, the order of the Rent Controller has been set-aside and the petition for eviction filed by the present petitioner (hereinafter referred to as the Landlord) on the ground of personal bona fide requirement has been set-aside.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The undisputed facts are that the landlord is owner of the demised premises situated in building known as Tunnel View, Sanjauli, Shimla-6 consisting of two bed rooms with attached bath room and latrine, drawing-cum-dining room, kitchen and balcony. These premises were purchased by the landlord in the year 1986. Thereafter, the landlord had rented out the premises to one Sh. B.K. Chauhan. According to the landlord, when he got married he requested Sh. B.K. Chauhan to vacate the said premises. Sh. Chauhan vacated the said premises but admittedly the landlord did not occupy the same but rented out the same to the tenant in the year 1990.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. In the year 1997 the landlord filed a petition for eviction of the tenant on two grounds; firstly that the tenant is in arrears of rent from 1.11.1990 to 31.7.1997 and secondly that the premises are bona fide required by the landlord for the use and occupation of himself and his family.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. This petition was contested by the tenant. After trial, the Rent Controller ordered the eviction of the tenant on two grounds; (i) that the tenant was in arrears of rent from November, 1999 till date of order i.e. 22nd August, 2001 and (ii) that the landlord required the premises for his own use and occupation.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. The tenant deposited the rent within the time prescribed. He also filed an appeal challenging the finding on the issue of bona fide requirement. The learned Appellate Authority came to the conclusion that the landlord had not made a proper and full disclosure of facts as required under the provisions of the Act and had withheld material facts from the Court viz. that the landlord was in occupation of residential premises on 31, Mall Road in the urban area of Shimla and as such rejected this petition on this short ground.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. Aggrieved by the said order, the landlord has filed the present Revision Petition.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. I have heard Sh. Ramakant Sharma, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sh. Bhupinder Gupta, learned senior Counsel for the tenant.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. It has been urged on behalf of the landlord that the building which is alleged to be in possession of the landlord i.e. 31, the Mall Shimla is not a residential building and secondly that the building is not owned by him.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. On the other hand Sh. Bhupinder Gupta, learned Counsel of the tenant has strenuously urged that the landlord in para 18 has not stated anything about any building being owned by him and has only made an averment that he does not own or possess any other such building within the urban area Shimla. It is contended by Sh. Bhupinder Gupta that the landlord of his own volition did not state anything about the ownership of the building and since he has kept silent about the building which he is in occupation he has made a false averment and therefore his petition for eviction has rightly been rejected.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. I am not at all in agreement with the contention of the landlord that the premises known as 31, the Mall Shimla which are admittedly in the occupation of the landlord are commercial premises only and not being used by him for his residence. As pointed out above, the landlord purchased the demised premises in 1986. They fell vacant when he got married despite that he did not occupy the same and rented out the same to the tenant in the year 1990. The question that arises is where was the landlord living for this entire period. According to the landlord after the year 1994 he has been living with his brother-in-law Rajan (wife's brother) PW-2, since the year 1994. Prior to 1994 the landlord will have this Court to believe that he was living off and on with one friend or the other. This story is impossible to believe. The landlord was married in the year 1999. He is an Architect by profession. His wife is a law graduate. It is not believable that such a person would have no permanent abode and would continue to live as a guest with his friends for almost 5 years after his marriage. Even the story that he has been living with his brother-in-law after the year 1994 does not inspire confidence. It stands proved on record that the brother-in-law PW-2 Rajan lives with his own family i.e. wife and children. From the evidence it is also clear that the parents of the brother-in-law also reside with him, His flat consists of only two rooms. The flat in possession of the landlord at 31, the Mall Shimla, also consists of two rooms, kitchen and bath room. Even assuming that he was running an office in the part of the flat it cannot be believed that he would not live on his own flat on the Mall Road and reside with his brother-in-law in cramped premises. Even in the electoral list the landlord is shown to be a resident of 31, The Mall, Shimla. Therefore, I am of the considered view that the building 31, the Mall, Shimla was also being used as a residence by the landlord.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. Having held so, the question that arises is whether the landlord can be non-suited only on the ground that he has not made any disclosure about the residential accommodation available with him which premises were admittedly not owned by him.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. The short question which arises for decision in this petition is whether the landlord was guilty of suppressing and withholding such relevant facts which would disentitle him from seeking eviction of the tenant. To appreciate these contentions it would be necessary to refer to relevant portion of Section 14(3) of the Act:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Section 14:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1 and 2 xxxxxxxxxxx</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(3) A landlord may apply to the Controller for an order directing the tenant to put the landlord in possession-</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(a) in case of residential building, if</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(i) he required it for his own occupation:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Provided that he is not occupying another residential building owned by him, in the urban area concerned:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Provided further that he has not vacated such a building without sufficient cause within five years of the filing of the application, in the said urban area....</p><p style="text-align: justify;">13. A perusal of the bare provisions of the Act makes it clear that there are certain essential ingredients which the landlord must satisfy before seeking eviction of the tenant under the Act. Not only must he prove that the residential building is bona fide required by him for his own use and occupation but he must also plead and prove that he is not occupying any other residential building owned by him in the urban area concerned and further that he has not vacated such a building without sufficient cause within 5 years of the filing of the application.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">14. Reference may now be made to the relevant allegations made in para 18 of the eviction petition:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(ii) That the petitioner bona fide requires the premises for his own use and occupation and also for the use and occupation of his family.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The petitioner does not own or possess any other such building within the urban area of Simla nor the petitioner has vacated any such premises within five years of the filing of this petition.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The family of the petitioner presently consists of himself and his wife. Due to paucity of accommodation the petitioner has not been able to keep his wife with himself at Simla, where he is working as an Engineer and she has been residing at Chandigarh since 1991 but on account of her ill health she has been brought to Simla by the petitioner. The petitioner at present is seeking temporary shelter, from time to time, with his relations.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">15. The learned Appellate Authority came to the conclusion that the landlord had falsely pleaded that he does not own or possess any other such building within the urban area of Shimla and hence rejected the eviction petition on this ground.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">16. On a close analysis of the proviso to Section 14(3)(a)(i) of the Act it is clear that a landlord is not entitled to seek eviction of a tenant from residential building even in case of bona fide requirement if the landlord is occupying another residential building owned by him in the urban area concerned. One can read three essential ingredients in this proviso i.e. (i) that the landlord is in occupation of another residential building; (ii) that the said residential building is owned by him and (iii) that the said residential building is situated in the concerned urban area.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">17. The question that arises is what is the impact of the landlord not making a disclosure in respect of premises which he is occupying but are not owned by him.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">18. The Apex Court in Onkar Nath v. Ved Vyas ILR 1979 HP 1, held as follows:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">It is common ground that there are three requirements to make out a cause of action for eviction under that provision, and indeed this is apparent from a bare reading of the sub-section. In the present case the finding is to the effect that the landlord requires the residential building for his own occupation. But, the legislation has taken care to insist upon two more conditions, namely; (a) that the landlord is not occupying any other residential building in the area concerned; and (b) that he has not vacated such a building without sufficient cause. There is not a scintilla of evidence nor indeed there is any averment in compliance with these latter conditions. The necessary consequence follows that not merely is there inadequacy of pleadings sufficient to make out a cause of action but total absence of proof of two vital requirements....</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The Supreme Court also said that:.The statute benignly designed to protect tenants from unreasonable evictions has taken case to put restrictions which must be rigorously construed to fulfil the purpose of the statute.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">19. Following the aforesaid judgment and other pronouncements of the Apex Court, a learned Single Judge of this Court in Tara Chand Sharma v. Baij Nath and Ors. 1992 (2) R.C.J. 323, held as follows:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">16. What appears as the legislative intent, in bold relief, is that the landlord, while seeking eviction of a tenant on the ground that he needs a residential building for his own occupation, must come out clearly and honestly with facts relating to the requirement that he is not occupying another residential building owned by him, in the urban area concerned and that he had not vacated such a building without sufficient cause within five years of the filing of the application, in the said urban area. The primal burden of making a clear disclosure would lie upon the landlord, for, the true facts would be in his special knowledge. An order in his favour by the Rent Controller would depend upon the satisfaction of the Rent Controller in regard not only to the claim that the landlord requires the accommodation, from which he wishes to evict a tenant, for his own occupation but also that he was not occupying another residential building owned by him nor had he vacated such building without sufficient cause within five years of the filing of the application in the application in the urban area concerned....</p><p style="text-align: justify;">It was further held as under:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">18. That the landlord should make a full disclosure of the relevant facts, pertaining to the requirements of Sub-section (3)(a)(i) and the two provisos, becomes all the more necessary because the satisfaction of the Rent Controller in regard thereto is the condition precedent for the making of an order in favour of the landlord....</p><p style="text-align: justify;">20. The aforesaid judgment has been followed in a number of other cases including Vijay Kapoor v. Maya Ram 1997 (2) RCR 437, wherein another learned single Judge of this Court following the aforesaid judgment held that the landlord must make complete and proper disclosure of all the material facts.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">21. On the other hand Sh. Ramakant Sharma has relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in Ram Narain Arora v. Asha Rani 1998(2) RCR 268. In that case the Rent Controller came to the conclusion that the landlord had suppressed material information and had not disclosed the fact that he was already in occupation of a house in Subji Mandi. Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act reads as follows:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Section 14(1)(e). That the premises let for residential purposes are required bona fide by the landlord for occupation as a residence for himself or for any member of his family dependent on him, if he is the owner thereof, or for any person for whose benefit the premises are held and that the landlord or such person has no other reasonably suitable residential accommodation.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">22. The difference between Delhi Act and the present Act is that under the Delhi Act the only requirement is that the landlord has no other reasonably suitable accommodation whereas under the Himachal Act the residential premises are required to be owned by the landlord. The Apex Court in Rama Narain Arora's case (supra) held that the nondisclosure of the fact that the landlord was in occupation of certain premises in Subji Mandi was.not a ground to non-suit the landlord in view of the facts and circumstances of the case. The Apex Court held as follows:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. In making a claim that the suit premises is required bona fide for his own occupation as a residence for himself and other members of his family dependent on him and that he has no other reasonably suitable accommodation is a requirement of law before the Court can state whether the landlord requires the premises bona fide for his use and occupation. In doing so, the Court must also find out whether the landlord or such other person for whose benefit the premises is required has no other reasonably suitable residential accommodation. It cannot be said that the requirement of the landlord is not intermixed with the question of finding out whether he has any other reasonably suitable accommodation. If he has other reasonably suitable accommodation, ihen necessarily it would mean that he does not require the suit premises and his requirement may not be bona fide. In such circumstances further inquiry would be whether that premises is more suitable than the suit premises. Therefore, the questions raised before the Court would not necessarily depend upon only the pleadings. It could be a good defence that the landlord has other reasonably suitable residential accommodation and thereby defend the claim of the landlord.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. There cannot be a pedantic or a dogmatic approach in the matter of analysis of pleadings or of the evidence adduced thereto. It is no doubt true that if the pleadings are clearly set out, it would be easy for the Court to decide the matters. But if the pleadings are lacking or vague and if both parties have understood what was the case pleaded and put forth with reference to requirement of law and placed such material before the Court, neither party is prejudiced. If we analyse from this angle, we do not think that the High Court was not justified in interfering with the order made by the Rent Controller.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">23. From the perusal of the judgment of the Apex Court it is apparent that the Rent Controller must approach the matter in a practical manner. In case the non-disclosure is such as that it goes to the very root of the case the Rent Controller would be justified in non-suiting the landlord. However, if the non-disclosure is such that it would not prejudice the rights of the respondent then the landlord should not be non-suited only on this ground.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">24. The decisions of this Court cited hereinabove were delivered prior to the judgment delivered by the Apex Court in Ram Nar'ain Arora's case. Further more both in Tara Chand Sharma's case and Vijay Kapoor's case decided by this Court, no averment had been made ixi respect of other residential buildings owned by a landlord. There was complete non-disclosure as to whether any such residential building owned by the landlord was in his possession or not. In the present case, as I have held above, the residential premises at 31, The Mall, Shimla was not owned by the landlord and hence these two earlier judgments of this Court are distinguishable on facts also.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">25. In the present case, the landlord has been non-suited only on the ground that he did not disclose the fact that he was in occupation of certain premises on the Mall Road. Under law he was not required to disclose this fact. He was only required to disclose the factum of occupying another residential building owned by him in the urban area concerned. True it may be, that it would have been better if the landlord had disclosed all the facts but non-disclosure of a fact which he was not under law required to disclose could not in my opinion be a ground to dismiss his eviction petition.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">26. However, what are the premises in his occupation even as a tenant can be taken into consideration while deciding the question whether he bona fide requires the demised premises for his personal use or occupation or not.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">27. Lastly comes the question with regard to the bona fide requirement of the landlord. The landlord has no children. According to the landlord as well as his other witnesses i.e. his brother-in-law PW-2 and his wife PW-3, the wife now wants to come back and settle in Shimla. There is no reason to disbelieve their statements. Even according to the evidence led by the tenant the accommodation in possession of the landlord consists of two rooms, kitchen, bath room etc. Admittedly, the landlord is also having his office as an Architect in this building. The landlord belongs to the middle class of the Society. It cannot be expected of a landlord who owns sufficient property to reside in a two room set wherein he also runs his office.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">28. The law by now is well settled that the landlord is the best judge of the suitability of the accommodation required by him. This suitability has however to be judged in the context of reasonable expectations. The landlord and his wife who are both well educated can reasonably be expected to entertain guests and they will have visitors to their house. They would obviously require a drawing room, a bed room and a spare bed room for guests. Even at his residence the landlord may require another room for his professional work. This is the minimum accommodation which they would require. Even if the accommodation possessed by the landlord, though not owned by him, at 31, the Mall, Shimla is taken into consideration such accommodation is not sufficient to meet his requirements since admittedly the landlord is running his profession of Architect from some portion of his these premises.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">29. Keeping in view the entire facts and circumstances, I am of the considered view that the learned Appellate Authority gravely erred in rejecting the eviction petition of the landlord solely on the ground that he had not disclosed the factum of being in possession of the premises at 31, the Mall Shimla. Even though I have held that the said premises are residential premises, in view of the above discussion I hold that the landlord cannot be non-suited only on the ground of his being in possession of such premises since same were not owned by him.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">30. In view of the above discussion, the Revision Petition is allowed, the order of the learned Appellate Authority dated 6.5.2003 is seaside and the order of the Rent Controller dated 22.8.2001 is restored.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">31. Keeping in view the fact that the tenant has been in possession of the premises for a long period he is granted time up to 31st October, 2008 to vacate the premises.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">32. No order as to costs.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '2008(2)ShimLC491',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'Shri S.L. Srivastava',
			'sub' => 'Tenancy',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'shri-arun-bhanwara-vs-s-l-srivastava',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '891084',
		(int) 1 => 'shri-arun-bhanwara-vs-s-l-srivastava'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Shri Arun Bhanwara Vs Shri S L Srivastava - Citation 891084 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '891084',
		'acts' => '',
		'appealno' => '',
		'appellant' => 'Shri Arun Bhanwara',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Shri Arun Bhanwara Vs. Shri S.L. Srivastava',
		'casenote' => ' - CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908.[C.A. No. 5/1908]. Order 14, Rule 2 [As amended by Amending Act of 1976]: [V.K. Gupta, CJ, Deepak Gupta & Surjit Singh, JJ] Preliminary issue of law and fact  Court framing all issues both of law and facts together and also  tried all the issues together, including the issue relating to jurisdiction of Court  Held, Except in situations perceived or warranted under sub-rule (2) of Rule 2 of Order 14 where a  Court in fact frames only issues of law in the first instance and postpones settlement of other issues, clearly and explicitly in situations where the Court has framed all issues together, both of law as well as facts and has also tried all these issues together, it is not open to the Court to adopt the principle of severability and proceed to decide issues of law first, without taking up simultaneously other issues for decision. This course of action is not available to a Court because sub-rule (1) does not permit the  Court to adopt any such principle of severability and to dispose of a suit only on preliminary issues, or what can be termed as issues of law. Sub-rule (1)  clearly mandates that in a situation contemplated under it, where all the issues have been together and have also been taken up for adjudication during the course of the trial, these must be decided together and the judgment in the suit as a whole must be pronounced by the Court covering all the issues framed in the suit.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => 'Ram Narain Arora v. Asha Rani;',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => '',
		'counseldef' => '',
		'court' => 'Himachal Pradesh',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2008-07-31',
		'deposition' => 'Petition allowed',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => ' Deepak Gupta, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>Deepak Gupta, J.</p><p>1. This Revision Petition under Section 25(5) of the H.P. Urban Rent Control Act, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) is directed against the order of the learned Appellate Authority, Shimla in CMA No. 60-S/14 of 2001 whereby the appeal filed by the respondent (hereinafter referred to as the tenant) has been allowed, the order of the Rent Controller has been set-aside and the petition for eviction filed by the present petitioner (hereinafter referred to as the Landlord) on the ground of personal bona fide requirement has been set-aside.</p><p>2. The undisputed facts are that the landlord is owner of the demised premises situated in building known as Tunnel View, Sanjauli, Shimla-6 consisting of two bed rooms with attached bath room and latrine, drawing-cum-dining room, kitchen and balcony. These premises were purchased by the landlord in the year 1986. Thereafter, the landlord had rented out the premises to one Sh. B.K. Chauhan. According to the landlord, when he got married he requested Sh. B.K. Chauhan to vacate the said premises. Sh. Chauhan vacated the said premises but admittedly the landlord did not occupy the same but rented out the same to the tenant in the year 1990.</p><p>3. In the year 1997 the landlord filed a petition for eviction of the tenant on two grounds; firstly that the tenant is in arrears of rent from 1.11.1990 to 31.7.1997 and secondly that the premises are bona fide required by the landlord for the use and occupation of himself and his family.</p><p>4. This petition was contested by the tenant. After trial, the Rent Controller ordered the eviction of the tenant on two grounds; (i) that the tenant was in arrears of rent from November, 1999 till date of order i.e. 22nd August, 2001 and (ii) that the landlord required the premises for his own use and occupation.</p><p>5. The tenant deposited the rent within the time prescribed. He also filed an appeal challenging the finding on the issue of bona fide requirement. The learned Appellate Authority came to the conclusion that the landlord had not made a proper and full disclosure of facts as required under the provisions of the Act and had withheld material facts from the Court viz. that the landlord was in occupation of residential premises on 31, Mall Road in the urban area of Shimla and as such rejected this petition on this short ground.</p><p>6. Aggrieved by the said order, the landlord has filed the present Revision Petition.</p><p>7. I have heard Sh. Ramakant Sharma, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sh. Bhupinder Gupta, learned senior Counsel for the tenant.</p><p>8. It has been urged on behalf of the landlord that the building which is alleged to be in possession of the landlord i.e. 31, the Mall Shimla is not a residential building and secondly that the building is not owned by him.</p><p>9. On the other hand Sh. Bhupinder Gupta, learned Counsel of the tenant has strenuously urged that the landlord in para 18 has not stated anything about any building being owned by him and has only made an averment that he does not own or possess any other such building within the urban area Shimla. It is contended by Sh. Bhupinder Gupta that the landlord of his own volition did not state anything about the ownership of the building and since he has kept silent about the building which he is in occupation he has made a false averment and therefore his petition for eviction has rightly been rejected.</p><p>10. I am not at all in agreement with the contention of the landlord that the premises known as 31, the Mall Shimla which are admittedly in the occupation of the landlord are commercial premises only and not being used by him for his residence. As pointed out above, the landlord purchased the demised premises in 1986. They fell vacant when he got married despite that he did not occupy the same and rented out the same to the tenant in the year 1990. The question that arises is where was the landlord living for this entire period. According to the landlord after the year 1994 he has been living with his brother-in-law Rajan (wife's brother) PW-2, since the year 1994. Prior to 1994 the landlord will have this Court to believe that he was living off and on with one friend or the other. This story is impossible to believe. The landlord was married in the year 1999. He is an Architect by profession. His wife is a law graduate. It is not believable that such a person would have no permanent abode and would continue to live as a guest with his friends for almost 5 years after his marriage. Even the story that he has been living with his brother-in-law after the year 1994 does not inspire confidence. It stands proved on record that the brother-in-law PW-2 Rajan lives with his own family i.e. wife and children. From the evidence it is also clear that the parents of the brother-in-law also reside with him, His flat consists of only two rooms. The flat in possession of the landlord at 31, the Mall Shimla, also consists of two rooms, kitchen and bath room. Even assuming that he was running an office in the part of the flat it cannot be believed that he would not live on his own flat on the Mall Road and reside with his brother-in-law in cramped premises. Even in the electoral list the landlord is shown to be a resident of 31, The Mall, Shimla. Therefore, I am of the considered view that the building 31, the Mall, Shimla was also being used as a residence by the landlord.</p><p>11. Having held so, the question that arises is whether the landlord can be non-suited only on the ground that he has not made any disclosure about the residential accommodation available with him which premises were admittedly not owned by him.</p><p>12. The short question which arises for decision in this petition is whether the landlord was guilty of suppressing and withholding such relevant facts which would disentitle him from seeking eviction of the tenant. To appreciate these contentions it would be necessary to refer to relevant portion of Section 14(3) of the Act:</p><p>Section 14:</p><p>1 and 2 xxxxxxxxxxx</p><p>(3) A landlord may apply to the Controller for an order directing the tenant to put the landlord in possession-</p><p>(a) in case of residential building, if</p><p>(i) he required it for his own occupation:</p><p>Provided that he is not occupying another residential building owned by him, in the urban area concerned:</p><p>Provided further that he has not vacated such a building without sufficient cause within five years of the filing of the application, in the said urban area....</p><p>13. A perusal of the bare provisions of the Act makes it clear that there are certain essential ingredients which the landlord must satisfy before seeking eviction of the tenant under the Act. Not only must he prove that the residential building is bona fide required by him for his own use and occupation but he must also plead and prove that he is not occupying any other residential building owned by him in the urban area concerned and further that he has not vacated such a building without sufficient cause within 5 years of the filing of the application.</p><p>14. Reference may now be made to the relevant allegations made in para 18 of the eviction petition:</p><p>(ii) That the petitioner bona fide requires the premises for his own use and occupation and also for the use and occupation of his family.</p><p>The petitioner does not own or possess any other such building within the urban area of Simla nor the petitioner has vacated any such premises within five years of the filing of this petition.</p><p>The family of the petitioner presently consists of himself and his wife. Due to paucity of accommodation the petitioner has not been able to keep his wife with himself at Simla, where he is working as an Engineer and she has been residing at Chandigarh since 1991 but on account of her ill health she has been brought to Simla by the petitioner. The petitioner at present is seeking temporary shelter, from time to time, with his relations.</p><p>15. The learned Appellate Authority came to the conclusion that the landlord had falsely pleaded that he does not own or possess any other such building within the urban area of Shimla and hence rejected the eviction petition on this ground.</p><p>16. On a close analysis of the proviso to Section 14(3)(a)(i) of the Act it is clear that a landlord is not entitled to seek eviction of a tenant from residential building even in case of bona fide requirement if the landlord is occupying another residential building owned by him in the urban area concerned. One can read three essential ingredients in this proviso i.e. (i) that the landlord is in occupation of another residential building; (ii) that the said residential building is owned by him and (iii) that the said residential building is situated in the concerned urban area.</p><p>17. The question that arises is what is the impact of the landlord not making a disclosure in respect of premises which he is occupying but are not owned by him.</p><p>18. The Apex Court in Onkar Nath v. Ved Vyas ILR 1979 HP 1, held as follows:</p><p>It is common ground that there are three requirements to make out a cause of action for eviction under that provision, and indeed this is apparent from a bare reading of the sub-section. In the present case the finding is to the effect that the landlord requires the residential building for his own occupation. But, the legislation has taken care to insist upon two more conditions, namely; (a) that the landlord is not occupying any other residential building in the area concerned; and (b) that he has not vacated such a building without sufficient cause. There is not a scintilla of evidence nor indeed there is any averment in compliance with these latter conditions. The necessary consequence follows that not merely is there inadequacy of pleadings sufficient to make out a cause of action but total absence of proof of two vital requirements....</p><p>The Supreme Court also said that:.The statute benignly designed to protect tenants from unreasonable evictions has taken case to put restrictions which must be rigorously construed to fulfil the purpose of the statute.</p><p>19. Following the aforesaid judgment and other pronouncements of the Apex Court, a learned Single Judge of this Court in Tara Chand Sharma v. Baij Nath and Ors. 1992 (2) R.C.J. 323, held as follows:</p><p>16. What appears as the legislative intent, in bold relief, is that the landlord, while seeking eviction of a tenant on the ground that he needs a residential building for his own occupation, must come out clearly and honestly with facts relating to the requirement that he is not occupying another residential building owned by him, in the urban area concerned and that he had not vacated such a building without sufficient cause within five years of the filing of the application, in the said urban area. The primal burden of making a clear disclosure would lie upon the landlord, for, the true facts would be in his special knowledge. An order in his favour by the Rent Controller would depend upon the satisfaction of the Rent Controller in regard not only to the claim that the landlord requires the accommodation, from which he wishes to evict a tenant, for his own occupation but also that he was not occupying another residential building owned by him nor had he vacated such building without sufficient cause within five years of the filing of the application in the application in the urban area concerned....</p><p>It was further held as under:</p><p>18. That the landlord should make a full disclosure of the relevant facts, pertaining to the requirements of Sub-section (3)(a)(i) and the two provisos, becomes all the more necessary because the satisfaction of the Rent Controller in regard thereto is the condition precedent for the making of an order in favour of the landlord....</p><p>20. The aforesaid judgment has been followed in a number of other cases including Vijay Kapoor v. Maya Ram 1997 (2) RCR 437, wherein another learned single Judge of this Court following the aforesaid judgment held that the landlord must make complete and proper disclosure of all the material facts.</p><p>21. On the other hand Sh. Ramakant Sharma has relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in Ram Narain Arora v. Asha Rani 1998(2) RCR 268. In that case the Rent Controller came to the conclusion that the landlord had suppressed material information and had not disclosed the fact that he was already in occupation of a house in Subji Mandi. Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act reads as follows:</p><p>Section 14(1)(e). That the premises let for residential purposes are required bona fide by the landlord for occupation as a residence for himself or for any member of his family dependent on him, if he is the owner thereof, or for any person for whose benefit the premises are held and that the landlord or such person has no other reasonably suitable residential accommodation.</p><p>22. The difference between Delhi Act and the present Act is that under the Delhi Act the only requirement is that the landlord has no other reasonably suitable accommodation whereas under the Himachal Act the residential premises are required to be owned by the landlord. The Apex Court in Rama Narain Arora's case (supra) held that the nondisclosure of the fact that the landlord was in occupation of certain premises in Subji Mandi was.not a ground to non-suit the landlord in view of the facts and circumstances of the case. The Apex Court held as follows:</p><p>9. In making a claim that the suit premises is required bona fide for his own occupation as a residence for himself and other members of his family dependent on him and that he has no other reasonably suitable accommodation is a requirement of law before the Court can state whether the landlord requires the premises bona fide for his use and occupation. In doing so, the Court must also find out whether the landlord or such other person for whose benefit the premises is required has no other reasonably suitable residential accommodation. It cannot be said that the requirement of the landlord is not intermixed with the question of finding out whether he has any other reasonably suitable accommodation. If he has other reasonably suitable accommodation, ihen necessarily it would mean that he does not require the suit premises and his requirement may not be bona fide. In such circumstances further inquiry would be whether that premises is more suitable than the suit premises. Therefore, the questions raised before the Court would not necessarily depend upon only the pleadings. It could be a good defence that the landlord has other reasonably suitable residential accommodation and thereby defend the claim of the landlord.</p><p>10. There cannot be a pedantic or a dogmatic approach in the matter of analysis of pleadings or of the evidence adduced thereto. It is no doubt true that if the pleadings are clearly set out, it would be easy for the Court to decide the matters. But if the pleadings are lacking or vague and if both parties have understood what was the case pleaded and put forth with reference to requirement of law and placed such material before the Court, neither party is prejudiced. If we analyse from this angle, we do not think that the High Court was not justified in interfering with the order made by the Rent Controller.</p><p>23. From the perusal of the judgment of the Apex Court it is apparent that the Rent Controller must approach the matter in a practical manner. In case the non-disclosure is such as that it goes to the very root of the case the Rent Controller would be justified in non-suiting the landlord. However, if the non-disclosure is such that it would not prejudice the rights of the respondent then the landlord should not be non-suited only on this ground.</p><p>24. The decisions of this Court cited hereinabove were delivered prior to the judgment delivered by the Apex Court in Ram Nar'ain Arora's case. Further more both in Tara Chand Sharma's case and Vijay Kapoor's case decided by this Court, no averment had been made ixi respect of other residential buildings owned by a landlord. There was complete non-disclosure as to whether any such residential building owned by the landlord was in his possession or not. In the present case, as I have held above, the residential premises at 31, The Mall, Shimla was not owned by the landlord and hence these two earlier judgments of this Court are distinguishable on facts also.</p><p>25. In the present case, the landlord has been non-suited only on the ground that he did not disclose the fact that he was in occupation of certain premises on the Mall Road. Under law he was not required to disclose this fact. He was only required to disclose the factum of occupying another residential building owned by him in the urban area concerned. True it may be, that it would have been better if the landlord had disclosed all the facts but non-disclosure of a fact which he was not under law required to disclose could not in my opinion be a ground to dismiss his eviction petition.</p><p>26. However, what are the premises in his occupation even as a tenant can be taken into consideration while deciding the question whether he bona fide requires the demised premises for his personal use or occupation or not.</p><p>27. Lastly comes the question with regard to the bona fide requirement of the landlord. The landlord has no children. According to the landlord as well as his other witnesses i.e. his brother-in-law PW-2 and his wife PW-3, the wife now wants to come back and settle in Shimla. There is no reason to disbelieve their statements. Even according to the evidence led by the tenant the accommodation in possession of the landlord consists of two rooms, kitchen, bath room etc. Admittedly, the landlord is also having his office as an Architect in this building. The landlord belongs to the middle class of the Society. It cannot be expected of a landlord who owns sufficient property to reside in a two room set wherein he also runs his office.</p><p>28. The law by now is well settled that the landlord is the best judge of the suitability of the accommodation required by him. This suitability has however to be judged in the context of reasonable expectations. The landlord and his wife who are both well educated can reasonably be expected to entertain guests and they will have visitors to their house. They would obviously require a drawing room, a bed room and a spare bed room for guests. Even at his residence the landlord may require another room for his professional work. This is the minimum accommodation which they would require. Even if the accommodation possessed by the landlord, though not owned by him, at 31, the Mall, Shimla is taken into consideration such accommodation is not sufficient to meet his requirements since admittedly the landlord is running his profession of Architect from some portion of his these premises.</p><p>29. Keeping in view the entire facts and circumstances, I am of the considered view that the learned Appellate Authority gravely erred in rejecting the eviction petition of the landlord solely on the ground that he had not disclosed the factum of being in possession of the premises at 31, the Mall Shimla. Even though I have held that the said premises are residential premises, in view of the above discussion I hold that the landlord cannot be non-suited only on the ground of his being in possession of such premises since same were not owned by him.</p><p>30. In view of the above discussion, the Revision Petition is allowed, the order of the learned Appellate Authority dated 6.5.2003 is seaside and the order of the Rent Controller dated 22.8.2001 is restored.</p><p>31. Keeping in view the fact that the tenant has been in possession of the premises for a long period he is granted time up to 31st October, 2008 to vacate the premises.</p><p>32. No order as to costs.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '2008(2)ShimLC491',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'Shri S.L. Srivastava',
		'sub' => 'Tenancy',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'shri-arun-bhanwara-vs-s-l-srivastava'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '891084',
	(int) 1 => 'shri-arun-bhanwara-vs-s-l-srivastava'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/891084/shri-arun-bhanwara-vs-s-l-srivastava'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$caseref = 'Ram Narain Arora v. Asha Rani<br>'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>Deepak Gupta, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. This Revision Petition under Section 25(5) of the H.P. Urban Rent Control Act, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) is directed against the order of the learned Appellate Authority, Shimla in CMA No. 60-S/14 of 2001 whereby the appeal filed by the respondent (hereinafter referred to as the tenant) has been allowed, the order of the Rent Controller has been set-aside and the petition for eviction filed by the present petitioner (hereinafter referred to as the Landlord) on the ground of personal bona fide requirement has been set-aside.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. The undisputed facts are that the landlord is owner of the demised premises situated in building known as Tunnel View, Sanjauli, Shimla-6 consisting of two bed rooms with attached bath room and latrine, drawing-cum-dining room, kitchen and balcony. These premises were purchased by the landlord in the year 1986. Thereafter, the landlord had rented out the premises to one Sh. B.K. Chauhan. According to the landlord, when he got married he requested Sh. B.K. Chauhan to vacate the said premises. Sh. Chauhan vacated the said premises but admittedly the landlord did not occupy the same but rented out the same to the tenant in the year 1990.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. In the year 1997 the landlord filed a petition for eviction of the tenant on two grounds; firstly that the tenant is in arrears of rent from 1.11.1990 to 31.7.1997 and secondly that the premises are bona fide required by the landlord for the use and occupation of himself and his family.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>4. This petition was contested by the tenant. After trial, the Rent Controller ordered the eviction of the tenant on two grounds; (i) that the tenant was in arrears of rent from November, 1999 till date of order i.e. 22nd August, 2001 and (ii) that the landlord required the premises for his own use and occupation.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>5. The tenant deposited the rent within the time prescribed. He also filed an appeal challenging the finding on the issue of bona fide requirement. The learned Appellate Authority came to the conclusion that the landlord had not made a proper and full disclosure of facts as required under the provisions of the Act and had withheld material facts from the Court viz. that the landlord was in occupation of residential premises on 31, Mall Road in the urban area of Shimla and as such rejected this petition on this short ground.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>6. Aggrieved by the said order, the landlord has filed the present Revision Petition.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>7. I have heard Sh. Ramakant Sharma, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sh. Bhupinder Gupta, learned senior Counsel for the tenant.',
	(int) 8 => '<p>8. It has been urged on behalf of the landlord that the building which is alleged to be in possession of the landlord i.e. 31, the Mall Shimla is not a residential building and secondly that the building is not owned by him.',
	(int) 9 => '<p>9. On the other hand Sh. Bhupinder Gupta, learned Counsel of the tenant has strenuously urged that the landlord in para 18 has not stated anything about any building being owned by him and has only made an averment that he does not own or possess any other such building within the urban area Shimla. It is contended by Sh. Bhupinder Gupta that the landlord of his own volition did not state anything about the ownership of the building and since he has kept silent about the building which he is in occupation he has made a false averment and therefore his petition for eviction has rightly been rejected.',
	(int) 10 => '<p>10. I am not at all in agreement with the contention of the landlord that the premises known as 31, the Mall Shimla which are admittedly in the occupation of the landlord are commercial premises only and not being used by him for his residence. As pointed out above, the landlord purchased the demised premises in 1986. They fell vacant when he got married despite that he did not occupy the same and rented out the same to the tenant in the year 1990. The question that arises is where was the landlord living for this entire period. According to the landlord after the year 1994 he has been living with his brother-in-law Rajan (wife's brother) PW-2, since the year 1994. Prior to 1994 the landlord will have this Court to believe that he was living off and on with one friend or the other. This story is impossible to believe. The landlord was married in the year 1999. He is an Architect by profession. His wife is a law graduate. It is not believable that such a person would have no permanent abode and would continue to live as a guest with his friends for almost 5 years after his marriage. Even the story that he has been living with his brother-in-law after the year 1994 does not inspire confidence. It stands proved on record that the brother-in-law PW-2 Rajan lives with his own family i.e. wife and children. From the evidence it is also clear that the parents of the brother-in-law also reside with him, His flat consists of only two rooms. The flat in possession of the landlord at 31, the Mall Shimla, also consists of two rooms, kitchen and bath room. Even assuming that he was running an office in the part of the flat it cannot be believed that he would not live on his own flat on the Mall Road and reside with his brother-in-law in cramped premises. Even in the electoral list the landlord is shown to be a resident of 31, The Mall, Shimla. Therefore, I am of the considered view that the building 31, the Mall, Shimla was also being used as a residence by the landlord.',
	(int) 11 => '<p>11. Having held so, the question that arises is whether the landlord can be non-suited only on the ground that he has not made any disclosure about the residential accommodation available with him which premises were admittedly not owned by him.',
	(int) 12 => '<p>12. The short question which arises for decision in this petition is whether the landlord was guilty of suppressing and withholding such relevant facts which would disentitle him from seeking eviction of the tenant. To appreciate these contentions it would be necessary to refer to relevant portion of Section 14(3) of the Act:',
	(int) 13 => '<p>Section 14:',
	(int) 14 => '<p>1 and 2 xxxxxxxxxxx',
	(int) 15 => '<p>(3) A landlord may apply to the Controller for an order directing the tenant to put the landlord in possession-',
	(int) 16 => '<p>(a) in case of residential building, if',
	(int) 17 => '<p>(i) he required it for his own occupation:',
	(int) 18 => '<p>Provided that he is not occupying another residential building owned by him, in the urban area concerned:',
	(int) 19 => '<p>Provided further that he has not vacated such a building without sufficient cause within five years of the filing of the application, in the said urban area....',
	(int) 20 => '<p>13. A perusal of the bare provisions of the Act makes it clear that there are certain essential ingredients which the landlord must satisfy before seeking eviction of the tenant under the Act. Not only must he prove that the residential building is bona fide required by him for his own use and occupation but he must also plead and prove that he is not occupying any other residential building owned by him in the urban area concerned and further that he has not vacated such a building without sufficient cause within 5 years of the filing of the application.',
	(int) 21 => '<p>14. Reference may now be made to the relevant allegations made in para 18 of the eviction petition:',
	(int) 22 => '<p>(ii) That the petitioner bona fide requires the premises for his own use and occupation and also for the use and occupation of his family.',
	(int) 23 => '<p>The petitioner does not own or possess any other such building within the urban area of Simla nor the petitioner has vacated any such premises within five years of the filing of this petition.',
	(int) 24 => '<p>The family of the petitioner presently consists of himself and his wife. Due to paucity of accommodation the petitioner has not been able to keep his wife with himself at Simla, where he is working as an Engineer and she has been residing at Chandigarh since 1991 but on account of her ill health she has been brought to Simla by the petitioner. The petitioner at present is seeking temporary shelter, from time to time, with his relations.',
	(int) 25 => '<p>15. The learned Appellate Authority came to the conclusion that the landlord had falsely pleaded that he does not own or possess any other such building within the urban area of Shimla and hence rejected the eviction petition on this ground.',
	(int) 26 => '<p>16. On a close analysis of the proviso to Section 14(3)(a)(i) of the Act it is clear that a landlord is not entitled to seek eviction of a tenant from residential building even in case of bona fide requirement if the landlord is occupying another residential building owned by him in the urban area concerned. One can read three essential ingredients in this proviso i.e. (i) that the landlord is in occupation of another residential building; (ii) that the said residential building is owned by him and (iii) that the said residential building is situated in the concerned urban area.',
	(int) 27 => '<p>17. The question that arises is what is the impact of the landlord not making a disclosure in respect of premises which he is occupying but are not owned by him.',
	(int) 28 => '<p>18. The Apex Court in Onkar Nath v. Ved Vyas ILR 1979 HP 1, held as follows:',
	(int) 29 => '<p>It is common ground that there are three requirements to make out a cause of action for eviction under that provision, and indeed this is apparent from a bare reading of the sub-section. In the present case the finding is to the effect that the landlord requires the residential building for his own occupation. But, the legislation has taken care to insist upon two more conditions, namely; (a) that the landlord is not occupying any other residential building in the area concerned; and (b) that he has not vacated such a building without sufficient cause. There is not a scintilla of evidence nor indeed there is any averment in compliance with these latter conditions. The necessary consequence follows that not merely is there inadequacy of pleadings sufficient to make out a cause of action but total absence of proof of two vital requirements....',
	(int) 30 => '<p>The Supreme Court also said that:.The statute benignly designed to protect tenants from unreasonable evictions has taken case to put restrictions which must be rigorously construed to fulfil the purpose of the statute.',
	(int) 31 => '<p>19. Following the aforesaid judgment and other pronouncements of the Apex Court, a learned Single Judge of this Court in Tara Chand Sharma v. Baij Nath and Ors. 1992 (2) R.C.J. 323, held as follows:',
	(int) 32 => '<p>16. What appears as the legislative intent, in bold relief, is that the landlord, while seeking eviction of a tenant on the ground that he needs a residential building for his own occupation, must come out clearly and honestly with facts relating to the requirement that he is not occupying another residential building owned by him, in the urban area concerned and that he had not vacated such a building without sufficient cause within five years of the filing of the application, in the said urban area. The primal burden of making a clear disclosure would lie upon the landlord, for, the true facts would be in his special knowledge. An order in his favour by the Rent Controller would depend upon the satisfaction of the Rent Controller in regard not only to the claim that the landlord requires the accommodation, from which he wishes to evict a tenant, for his own occupation but also that he was not occupying another residential building owned by him nor had he vacated such building without sufficient cause within five years of the filing of the application in the application in the urban area concerned....',
	(int) 33 => '<p>It was further held as under:',
	(int) 34 => '<p>18. That the landlord should make a full disclosure of the relevant facts, pertaining to the requirements of Sub-section (3)(a)(i) and the two provisos, becomes all the more necessary because the satisfaction of the Rent Controller in regard thereto is the condition precedent for the making of an order in favour of the landlord....',
	(int) 35 => '<p>20. The aforesaid judgment has been followed in a number of other cases including Vijay Kapoor v. Maya Ram 1997 (2) RCR 437, wherein another learned single Judge of this Court following the aforesaid judgment held that the landlord must make complete and proper disclosure of all the material facts.',
	(int) 36 => '<p>21. On the other hand Sh. Ramakant Sharma has relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in Ram Narain Arora v. Asha Rani 1998(2) RCR 268. In that case the Rent Controller came to the conclusion that the landlord had suppressed material information and had not disclosed the fact that he was already in occupation of a house in Subji Mandi. Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act reads as follows:',
	(int) 37 => '<p>Section 14(1)(e). That the premises let for residential purposes are required bona fide by the landlord for occupation as a residence for himself or for any member of his family dependent on him, if he is the owner thereof, or for any person for whose benefit the premises are held and that the landlord or such person has no other reasonably suitable residential accommodation.',
	(int) 38 => '<p>22. The difference between Delhi Act and the present Act is that under the Delhi Act the only requirement is that the landlord has no other reasonably suitable accommodation whereas under the Himachal Act the residential premises are required to be owned by the landlord. The Apex Court in Rama Narain Arora's case (supra) held that the nondisclosure of the fact that the landlord was in occupation of certain premises in Subji Mandi was.not a ground to non-suit the landlord in view of the facts and circumstances of the case. The Apex Court held as follows:',
	(int) 39 => '<p>9. In making a claim that the suit premises is required bona fide for his own occupation as a residence for himself and other members of his family dependent on him and that he has no other reasonably suitable accommodation is a requirement of law before the Court can state whether the landlord requires the premises bona fide for his use and occupation. In doing so, the Court must also find out whether the landlord or such other person for whose benefit the premises is required has no other reasonably suitable residential accommodation. It cannot be said that the requirement of the landlord is not intermixed with the question of finding out whether he has any other reasonably suitable accommodation. If he has other reasonably suitable accommodation, ihen necessarily it would mean that he does not require the suit premises and his requirement may not be bona fide. In such circumstances further inquiry would be whether that premises is more suitable than the suit premises. Therefore, the questions raised before the Court would not necessarily depend upon only the pleadings. It could be a good defence that the landlord has other reasonably suitable residential accommodation and thereby defend the claim of the landlord.',
	(int) 40 => '<p>10. There cannot be a pedantic or a dogmatic approach in the matter of analysis of pleadings or of the evidence adduced thereto. It is no doubt true that if the pleadings are clearly set out, it would be easy for the Court to decide the matters. But if the pleadings are lacking or vague and if both parties have understood what was the case pleaded and put forth with reference to requirement of law and placed such material before the Court, neither party is prejudiced. If we analyse from this angle, we do not think that the High Court was not justified in interfering with the order made by the Rent Controller.',
	(int) 41 => '<p>23. From the perusal of the judgment of the Apex Court it is apparent that the Rent Controller must approach the matter in a practical manner. In case the non-disclosure is such as that it goes to the very root of the case the Rent Controller would be justified in non-suiting the landlord. However, if the non-disclosure is such that it would not prejudice the rights of the respondent then the landlord should not be non-suited only on this ground.',
	(int) 42 => '<p>24. The decisions of this Court cited hereinabove were delivered prior to the judgment delivered by the Apex Court in Ram Nar'ain Arora's case. Further more both in Tara Chand Sharma's case and Vijay Kapoor's case decided by this Court, no averment had been made ixi respect of other residential buildings owned by a landlord. There was complete non-disclosure as to whether any such residential building owned by the landlord was in his possession or not. In the present case, as I have held above, the residential premises at 31, The Mall, Shimla was not owned by the landlord and hence these two earlier judgments of this Court are distinguishable on facts also.',
	(int) 43 => '<p>25. In the present case, the landlord has been non-suited only on the ground that he did not disclose the fact that he was in occupation of certain premises on the Mall Road. Under law he was not required to disclose this fact. He was only required to disclose the factum of occupying another residential building owned by him in the urban area concerned. True it may be, that it would have been better if the landlord had disclosed all the facts but non-disclosure of a fact which he was not under law required to disclose could not in my opinion be a ground to dismiss his eviction petition.',
	(int) 44 => '<p>26. However, what are the premises in his occupation even as a tenant can be taken into consideration while deciding the question whether he bona fide requires the demised premises for his personal use or occupation or not.',
	(int) 45 => '<p>27. Lastly comes the question with regard to the bona fide requirement of the landlord. The landlord has no children. According to the landlord as well as his other witnesses i.e. his brother-in-law PW-2 and his wife PW-3, the wife now wants to come back and settle in Shimla. There is no reason to disbelieve their statements. Even according to the evidence led by the tenant the accommodation in possession of the landlord consists of two rooms, kitchen, bath room etc. Admittedly, the landlord is also having his office as an Architect in this building. The landlord belongs to the middle class of the Society. It cannot be expected of a landlord who owns sufficient property to reside in a two room set wherein he also runs his office.',
	(int) 46 => '<p>28. The law by now is well settled that the landlord is the best judge of the suitability of the accommodation required by him. This suitability has however to be judged in the context of reasonable expectations. The landlord and his wife who are both well educated can reasonably be expected to entertain guests and they will have visitors to their house. They would obviously require a drawing room, a bed room and a spare bed room for guests. Even at his residence the landlord may require another room for his professional work. This is the minimum accommodation which they would require. Even if the accommodation possessed by the landlord, though not owned by him, at 31, the Mall, Shimla is taken into consideration such accommodation is not sufficient to meet his requirements since admittedly the landlord is running his profession of Architect from some portion of his these premises.',
	(int) 47 => '<p>29. Keeping in view the entire facts and circumstances, I am of the considered view that the learned Appellate Authority gravely erred in rejecting the eviction petition of the landlord solely on the ground that he had not disclosed the factum of being in possession of the premises at 31, the Mall Shimla. Even though I have held that the said premises are residential premises, in view of the above discussion I hold that the landlord cannot be non-suited only on the ground of his being in possession of such premises since same were not owned by him.',
	(int) 48 => '<p>30. In view of the above discussion, the Revision Petition is allowed, the order of the learned Appellate Authority dated 6.5.2003 is seaside and the order of the Rent Controller dated 22.8.2001 is restored.',
	(int) 49 => '<p>31. Keeping in view the fact that the tenant has been in possession of the premises for a long period he is granted time up to 31st October, 2008 to vacate the premises.',
	(int) 50 => '<p>32. No order as to costs.<p>',
	(int) 51 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 52
$i = (int) 21
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

14. Reference may now be made to the relevant allegations made in para 18 of the eviction petition:

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Shri Arun Bhanwara Vs Shri S L Srivastava - Citation 891084 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '891084',
			'acts' => '',
			'appealno' => '',
			'appellant' => 'Shri Arun Bhanwara',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Shri Arun Bhanwara Vs. Shri S.L. Srivastava',
			'casenote' => ' - CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908.[C.A. No. 5/1908]. Order 14, Rule 2 [As amended by Amending Act of 1976]: [V.K. Gupta, CJ, Deepak Gupta & Surjit Singh, JJ] Preliminary issue of law and fact  Court framing all issues both of law and facts together and also  tried all the issues together, including the issue relating to jurisdiction of Court  Held, Except in situations perceived or warranted under sub-rule (2) of Rule 2 of Order 14 where a  Court in fact frames only issues of law in the first instance and postpones settlement of other issues, clearly and explicitly in situations where the Court has framed all issues together, both of law as well as facts and has also tried all these issues together, it is not open to the Court to adopt the principle of severability and proceed to decide issues of law first, without taking up simultaneously other issues for decision. This course of action is not available to a Court because sub-rule (1) does not permit the  Court to adopt any such principle of severability and to dispose of a suit only on preliminary issues, or what can be termed as issues of law. Sub-rule (1)  clearly mandates that in a situation contemplated under it, where all the issues have been together and have also been taken up for adjudication during the course of the trial, these must be decided together and the judgment in the suit as a whole must be pronounced by the Court covering all the issues framed in the suit.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => 'Ram Narain Arora v. Asha Rani;',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => '',
			'counseldef' => '',
			'court' => 'Himachal Pradesh',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2008-07-31',
			'deposition' => 'Petition allowed',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => ' Deepak Gupta, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">Deepak Gupta, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. This Revision Petition under Section 25(5) of the H.P. Urban Rent Control Act, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) is directed against the order of the learned Appellate Authority, Shimla in CMA No. 60-S/14 of 2001 whereby the appeal filed by the respondent (hereinafter referred to as the tenant) has been allowed, the order of the Rent Controller has been set-aside and the petition for eviction filed by the present petitioner (hereinafter referred to as the Landlord) on the ground of personal bona fide requirement has been set-aside.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The undisputed facts are that the landlord is owner of the demised premises situated in building known as Tunnel View, Sanjauli, Shimla-6 consisting of two bed rooms with attached bath room and latrine, drawing-cum-dining room, kitchen and balcony. These premises were purchased by the landlord in the year 1986. Thereafter, the landlord had rented out the premises to one Sh. B.K. Chauhan. According to the landlord, when he got married he requested Sh. B.K. Chauhan to vacate the said premises. Sh. Chauhan vacated the said premises but admittedly the landlord did not occupy the same but rented out the same to the tenant in the year 1990.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. In the year 1997 the landlord filed a petition for eviction of the tenant on two grounds; firstly that the tenant is in arrears of rent from 1.11.1990 to 31.7.1997 and secondly that the premises are bona fide required by the landlord for the use and occupation of himself and his family.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. This petition was contested by the tenant. After trial, the Rent Controller ordered the eviction of the tenant on two grounds; (i) that the tenant was in arrears of rent from November, 1999 till date of order i.e. 22nd August, 2001 and (ii) that the landlord required the premises for his own use and occupation.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. The tenant deposited the rent within the time prescribed. He also filed an appeal challenging the finding on the issue of bona fide requirement. The learned Appellate Authority came to the conclusion that the landlord had not made a proper and full disclosure of facts as required under the provisions of the Act and had withheld material facts from the Court viz. that the landlord was in occupation of residential premises on 31, Mall Road in the urban area of Shimla and as such rejected this petition on this short ground.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. Aggrieved by the said order, the landlord has filed the present Revision Petition.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. I have heard Sh. Ramakant Sharma, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sh. Bhupinder Gupta, learned senior Counsel for the tenant.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. It has been urged on behalf of the landlord that the building which is alleged to be in possession of the landlord i.e. 31, the Mall Shimla is not a residential building and secondly that the building is not owned by him.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. On the other hand Sh. Bhupinder Gupta, learned Counsel of the tenant has strenuously urged that the landlord in para 18 has not stated anything about any building being owned by him and has only made an averment that he does not own or possess any other such building within the urban area Shimla. It is contended by Sh. Bhupinder Gupta that the landlord of his own volition did not state anything about the ownership of the building and since he has kept silent about the building which he is in occupation he has made a false averment and therefore his petition for eviction has rightly been rejected.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. I am not at all in agreement with the contention of the landlord that the premises known as 31, the Mall Shimla which are admittedly in the occupation of the landlord are commercial premises only and not being used by him for his residence. As pointed out above, the landlord purchased the demised premises in 1986. They fell vacant when he got married despite that he did not occupy the same and rented out the same to the tenant in the year 1990. The question that arises is where was the landlord living for this entire period. According to the landlord after the year 1994 he has been living with his brother-in-law Rajan (wife's brother) PW-2, since the year 1994. Prior to 1994 the landlord will have this Court to believe that he was living off and on with one friend or the other. This story is impossible to believe. The landlord was married in the year 1999. He is an Architect by profession. His wife is a law graduate. It is not believable that such a person would have no permanent abode and would continue to live as a guest with his friends for almost 5 years after his marriage. Even the story that he has been living with his brother-in-law after the year 1994 does not inspire confidence. It stands proved on record that the brother-in-law PW-2 Rajan lives with his own family i.e. wife and children. From the evidence it is also clear that the parents of the brother-in-law also reside with him, His flat consists of only two rooms. The flat in possession of the landlord at 31, the Mall Shimla, also consists of two rooms, kitchen and bath room. Even assuming that he was running an office in the part of the flat it cannot be believed that he would not live on his own flat on the Mall Road and reside with his brother-in-law in cramped premises. Even in the electoral list the landlord is shown to be a resident of 31, The Mall, Shimla. Therefore, I am of the considered view that the building 31, the Mall, Shimla was also being used as a residence by the landlord.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. Having held so, the question that arises is whether the landlord can be non-suited only on the ground that he has not made any disclosure about the residential accommodation available with him which premises were admittedly not owned by him.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. The short question which arises for decision in this petition is whether the landlord was guilty of suppressing and withholding such relevant facts which would disentitle him from seeking eviction of the tenant. To appreciate these contentions it would be necessary to refer to relevant portion of Section 14(3) of the Act:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Section 14:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1 and 2 xxxxxxxxxxx</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(3) A landlord may apply to the Controller for an order directing the tenant to put the landlord in possession-</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(a) in case of residential building, if</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(i) he required it for his own occupation:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Provided that he is not occupying another residential building owned by him, in the urban area concerned:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Provided further that he has not vacated such a building without sufficient cause within five years of the filing of the application, in the said urban area....</p><p style="text-align: justify;">13. A perusal of the bare provisions of the Act makes it clear that there are certain essential ingredients which the landlord must satisfy before seeking eviction of the tenant under the Act. Not only must he prove that the residential building is bona fide required by him for his own use and occupation but he must also plead and prove that he is not occupying any other residential building owned by him in the urban area concerned and further that he has not vacated such a building without sufficient cause within 5 years of the filing of the application.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">14. Reference may now be made to the relevant allegations made in para 18 of the eviction petition:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(ii) That the petitioner bona fide requires the premises for his own use and occupation and also for the use and occupation of his family.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The petitioner does not own or possess any other such building within the urban area of Simla nor the petitioner has vacated any such premises within five years of the filing of this petition.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The family of the petitioner presently consists of himself and his wife. Due to paucity of accommodation the petitioner has not been able to keep his wife with himself at Simla, where he is working as an Engineer and she has been residing at Chandigarh since 1991 but on account of her ill health she has been brought to Simla by the petitioner. The petitioner at present is seeking temporary shelter, from time to time, with his relations.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">15. The learned Appellate Authority came to the conclusion that the landlord had falsely pleaded that he does not own or possess any other such building within the urban area of Shimla and hence rejected the eviction petition on this ground.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">16. On a close analysis of the proviso to Section 14(3)(a)(i) of the Act it is clear that a landlord is not entitled to seek eviction of a tenant from residential building even in case of bona fide requirement if the landlord is occupying another residential building owned by him in the urban area concerned. One can read three essential ingredients in this proviso i.e. (i) that the landlord is in occupation of another residential building; (ii) that the said residential building is owned by him and (iii) that the said residential building is situated in the concerned urban area.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">17. The question that arises is what is the impact of the landlord not making a disclosure in respect of premises which he is occupying but are not owned by him.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">18. The Apex Court in Onkar Nath v. Ved Vyas ILR 1979 HP 1, held as follows:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">It is common ground that there are three requirements to make out a cause of action for eviction under that provision, and indeed this is apparent from a bare reading of the sub-section. In the present case the finding is to the effect that the landlord requires the residential building for his own occupation. But, the legislation has taken care to insist upon two more conditions, namely; (a) that the landlord is not occupying any other residential building in the area concerned; and (b) that he has not vacated such a building without sufficient cause. There is not a scintilla of evidence nor indeed there is any averment in compliance with these latter conditions. The necessary consequence follows that not merely is there inadequacy of pleadings sufficient to make out a cause of action but total absence of proof of two vital requirements....</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The Supreme Court also said that:.The statute benignly designed to protect tenants from unreasonable evictions has taken case to put restrictions which must be rigorously construed to fulfil the purpose of the statute.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">19. Following the aforesaid judgment and other pronouncements of the Apex Court, a learned Single Judge of this Court in Tara Chand Sharma v. Baij Nath and Ors. 1992 (2) R.C.J. 323, held as follows:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">16. What appears as the legislative intent, in bold relief, is that the landlord, while seeking eviction of a tenant on the ground that he needs a residential building for his own occupation, must come out clearly and honestly with facts relating to the requirement that he is not occupying another residential building owned by him, in the urban area concerned and that he had not vacated such a building without sufficient cause within five years of the filing of the application, in the said urban area. The primal burden of making a clear disclosure would lie upon the landlord, for, the true facts would be in his special knowledge. An order in his favour by the Rent Controller would depend upon the satisfaction of the Rent Controller in regard not only to the claim that the landlord requires the accommodation, from which he wishes to evict a tenant, for his own occupation but also that he was not occupying another residential building owned by him nor had he vacated such building without sufficient cause within five years of the filing of the application in the application in the urban area concerned....</p><p style="text-align: justify;">It was further held as under:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">18. That the landlord should make a full disclosure of the relevant facts, pertaining to the requirements of Sub-section (3)(a)(i) and the two provisos, becomes all the more necessary because the satisfaction of the Rent Controller in regard thereto is the condition precedent for the making of an order in favour of the landlord....</p><p style="text-align: justify;">20. The aforesaid judgment has been followed in a number of other cases including Vijay Kapoor v. Maya Ram 1997 (2) RCR 437, wherein another learned single Judge of this Court following the aforesaid judgment held that the landlord must make complete and proper disclosure of all the material facts.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">21. On the other hand Sh. Ramakant Sharma has relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in Ram Narain Arora v. Asha Rani 1998(2) RCR 268. In that case the Rent Controller came to the conclusion that the landlord had suppressed material information and had not disclosed the fact that he was already in occupation of a house in Subji Mandi. Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act reads as follows:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Section 14(1)(e). That the premises let for residential purposes are required bona fide by the landlord for occupation as a residence for himself or for any member of his family dependent on him, if he is the owner thereof, or for any person for whose benefit the premises are held and that the landlord or such person has no other reasonably suitable residential accommodation.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">22. The difference between Delhi Act and the present Act is that under the Delhi Act the only requirement is that the landlord has no other reasonably suitable accommodation whereas under the Himachal Act the residential premises are required to be owned by the landlord. The Apex Court in Rama Narain Arora's case (supra) held that the nondisclosure of the fact that the landlord was in occupation of certain premises in Subji Mandi was.not a ground to non-suit the landlord in view of the facts and circumstances of the case. The Apex Court held as follows:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. In making a claim that the suit premises is required bona fide for his own occupation as a residence for himself and other members of his family dependent on him and that he has no other reasonably suitable accommodation is a requirement of law before the Court can state whether the landlord requires the premises bona fide for his use and occupation. In doing so, the Court must also find out whether the landlord or such other person for whose benefit the premises is required has no other reasonably suitable residential accommodation. It cannot be said that the requirement of the landlord is not intermixed with the question of finding out whether he has any other reasonably suitable accommodation. If he has other reasonably suitable accommodation, ihen necessarily it would mean that he does not require the suit premises and his requirement may not be bona fide. In such circumstances further inquiry would be whether that premises is more suitable than the suit premises. Therefore, the questions raised before the Court would not necessarily depend upon only the pleadings. It could be a good defence that the landlord has other reasonably suitable residential accommodation and thereby defend the claim of the landlord.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. There cannot be a pedantic or a dogmatic approach in the matter of analysis of pleadings or of the evidence adduced thereto. It is no doubt true that if the pleadings are clearly set out, it would be easy for the Court to decide the matters. But if the pleadings are lacking or vague and if both parties have understood what was the case pleaded and put forth with reference to requirement of law and placed such material before the Court, neither party is prejudiced. If we analyse from this angle, we do not think that the High Court was not justified in interfering with the order made by the Rent Controller.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">23. From the perusal of the judgment of the Apex Court it is apparent that the Rent Controller must approach the matter in a practical manner. In case the non-disclosure is such as that it goes to the very root of the case the Rent Controller would be justified in non-suiting the landlord. However, if the non-disclosure is such that it would not prejudice the rights of the respondent then the landlord should not be non-suited only on this ground.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">24. The decisions of this Court cited hereinabove were delivered prior to the judgment delivered by the Apex Court in Ram Nar'ain Arora's case. Further more both in Tara Chand Sharma's case and Vijay Kapoor's case decided by this Court, no averment had been made ixi respect of other residential buildings owned by a landlord. There was complete non-disclosure as to whether any such residential building owned by the landlord was in his possession or not. In the present case, as I have held above, the residential premises at 31, The Mall, Shimla was not owned by the landlord and hence these two earlier judgments of this Court are distinguishable on facts also.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">25. In the present case, the landlord has been non-suited only on the ground that he did not disclose the fact that he was in occupation of certain premises on the Mall Road. Under law he was not required to disclose this fact. He was only required to disclose the factum of occupying another residential building owned by him in the urban area concerned. True it may be, that it would have been better if the landlord had disclosed all the facts but non-disclosure of a fact which he was not under law required to disclose could not in my opinion be a ground to dismiss his eviction petition.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">26. However, what are the premises in his occupation even as a tenant can be taken into consideration while deciding the question whether he bona fide requires the demised premises for his personal use or occupation or not.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">27. Lastly comes the question with regard to the bona fide requirement of the landlord. The landlord has no children. According to the landlord as well as his other witnesses i.e. his brother-in-law PW-2 and his wife PW-3, the wife now wants to come back and settle in Shimla. There is no reason to disbelieve their statements. Even according to the evidence led by the tenant the accommodation in possession of the landlord consists of two rooms, kitchen, bath room etc. Admittedly, the landlord is also having his office as an Architect in this building. The landlord belongs to the middle class of the Society. It cannot be expected of a landlord who owns sufficient property to reside in a two room set wherein he also runs his office.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">28. The law by now is well settled that the landlord is the best judge of the suitability of the accommodation required by him. This suitability has however to be judged in the context of reasonable expectations. The landlord and his wife who are both well educated can reasonably be expected to entertain guests and they will have visitors to their house. They would obviously require a drawing room, a bed room and a spare bed room for guests. Even at his residence the landlord may require another room for his professional work. This is the minimum accommodation which they would require. Even if the accommodation possessed by the landlord, though not owned by him, at 31, the Mall, Shimla is taken into consideration such accommodation is not sufficient to meet his requirements since admittedly the landlord is running his profession of Architect from some portion of his these premises.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">29. Keeping in view the entire facts and circumstances, I am of the considered view that the learned Appellate Authority gravely erred in rejecting the eviction petition of the landlord solely on the ground that he had not disclosed the factum of being in possession of the premises at 31, the Mall Shimla. Even though I have held that the said premises are residential premises, in view of the above discussion I hold that the landlord cannot be non-suited only on the ground of his being in possession of such premises since same were not owned by him.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">30. In view of the above discussion, the Revision Petition is allowed, the order of the learned Appellate Authority dated 6.5.2003 is seaside and the order of the Rent Controller dated 22.8.2001 is restored.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">31. Keeping in view the fact that the tenant has been in possession of the premises for a long period he is granted time up to 31st October, 2008 to vacate the premises.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">32. No order as to costs.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '2008(2)ShimLC491',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'Shri S.L. Srivastava',
			'sub' => 'Tenancy',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'shri-arun-bhanwara-vs-s-l-srivastava',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '891084',
		(int) 1 => 'shri-arun-bhanwara-vs-s-l-srivastava'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Shri Arun Bhanwara Vs Shri S L Srivastava - Citation 891084 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '891084',
		'acts' => '',
		'appealno' => '',
		'appellant' => 'Shri Arun Bhanwara',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Shri Arun Bhanwara Vs. Shri S.L. Srivastava',
		'casenote' => ' - CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908.[C.A. No. 5/1908]. Order 14, Rule 2 [As amended by Amending Act of 1976]: [V.K. Gupta, CJ, Deepak Gupta & Surjit Singh, JJ] Preliminary issue of law and fact  Court framing all issues both of law and facts together and also  tried all the issues together, including the issue relating to jurisdiction of Court  Held, Except in situations perceived or warranted under sub-rule (2) of Rule 2 of Order 14 where a  Court in fact frames only issues of law in the first instance and postpones settlement of other issues, clearly and explicitly in situations where the Court has framed all issues together, both of law as well as facts and has also tried all these issues together, it is not open to the Court to adopt the principle of severability and proceed to decide issues of law first, without taking up simultaneously other issues for decision. This course of action is not available to a Court because sub-rule (1) does not permit the  Court to adopt any such principle of severability and to dispose of a suit only on preliminary issues, or what can be termed as issues of law. Sub-rule (1)  clearly mandates that in a situation contemplated under it, where all the issues have been together and have also been taken up for adjudication during the course of the trial, these must be decided together and the judgment in the suit as a whole must be pronounced by the Court covering all the issues framed in the suit.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => 'Ram Narain Arora v. Asha Rani;',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => '',
		'counseldef' => '',
		'court' => 'Himachal Pradesh',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2008-07-31',
		'deposition' => 'Petition allowed',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => ' Deepak Gupta, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>Deepak Gupta, J.</p><p>1. This Revision Petition under Section 25(5) of the H.P. Urban Rent Control Act, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) is directed against the order of the learned Appellate Authority, Shimla in CMA No. 60-S/14 of 2001 whereby the appeal filed by the respondent (hereinafter referred to as the tenant) has been allowed, the order of the Rent Controller has been set-aside and the petition for eviction filed by the present petitioner (hereinafter referred to as the Landlord) on the ground of personal bona fide requirement has been set-aside.</p><p>2. The undisputed facts are that the landlord is owner of the demised premises situated in building known as Tunnel View, Sanjauli, Shimla-6 consisting of two bed rooms with attached bath room and latrine, drawing-cum-dining room, kitchen and balcony. These premises were purchased by the landlord in the year 1986. Thereafter, the landlord had rented out the premises to one Sh. B.K. Chauhan. According to the landlord, when he got married he requested Sh. B.K. Chauhan to vacate the said premises. Sh. Chauhan vacated the said premises but admittedly the landlord did not occupy the same but rented out the same to the tenant in the year 1990.</p><p>3. In the year 1997 the landlord filed a petition for eviction of the tenant on two grounds; firstly that the tenant is in arrears of rent from 1.11.1990 to 31.7.1997 and secondly that the premises are bona fide required by the landlord for the use and occupation of himself and his family.</p><p>4. This petition was contested by the tenant. After trial, the Rent Controller ordered the eviction of the tenant on two grounds; (i) that the tenant was in arrears of rent from November, 1999 till date of order i.e. 22nd August, 2001 and (ii) that the landlord required the premises for his own use and occupation.</p><p>5. The tenant deposited the rent within the time prescribed. He also filed an appeal challenging the finding on the issue of bona fide requirement. The learned Appellate Authority came to the conclusion that the landlord had not made a proper and full disclosure of facts as required under the provisions of the Act and had withheld material facts from the Court viz. that the landlord was in occupation of residential premises on 31, Mall Road in the urban area of Shimla and as such rejected this petition on this short ground.</p><p>6. Aggrieved by the said order, the landlord has filed the present Revision Petition.</p><p>7. I have heard Sh. Ramakant Sharma, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sh. Bhupinder Gupta, learned senior Counsel for the tenant.</p><p>8. It has been urged on behalf of the landlord that the building which is alleged to be in possession of the landlord i.e. 31, the Mall Shimla is not a residential building and secondly that the building is not owned by him.</p><p>9. On the other hand Sh. Bhupinder Gupta, learned Counsel of the tenant has strenuously urged that the landlord in para 18 has not stated anything about any building being owned by him and has only made an averment that he does not own or possess any other such building within the urban area Shimla. It is contended by Sh. Bhupinder Gupta that the landlord of his own volition did not state anything about the ownership of the building and since he has kept silent about the building which he is in occupation he has made a false averment and therefore his petition for eviction has rightly been rejected.</p><p>10. I am not at all in agreement with the contention of the landlord that the premises known as 31, the Mall Shimla which are admittedly in the occupation of the landlord are commercial premises only and not being used by him for his residence. As pointed out above, the landlord purchased the demised premises in 1986. They fell vacant when he got married despite that he did not occupy the same and rented out the same to the tenant in the year 1990. The question that arises is where was the landlord living for this entire period. According to the landlord after the year 1994 he has been living with his brother-in-law Rajan (wife's brother) PW-2, since the year 1994. Prior to 1994 the landlord will have this Court to believe that he was living off and on with one friend or the other. This story is impossible to believe. The landlord was married in the year 1999. He is an Architect by profession. His wife is a law graduate. It is not believable that such a person would have no permanent abode and would continue to live as a guest with his friends for almost 5 years after his marriage. Even the story that he has been living with his brother-in-law after the year 1994 does not inspire confidence. It stands proved on record that the brother-in-law PW-2 Rajan lives with his own family i.e. wife and children. From the evidence it is also clear that the parents of the brother-in-law also reside with him, His flat consists of only two rooms. The flat in possession of the landlord at 31, the Mall Shimla, also consists of two rooms, kitchen and bath room. Even assuming that he was running an office in the part of the flat it cannot be believed that he would not live on his own flat on the Mall Road and reside with his brother-in-law in cramped premises. Even in the electoral list the landlord is shown to be a resident of 31, The Mall, Shimla. Therefore, I am of the considered view that the building 31, the Mall, Shimla was also being used as a residence by the landlord.</p><p>11. Having held so, the question that arises is whether the landlord can be non-suited only on the ground that he has not made any disclosure about the residential accommodation available with him which premises were admittedly not owned by him.</p><p>12. The short question which arises for decision in this petition is whether the landlord was guilty of suppressing and withholding such relevant facts which would disentitle him from seeking eviction of the tenant. To appreciate these contentions it would be necessary to refer to relevant portion of Section 14(3) of the Act:</p><p>Section 14:</p><p>1 and 2 xxxxxxxxxxx</p><p>(3) A landlord may apply to the Controller for an order directing the tenant to put the landlord in possession-</p><p>(a) in case of residential building, if</p><p>(i) he required it for his own occupation:</p><p>Provided that he is not occupying another residential building owned by him, in the urban area concerned:</p><p>Provided further that he has not vacated such a building without sufficient cause within five years of the filing of the application, in the said urban area....</p><p>13. A perusal of the bare provisions of the Act makes it clear that there are certain essential ingredients which the landlord must satisfy before seeking eviction of the tenant under the Act. Not only must he prove that the residential building is bona fide required by him for his own use and occupation but he must also plead and prove that he is not occupying any other residential building owned by him in the urban area concerned and further that he has not vacated such a building without sufficient cause within 5 years of the filing of the application.</p><p>14. Reference may now be made to the relevant allegations made in para 18 of the eviction petition:</p><p>(ii) That the petitioner bona fide requires the premises for his own use and occupation and also for the use and occupation of his family.</p><p>The petitioner does not own or possess any other such building within the urban area of Simla nor the petitioner has vacated any such premises within five years of the filing of this petition.</p><p>The family of the petitioner presently consists of himself and his wife. Due to paucity of accommodation the petitioner has not been able to keep his wife with himself at Simla, where he is working as an Engineer and she has been residing at Chandigarh since 1991 but on account of her ill health she has been brought to Simla by the petitioner. The petitioner at present is seeking temporary shelter, from time to time, with his relations.</p><p>15. The learned Appellate Authority came to the conclusion that the landlord had falsely pleaded that he does not own or possess any other such building within the urban area of Shimla and hence rejected the eviction petition on this ground.</p><p>16. On a close analysis of the proviso to Section 14(3)(a)(i) of the Act it is clear that a landlord is not entitled to seek eviction of a tenant from residential building even in case of bona fide requirement if the landlord is occupying another residential building owned by him in the urban area concerned. One can read three essential ingredients in this proviso i.e. (i) that the landlord is in occupation of another residential building; (ii) that the said residential building is owned by him and (iii) that the said residential building is situated in the concerned urban area.</p><p>17. The question that arises is what is the impact of the landlord not making a disclosure in respect of premises which he is occupying but are not owned by him.</p><p>18. The Apex Court in Onkar Nath v. Ved Vyas ILR 1979 HP 1, held as follows:</p><p>It is common ground that there are three requirements to make out a cause of action for eviction under that provision, and indeed this is apparent from a bare reading of the sub-section. In the present case the finding is to the effect that the landlord requires the residential building for his own occupation. But, the legislation has taken care to insist upon two more conditions, namely; (a) that the landlord is not occupying any other residential building in the area concerned; and (b) that he has not vacated such a building without sufficient cause. There is not a scintilla of evidence nor indeed there is any averment in compliance with these latter conditions. The necessary consequence follows that not merely is there inadequacy of pleadings sufficient to make out a cause of action but total absence of proof of two vital requirements....</p><p>The Supreme Court also said that:.The statute benignly designed to protect tenants from unreasonable evictions has taken case to put restrictions which must be rigorously construed to fulfil the purpose of the statute.</p><p>19. Following the aforesaid judgment and other pronouncements of the Apex Court, a learned Single Judge of this Court in Tara Chand Sharma v. Baij Nath and Ors. 1992 (2) R.C.J. 323, held as follows:</p><p>16. What appears as the legislative intent, in bold relief, is that the landlord, while seeking eviction of a tenant on the ground that he needs a residential building for his own occupation, must come out clearly and honestly with facts relating to the requirement that he is not occupying another residential building owned by him, in the urban area concerned and that he had not vacated such a building without sufficient cause within five years of the filing of the application, in the said urban area. The primal burden of making a clear disclosure would lie upon the landlord, for, the true facts would be in his special knowledge. An order in his favour by the Rent Controller would depend upon the satisfaction of the Rent Controller in regard not only to the claim that the landlord requires the accommodation, from which he wishes to evict a tenant, for his own occupation but also that he was not occupying another residential building owned by him nor had he vacated such building without sufficient cause within five years of the filing of the application in the application in the urban area concerned....</p><p>It was further held as under:</p><p>18. That the landlord should make a full disclosure of the relevant facts, pertaining to the requirements of Sub-section (3)(a)(i) and the two provisos, becomes all the more necessary because the satisfaction of the Rent Controller in regard thereto is the condition precedent for the making of an order in favour of the landlord....</p><p>20. The aforesaid judgment has been followed in a number of other cases including Vijay Kapoor v. Maya Ram 1997 (2) RCR 437, wherein another learned single Judge of this Court following the aforesaid judgment held that the landlord must make complete and proper disclosure of all the material facts.</p><p>21. On the other hand Sh. Ramakant Sharma has relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in Ram Narain Arora v. Asha Rani 1998(2) RCR 268. In that case the Rent Controller came to the conclusion that the landlord had suppressed material information and had not disclosed the fact that he was already in occupation of a house in Subji Mandi. Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act reads as follows:</p><p>Section 14(1)(e). That the premises let for residential purposes are required bona fide by the landlord for occupation as a residence for himself or for any member of his family dependent on him, if he is the owner thereof, or for any person for whose benefit the premises are held and that the landlord or such person has no other reasonably suitable residential accommodation.</p><p>22. The difference between Delhi Act and the present Act is that under the Delhi Act the only requirement is that the landlord has no other reasonably suitable accommodation whereas under the Himachal Act the residential premises are required to be owned by the landlord. The Apex Court in Rama Narain Arora's case (supra) held that the nondisclosure of the fact that the landlord was in occupation of certain premises in Subji Mandi was.not a ground to non-suit the landlord in view of the facts and circumstances of the case. The Apex Court held as follows:</p><p>9. In making a claim that the suit premises is required bona fide for his own occupation as a residence for himself and other members of his family dependent on him and that he has no other reasonably suitable accommodation is a requirement of law before the Court can state whether the landlord requires the premises bona fide for his use and occupation. In doing so, the Court must also find out whether the landlord or such other person for whose benefit the premises is required has no other reasonably suitable residential accommodation. It cannot be said that the requirement of the landlord is not intermixed with the question of finding out whether he has any other reasonably suitable accommodation. If he has other reasonably suitable accommodation, ihen necessarily it would mean that he does not require the suit premises and his requirement may not be bona fide. In such circumstances further inquiry would be whether that premises is more suitable than the suit premises. Therefore, the questions raised before the Court would not necessarily depend upon only the pleadings. It could be a good defence that the landlord has other reasonably suitable residential accommodation and thereby defend the claim of the landlord.</p><p>10. There cannot be a pedantic or a dogmatic approach in the matter of analysis of pleadings or of the evidence adduced thereto. It is no doubt true that if the pleadings are clearly set out, it would be easy for the Court to decide the matters. But if the pleadings are lacking or vague and if both parties have understood what was the case pleaded and put forth with reference to requirement of law and placed such material before the Court, neither party is prejudiced. If we analyse from this angle, we do not think that the High Court was not justified in interfering with the order made by the Rent Controller.</p><p>23. From the perusal of the judgment of the Apex Court it is apparent that the Rent Controller must approach the matter in a practical manner. In case the non-disclosure is such as that it goes to the very root of the case the Rent Controller would be justified in non-suiting the landlord. However, if the non-disclosure is such that it would not prejudice the rights of the respondent then the landlord should not be non-suited only on this ground.</p><p>24. The decisions of this Court cited hereinabove were delivered prior to the judgment delivered by the Apex Court in Ram Nar'ain Arora's case. Further more both in Tara Chand Sharma's case and Vijay Kapoor's case decided by this Court, no averment had been made ixi respect of other residential buildings owned by a landlord. There was complete non-disclosure as to whether any such residential building owned by the landlord was in his possession or not. In the present case, as I have held above, the residential premises at 31, The Mall, Shimla was not owned by the landlord and hence these two earlier judgments of this Court are distinguishable on facts also.</p><p>25. In the present case, the landlord has been non-suited only on the ground that he did not disclose the fact that he was in occupation of certain premises on the Mall Road. Under law he was not required to disclose this fact. He was only required to disclose the factum of occupying another residential building owned by him in the urban area concerned. True it may be, that it would have been better if the landlord had disclosed all the facts but non-disclosure of a fact which he was not under law required to disclose could not in my opinion be a ground to dismiss his eviction petition.</p><p>26. However, what are the premises in his occupation even as a tenant can be taken into consideration while deciding the question whether he bona fide requires the demised premises for his personal use or occupation or not.</p><p>27. Lastly comes the question with regard to the bona fide requirement of the landlord. The landlord has no children. According to the landlord as well as his other witnesses i.e. his brother-in-law PW-2 and his wife PW-3, the wife now wants to come back and settle in Shimla. There is no reason to disbelieve their statements. Even according to the evidence led by the tenant the accommodation in possession of the landlord consists of two rooms, kitchen, bath room etc. Admittedly, the landlord is also having his office as an Architect in this building. The landlord belongs to the middle class of the Society. It cannot be expected of a landlord who owns sufficient property to reside in a two room set wherein he also runs his office.</p><p>28. The law by now is well settled that the landlord is the best judge of the suitability of the accommodation required by him. This suitability has however to be judged in the context of reasonable expectations. The landlord and his wife who are both well educated can reasonably be expected to entertain guests and they will have visitors to their house. They would obviously require a drawing room, a bed room and a spare bed room for guests. Even at his residence the landlord may require another room for his professional work. This is the minimum accommodation which they would require. Even if the accommodation possessed by the landlord, though not owned by him, at 31, the Mall, Shimla is taken into consideration such accommodation is not sufficient to meet his requirements since admittedly the landlord is running his profession of Architect from some portion of his these premises.</p><p>29. Keeping in view the entire facts and circumstances, I am of the considered view that the learned Appellate Authority gravely erred in rejecting the eviction petition of the landlord solely on the ground that he had not disclosed the factum of being in possession of the premises at 31, the Mall Shimla. Even though I have held that the said premises are residential premises, in view of the above discussion I hold that the landlord cannot be non-suited only on the ground of his being in possession of such premises since same were not owned by him.</p><p>30. In view of the above discussion, the Revision Petition is allowed, the order of the learned Appellate Authority dated 6.5.2003 is seaside and the order of the Rent Controller dated 22.8.2001 is restored.</p><p>31. Keeping in view the fact that the tenant has been in possession of the premises for a long period he is granted time up to 31st October, 2008 to vacate the premises.</p><p>32. No order as to costs.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '2008(2)ShimLC491',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'Shri S.L. Srivastava',
		'sub' => 'Tenancy',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'shri-arun-bhanwara-vs-s-l-srivastava'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '891084',
	(int) 1 => 'shri-arun-bhanwara-vs-s-l-srivastava'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/891084/shri-arun-bhanwara-vs-s-l-srivastava'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$caseref = 'Ram Narain Arora v. Asha Rani<br>'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>Deepak Gupta, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. This Revision Petition under Section 25(5) of the H.P. Urban Rent Control Act, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) is directed against the order of the learned Appellate Authority, Shimla in CMA No. 60-S/14 of 2001 whereby the appeal filed by the respondent (hereinafter referred to as the tenant) has been allowed, the order of the Rent Controller has been set-aside and the petition for eviction filed by the present petitioner (hereinafter referred to as the Landlord) on the ground of personal bona fide requirement has been set-aside.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. The undisputed facts are that the landlord is owner of the demised premises situated in building known as Tunnel View, Sanjauli, Shimla-6 consisting of two bed rooms with attached bath room and latrine, drawing-cum-dining room, kitchen and balcony. These premises were purchased by the landlord in the year 1986. Thereafter, the landlord had rented out the premises to one Sh. B.K. Chauhan. According to the landlord, when he got married he requested Sh. B.K. Chauhan to vacate the said premises. Sh. Chauhan vacated the said premises but admittedly the landlord did not occupy the same but rented out the same to the tenant in the year 1990.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. In the year 1997 the landlord filed a petition for eviction of the tenant on two grounds; firstly that the tenant is in arrears of rent from 1.11.1990 to 31.7.1997 and secondly that the premises are bona fide required by the landlord for the use and occupation of himself and his family.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>4. This petition was contested by the tenant. After trial, the Rent Controller ordered the eviction of the tenant on two grounds; (i) that the tenant was in arrears of rent from November, 1999 till date of order i.e. 22nd August, 2001 and (ii) that the landlord required the premises for his own use and occupation.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>5. The tenant deposited the rent within the time prescribed. He also filed an appeal challenging the finding on the issue of bona fide requirement. The learned Appellate Authority came to the conclusion that the landlord had not made a proper and full disclosure of facts as required under the provisions of the Act and had withheld material facts from the Court viz. that the landlord was in occupation of residential premises on 31, Mall Road in the urban area of Shimla and as such rejected this petition on this short ground.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>6. Aggrieved by the said order, the landlord has filed the present Revision Petition.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>7. I have heard Sh. Ramakant Sharma, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sh. Bhupinder Gupta, learned senior Counsel for the tenant.',
	(int) 8 => '<p>8. It has been urged on behalf of the landlord that the building which is alleged to be in possession of the landlord i.e. 31, the Mall Shimla is not a residential building and secondly that the building is not owned by him.',
	(int) 9 => '<p>9. On the other hand Sh. Bhupinder Gupta, learned Counsel of the tenant has strenuously urged that the landlord in para 18 has not stated anything about any building being owned by him and has only made an averment that he does not own or possess any other such building within the urban area Shimla. It is contended by Sh. Bhupinder Gupta that the landlord of his own volition did not state anything about the ownership of the building and since he has kept silent about the building which he is in occupation he has made a false averment and therefore his petition for eviction has rightly been rejected.',
	(int) 10 => '<p>10. I am not at all in agreement with the contention of the landlord that the premises known as 31, the Mall Shimla which are admittedly in the occupation of the landlord are commercial premises only and not being used by him for his residence. As pointed out above, the landlord purchased the demised premises in 1986. They fell vacant when he got married despite that he did not occupy the same and rented out the same to the tenant in the year 1990. The question that arises is where was the landlord living for this entire period. According to the landlord after the year 1994 he has been living with his brother-in-law Rajan (wife's brother) PW-2, since the year 1994. Prior to 1994 the landlord will have this Court to believe that he was living off and on with one friend or the other. This story is impossible to believe. The landlord was married in the year 1999. He is an Architect by profession. His wife is a law graduate. It is not believable that such a person would have no permanent abode and would continue to live as a guest with his friends for almost 5 years after his marriage. Even the story that he has been living with his brother-in-law after the year 1994 does not inspire confidence. It stands proved on record that the brother-in-law PW-2 Rajan lives with his own family i.e. wife and children. From the evidence it is also clear that the parents of the brother-in-law also reside with him, His flat consists of only two rooms. The flat in possession of the landlord at 31, the Mall Shimla, also consists of two rooms, kitchen and bath room. Even assuming that he was running an office in the part of the flat it cannot be believed that he would not live on his own flat on the Mall Road and reside with his brother-in-law in cramped premises. Even in the electoral list the landlord is shown to be a resident of 31, The Mall, Shimla. Therefore, I am of the considered view that the building 31, the Mall, Shimla was also being used as a residence by the landlord.',
	(int) 11 => '<p>11. Having held so, the question that arises is whether the landlord can be non-suited only on the ground that he has not made any disclosure about the residential accommodation available with him which premises were admittedly not owned by him.',
	(int) 12 => '<p>12. The short question which arises for decision in this petition is whether the landlord was guilty of suppressing and withholding such relevant facts which would disentitle him from seeking eviction of the tenant. To appreciate these contentions it would be necessary to refer to relevant portion of Section 14(3) of the Act:',
	(int) 13 => '<p>Section 14:',
	(int) 14 => '<p>1 and 2 xxxxxxxxxxx',
	(int) 15 => '<p>(3) A landlord may apply to the Controller for an order directing the tenant to put the landlord in possession-',
	(int) 16 => '<p>(a) in case of residential building, if',
	(int) 17 => '<p>(i) he required it for his own occupation:',
	(int) 18 => '<p>Provided that he is not occupying another residential building owned by him, in the urban area concerned:',
	(int) 19 => '<p>Provided further that he has not vacated such a building without sufficient cause within five years of the filing of the application, in the said urban area....',
	(int) 20 => '<p>13. A perusal of the bare provisions of the Act makes it clear that there are certain essential ingredients which the landlord must satisfy before seeking eviction of the tenant under the Act. Not only must he prove that the residential building is bona fide required by him for his own use and occupation but he must also plead and prove that he is not occupying any other residential building owned by him in the urban area concerned and further that he has not vacated such a building without sufficient cause within 5 years of the filing of the application.',
	(int) 21 => '<p>14. Reference may now be made to the relevant allegations made in para 18 of the eviction petition:',
	(int) 22 => '<p>(ii) That the petitioner bona fide requires the premises for his own use and occupation and also for the use and occupation of his family.',
	(int) 23 => '<p>The petitioner does not own or possess any other such building within the urban area of Simla nor the petitioner has vacated any such premises within five years of the filing of this petition.',
	(int) 24 => '<p>The family of the petitioner presently consists of himself and his wife. Due to paucity of accommodation the petitioner has not been able to keep his wife with himself at Simla, where he is working as an Engineer and she has been residing at Chandigarh since 1991 but on account of her ill health she has been brought to Simla by the petitioner. The petitioner at present is seeking temporary shelter, from time to time, with his relations.',
	(int) 25 => '<p>15. The learned Appellate Authority came to the conclusion that the landlord had falsely pleaded that he does not own or possess any other such building within the urban area of Shimla and hence rejected the eviction petition on this ground.',
	(int) 26 => '<p>16. On a close analysis of the proviso to Section 14(3)(a)(i) of the Act it is clear that a landlord is not entitled to seek eviction of a tenant from residential building even in case of bona fide requirement if the landlord is occupying another residential building owned by him in the urban area concerned. One can read three essential ingredients in this proviso i.e. (i) that the landlord is in occupation of another residential building; (ii) that the said residential building is owned by him and (iii) that the said residential building is situated in the concerned urban area.',
	(int) 27 => '<p>17. The question that arises is what is the impact of the landlord not making a disclosure in respect of premises which he is occupying but are not owned by him.',
	(int) 28 => '<p>18. The Apex Court in Onkar Nath v. Ved Vyas ILR 1979 HP 1, held as follows:',
	(int) 29 => '<p>It is common ground that there are three requirements to make out a cause of action for eviction under that provision, and indeed this is apparent from a bare reading of the sub-section. In the present case the finding is to the effect that the landlord requires the residential building for his own occupation. But, the legislation has taken care to insist upon two more conditions, namely; (a) that the landlord is not occupying any other residential building in the area concerned; and (b) that he has not vacated such a building without sufficient cause. There is not a scintilla of evidence nor indeed there is any averment in compliance with these latter conditions. The necessary consequence follows that not merely is there inadequacy of pleadings sufficient to make out a cause of action but total absence of proof of two vital requirements....',
	(int) 30 => '<p>The Supreme Court also said that:.The statute benignly designed to protect tenants from unreasonable evictions has taken case to put restrictions which must be rigorously construed to fulfil the purpose of the statute.',
	(int) 31 => '<p>19. Following the aforesaid judgment and other pronouncements of the Apex Court, a learned Single Judge of this Court in Tara Chand Sharma v. Baij Nath and Ors. 1992 (2) R.C.J. 323, held as follows:',
	(int) 32 => '<p>16. What appears as the legislative intent, in bold relief, is that the landlord, while seeking eviction of a tenant on the ground that he needs a residential building for his own occupation, must come out clearly and honestly with facts relating to the requirement that he is not occupying another residential building owned by him, in the urban area concerned and that he had not vacated such a building without sufficient cause within five years of the filing of the application, in the said urban area. The primal burden of making a clear disclosure would lie upon the landlord, for, the true facts would be in his special knowledge. An order in his favour by the Rent Controller would depend upon the satisfaction of the Rent Controller in regard not only to the claim that the landlord requires the accommodation, from which he wishes to evict a tenant, for his own occupation but also that he was not occupying another residential building owned by him nor had he vacated such building without sufficient cause within five years of the filing of the application in the application in the urban area concerned....',
	(int) 33 => '<p>It was further held as under:',
	(int) 34 => '<p>18. That the landlord should make a full disclosure of the relevant facts, pertaining to the requirements of Sub-section (3)(a)(i) and the two provisos, becomes all the more necessary because the satisfaction of the Rent Controller in regard thereto is the condition precedent for the making of an order in favour of the landlord....',
	(int) 35 => '<p>20. The aforesaid judgment has been followed in a number of other cases including Vijay Kapoor v. Maya Ram 1997 (2) RCR 437, wherein another learned single Judge of this Court following the aforesaid judgment held that the landlord must make complete and proper disclosure of all the material facts.',
	(int) 36 => '<p>21. On the other hand Sh. Ramakant Sharma has relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in Ram Narain Arora v. Asha Rani 1998(2) RCR 268. In that case the Rent Controller came to the conclusion that the landlord had suppressed material information and had not disclosed the fact that he was already in occupation of a house in Subji Mandi. Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act reads as follows:',
	(int) 37 => '<p>Section 14(1)(e). That the premises let for residential purposes are required bona fide by the landlord for occupation as a residence for himself or for any member of his family dependent on him, if he is the owner thereof, or for any person for whose benefit the premises are held and that the landlord or such person has no other reasonably suitable residential accommodation.',
	(int) 38 => '<p>22. The difference between Delhi Act and the present Act is that under the Delhi Act the only requirement is that the landlord has no other reasonably suitable accommodation whereas under the Himachal Act the residential premises are required to be owned by the landlord. The Apex Court in Rama Narain Arora's case (supra) held that the nondisclosure of the fact that the landlord was in occupation of certain premises in Subji Mandi was.not a ground to non-suit the landlord in view of the facts and circumstances of the case. The Apex Court held as follows:',
	(int) 39 => '<p>9. In making a claim that the suit premises is required bona fide for his own occupation as a residence for himself and other members of his family dependent on him and that he has no other reasonably suitable accommodation is a requirement of law before the Court can state whether the landlord requires the premises bona fide for his use and occupation. In doing so, the Court must also find out whether the landlord or such other person for whose benefit the premises is required has no other reasonably suitable residential accommodation. It cannot be said that the requirement of the landlord is not intermixed with the question of finding out whether he has any other reasonably suitable accommodation. If he has other reasonably suitable accommodation, ihen necessarily it would mean that he does not require the suit premises and his requirement may not be bona fide. In such circumstances further inquiry would be whether that premises is more suitable than the suit premises. Therefore, the questions raised before the Court would not necessarily depend upon only the pleadings. It could be a good defence that the landlord has other reasonably suitable residential accommodation and thereby defend the claim of the landlord.',
	(int) 40 => '<p>10. There cannot be a pedantic or a dogmatic approach in the matter of analysis of pleadings or of the evidence adduced thereto. It is no doubt true that if the pleadings are clearly set out, it would be easy for the Court to decide the matters. But if the pleadings are lacking or vague and if both parties have understood what was the case pleaded and put forth with reference to requirement of law and placed such material before the Court, neither party is prejudiced. If we analyse from this angle, we do not think that the High Court was not justified in interfering with the order made by the Rent Controller.',
	(int) 41 => '<p>23. From the perusal of the judgment of the Apex Court it is apparent that the Rent Controller must approach the matter in a practical manner. In case the non-disclosure is such as that it goes to the very root of the case the Rent Controller would be justified in non-suiting the landlord. However, if the non-disclosure is such that it would not prejudice the rights of the respondent then the landlord should not be non-suited only on this ground.',
	(int) 42 => '<p>24. The decisions of this Court cited hereinabove were delivered prior to the judgment delivered by the Apex Court in Ram Nar'ain Arora's case. Further more both in Tara Chand Sharma's case and Vijay Kapoor's case decided by this Court, no averment had been made ixi respect of other residential buildings owned by a landlord. There was complete non-disclosure as to whether any such residential building owned by the landlord was in his possession or not. In the present case, as I have held above, the residential premises at 31, The Mall, Shimla was not owned by the landlord and hence these two earlier judgments of this Court are distinguishable on facts also.',
	(int) 43 => '<p>25. In the present case, the landlord has been non-suited only on the ground that he did not disclose the fact that he was in occupation of certain premises on the Mall Road. Under law he was not required to disclose this fact. He was only required to disclose the factum of occupying another residential building owned by him in the urban area concerned. True it may be, that it would have been better if the landlord had disclosed all the facts but non-disclosure of a fact which he was not under law required to disclose could not in my opinion be a ground to dismiss his eviction petition.',
	(int) 44 => '<p>26. However, what are the premises in his occupation even as a tenant can be taken into consideration while deciding the question whether he bona fide requires the demised premises for his personal use or occupation or not.',
	(int) 45 => '<p>27. Lastly comes the question with regard to the bona fide requirement of the landlord. The landlord has no children. According to the landlord as well as his other witnesses i.e. his brother-in-law PW-2 and his wife PW-3, the wife now wants to come back and settle in Shimla. There is no reason to disbelieve their statements. Even according to the evidence led by the tenant the accommodation in possession of the landlord consists of two rooms, kitchen, bath room etc. Admittedly, the landlord is also having his office as an Architect in this building. The landlord belongs to the middle class of the Society. It cannot be expected of a landlord who owns sufficient property to reside in a two room set wherein he also runs his office.',
	(int) 46 => '<p>28. The law by now is well settled that the landlord is the best judge of the suitability of the accommodation required by him. This suitability has however to be judged in the context of reasonable expectations. The landlord and his wife who are both well educated can reasonably be expected to entertain guests and they will have visitors to their house. They would obviously require a drawing room, a bed room and a spare bed room for guests. Even at his residence the landlord may require another room for his professional work. This is the minimum accommodation which they would require. Even if the accommodation possessed by the landlord, though not owned by him, at 31, the Mall, Shimla is taken into consideration such accommodation is not sufficient to meet his requirements since admittedly the landlord is running his profession of Architect from some portion of his these premises.',
	(int) 47 => '<p>29. Keeping in view the entire facts and circumstances, I am of the considered view that the learned Appellate Authority gravely erred in rejecting the eviction petition of the landlord solely on the ground that he had not disclosed the factum of being in possession of the premises at 31, the Mall Shimla. Even though I have held that the said premises are residential premises, in view of the above discussion I hold that the landlord cannot be non-suited only on the ground of his being in possession of such premises since same were not owned by him.',
	(int) 48 => '<p>30. In view of the above discussion, the Revision Petition is allowed, the order of the learned Appellate Authority dated 6.5.2003 is seaside and the order of the Rent Controller dated 22.8.2001 is restored.',
	(int) 49 => '<p>31. Keeping in view the fact that the tenant has been in possession of the premises for a long period he is granted time up to 31st October, 2008 to vacate the premises.',
	(int) 50 => '<p>32. No order as to costs.<p>',
	(int) 51 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 52
$i = (int) 22
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

(ii) That the petitioner bona fide requires the premises for his own use and occupation and also for the use and occupation of his family.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Shri Arun Bhanwara Vs Shri S L Srivastava - Citation 891084 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '891084',
			'acts' => '',
			'appealno' => '',
			'appellant' => 'Shri Arun Bhanwara',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Shri Arun Bhanwara Vs. Shri S.L. Srivastava',
			'casenote' => ' - CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908.[C.A. No. 5/1908]. Order 14, Rule 2 [As amended by Amending Act of 1976]: [V.K. Gupta, CJ, Deepak Gupta & Surjit Singh, JJ] Preliminary issue of law and fact  Court framing all issues both of law and facts together and also  tried all the issues together, including the issue relating to jurisdiction of Court  Held, Except in situations perceived or warranted under sub-rule (2) of Rule 2 of Order 14 where a  Court in fact frames only issues of law in the first instance and postpones settlement of other issues, clearly and explicitly in situations where the Court has framed all issues together, both of law as well as facts and has also tried all these issues together, it is not open to the Court to adopt the principle of severability and proceed to decide issues of law first, without taking up simultaneously other issues for decision. This course of action is not available to a Court because sub-rule (1) does not permit the  Court to adopt any such principle of severability and to dispose of a suit only on preliminary issues, or what can be termed as issues of law. Sub-rule (1)  clearly mandates that in a situation contemplated under it, where all the issues have been together and have also been taken up for adjudication during the course of the trial, these must be decided together and the judgment in the suit as a whole must be pronounced by the Court covering all the issues framed in the suit.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => 'Ram Narain Arora v. Asha Rani;',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => '',
			'counseldef' => '',
			'court' => 'Himachal Pradesh',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2008-07-31',
			'deposition' => 'Petition allowed',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => ' Deepak Gupta, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">Deepak Gupta, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. This Revision Petition under Section 25(5) of the H.P. Urban Rent Control Act, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) is directed against the order of the learned Appellate Authority, Shimla in CMA No. 60-S/14 of 2001 whereby the appeal filed by the respondent (hereinafter referred to as the tenant) has been allowed, the order of the Rent Controller has been set-aside and the petition for eviction filed by the present petitioner (hereinafter referred to as the Landlord) on the ground of personal bona fide requirement has been set-aside.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The undisputed facts are that the landlord is owner of the demised premises situated in building known as Tunnel View, Sanjauli, Shimla-6 consisting of two bed rooms with attached bath room and latrine, drawing-cum-dining room, kitchen and balcony. These premises were purchased by the landlord in the year 1986. Thereafter, the landlord had rented out the premises to one Sh. B.K. Chauhan. According to the landlord, when he got married he requested Sh. B.K. Chauhan to vacate the said premises. Sh. Chauhan vacated the said premises but admittedly the landlord did not occupy the same but rented out the same to the tenant in the year 1990.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. In the year 1997 the landlord filed a petition for eviction of the tenant on two grounds; firstly that the tenant is in arrears of rent from 1.11.1990 to 31.7.1997 and secondly that the premises are bona fide required by the landlord for the use and occupation of himself and his family.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. This petition was contested by the tenant. After trial, the Rent Controller ordered the eviction of the tenant on two grounds; (i) that the tenant was in arrears of rent from November, 1999 till date of order i.e. 22nd August, 2001 and (ii) that the landlord required the premises for his own use and occupation.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. The tenant deposited the rent within the time prescribed. He also filed an appeal challenging the finding on the issue of bona fide requirement. The learned Appellate Authority came to the conclusion that the landlord had not made a proper and full disclosure of facts as required under the provisions of the Act and had withheld material facts from the Court viz. that the landlord was in occupation of residential premises on 31, Mall Road in the urban area of Shimla and as such rejected this petition on this short ground.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. Aggrieved by the said order, the landlord has filed the present Revision Petition.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. I have heard Sh. Ramakant Sharma, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sh. Bhupinder Gupta, learned senior Counsel for the tenant.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. It has been urged on behalf of the landlord that the building which is alleged to be in possession of the landlord i.e. 31, the Mall Shimla is not a residential building and secondly that the building is not owned by him.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. On the other hand Sh. Bhupinder Gupta, learned Counsel of the tenant has strenuously urged that the landlord in para 18 has not stated anything about any building being owned by him and has only made an averment that he does not own or possess any other such building within the urban area Shimla. It is contended by Sh. Bhupinder Gupta that the landlord of his own volition did not state anything about the ownership of the building and since he has kept silent about the building which he is in occupation he has made a false averment and therefore his petition for eviction has rightly been rejected.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. I am not at all in agreement with the contention of the landlord that the premises known as 31, the Mall Shimla which are admittedly in the occupation of the landlord are commercial premises only and not being used by him for his residence. As pointed out above, the landlord purchased the demised premises in 1986. They fell vacant when he got married despite that he did not occupy the same and rented out the same to the tenant in the year 1990. The question that arises is where was the landlord living for this entire period. According to the landlord after the year 1994 he has been living with his brother-in-law Rajan (wife's brother) PW-2, since the year 1994. Prior to 1994 the landlord will have this Court to believe that he was living off and on with one friend or the other. This story is impossible to believe. The landlord was married in the year 1999. He is an Architect by profession. His wife is a law graduate. It is not believable that such a person would have no permanent abode and would continue to live as a guest with his friends for almost 5 years after his marriage. Even the story that he has been living with his brother-in-law after the year 1994 does not inspire confidence. It stands proved on record that the brother-in-law PW-2 Rajan lives with his own family i.e. wife and children. From the evidence it is also clear that the parents of the brother-in-law also reside with him, His flat consists of only two rooms. The flat in possession of the landlord at 31, the Mall Shimla, also consists of two rooms, kitchen and bath room. Even assuming that he was running an office in the part of the flat it cannot be believed that he would not live on his own flat on the Mall Road and reside with his brother-in-law in cramped premises. Even in the electoral list the landlord is shown to be a resident of 31, The Mall, Shimla. Therefore, I am of the considered view that the building 31, the Mall, Shimla was also being used as a residence by the landlord.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. Having held so, the question that arises is whether the landlord can be non-suited only on the ground that he has not made any disclosure about the residential accommodation available with him which premises were admittedly not owned by him.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. The short question which arises for decision in this petition is whether the landlord was guilty of suppressing and withholding such relevant facts which would disentitle him from seeking eviction of the tenant. To appreciate these contentions it would be necessary to refer to relevant portion of Section 14(3) of the Act:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Section 14:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1 and 2 xxxxxxxxxxx</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(3) A landlord may apply to the Controller for an order directing the tenant to put the landlord in possession-</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(a) in case of residential building, if</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(i) he required it for his own occupation:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Provided that he is not occupying another residential building owned by him, in the urban area concerned:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Provided further that he has not vacated such a building without sufficient cause within five years of the filing of the application, in the said urban area....</p><p style="text-align: justify;">13. A perusal of the bare provisions of the Act makes it clear that there are certain essential ingredients which the landlord must satisfy before seeking eviction of the tenant under the Act. Not only must he prove that the residential building is bona fide required by him for his own use and occupation but he must also plead and prove that he is not occupying any other residential building owned by him in the urban area concerned and further that he has not vacated such a building without sufficient cause within 5 years of the filing of the application.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">14. Reference may now be made to the relevant allegations made in para 18 of the eviction petition:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(ii) That the petitioner bona fide requires the premises for his own use and occupation and also for the use and occupation of his family.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The petitioner does not own or possess any other such building within the urban area of Simla nor the petitioner has vacated any such premises within five years of the filing of this petition.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The family of the petitioner presently consists of himself and his wife. Due to paucity of accommodation the petitioner has not been able to keep his wife with himself at Simla, where he is working as an Engineer and she has been residing at Chandigarh since 1991 but on account of her ill health she has been brought to Simla by the petitioner. The petitioner at present is seeking temporary shelter, from time to time, with his relations.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">15. The learned Appellate Authority came to the conclusion that the landlord had falsely pleaded that he does not own or possess any other such building within the urban area of Shimla and hence rejected the eviction petition on this ground.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">16. On a close analysis of the proviso to Section 14(3)(a)(i) of the Act it is clear that a landlord is not entitled to seek eviction of a tenant from residential building even in case of bona fide requirement if the landlord is occupying another residential building owned by him in the urban area concerned. One can read three essential ingredients in this proviso i.e. (i) that the landlord is in occupation of another residential building; (ii) that the said residential building is owned by him and (iii) that the said residential building is situated in the concerned urban area.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">17. The question that arises is what is the impact of the landlord not making a disclosure in respect of premises which he is occupying but are not owned by him.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">18. The Apex Court in Onkar Nath v. Ved Vyas ILR 1979 HP 1, held as follows:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">It is common ground that there are three requirements to make out a cause of action for eviction under that provision, and indeed this is apparent from a bare reading of the sub-section. In the present case the finding is to the effect that the landlord requires the residential building for his own occupation. But, the legislation has taken care to insist upon two more conditions, namely; (a) that the landlord is not occupying any other residential building in the area concerned; and (b) that he has not vacated such a building without sufficient cause. There is not a scintilla of evidence nor indeed there is any averment in compliance with these latter conditions. The necessary consequence follows that not merely is there inadequacy of pleadings sufficient to make out a cause of action but total absence of proof of two vital requirements....</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The Supreme Court also said that:.The statute benignly designed to protect tenants from unreasonable evictions has taken case to put restrictions which must be rigorously construed to fulfil the purpose of the statute.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">19. Following the aforesaid judgment and other pronouncements of the Apex Court, a learned Single Judge of this Court in Tara Chand Sharma v. Baij Nath and Ors. 1992 (2) R.C.J. 323, held as follows:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">16. What appears as the legislative intent, in bold relief, is that the landlord, while seeking eviction of a tenant on the ground that he needs a residential building for his own occupation, must come out clearly and honestly with facts relating to the requirement that he is not occupying another residential building owned by him, in the urban area concerned and that he had not vacated such a building without sufficient cause within five years of the filing of the application, in the said urban area. The primal burden of making a clear disclosure would lie upon the landlord, for, the true facts would be in his special knowledge. An order in his favour by the Rent Controller would depend upon the satisfaction of the Rent Controller in regard not only to the claim that the landlord requires the accommodation, from which he wishes to evict a tenant, for his own occupation but also that he was not occupying another residential building owned by him nor had he vacated such building without sufficient cause within five years of the filing of the application in the application in the urban area concerned....</p><p style="text-align: justify;">It was further held as under:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">18. That the landlord should make a full disclosure of the relevant facts, pertaining to the requirements of Sub-section (3)(a)(i) and the two provisos, becomes all the more necessary because the satisfaction of the Rent Controller in regard thereto is the condition precedent for the making of an order in favour of the landlord....</p><p style="text-align: justify;">20. The aforesaid judgment has been followed in a number of other cases including Vijay Kapoor v. Maya Ram 1997 (2) RCR 437, wherein another learned single Judge of this Court following the aforesaid judgment held that the landlord must make complete and proper disclosure of all the material facts.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">21. On the other hand Sh. Ramakant Sharma has relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in Ram Narain Arora v. Asha Rani 1998(2) RCR 268. In that case the Rent Controller came to the conclusion that the landlord had suppressed material information and had not disclosed the fact that he was already in occupation of a house in Subji Mandi. Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act reads as follows:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Section 14(1)(e). That the premises let for residential purposes are required bona fide by the landlord for occupation as a residence for himself or for any member of his family dependent on him, if he is the owner thereof, or for any person for whose benefit the premises are held and that the landlord or such person has no other reasonably suitable residential accommodation.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">22. The difference between Delhi Act and the present Act is that under the Delhi Act the only requirement is that the landlord has no other reasonably suitable accommodation whereas under the Himachal Act the residential premises are required to be owned by the landlord. The Apex Court in Rama Narain Arora's case (supra) held that the nondisclosure of the fact that the landlord was in occupation of certain premises in Subji Mandi was.not a ground to non-suit the landlord in view of the facts and circumstances of the case. The Apex Court held as follows:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. In making a claim that the suit premises is required bona fide for his own occupation as a residence for himself and other members of his family dependent on him and that he has no other reasonably suitable accommodation is a requirement of law before the Court can state whether the landlord requires the premises bona fide for his use and occupation. In doing so, the Court must also find out whether the landlord or such other person for whose benefit the premises is required has no other reasonably suitable residential accommodation. It cannot be said that the requirement of the landlord is not intermixed with the question of finding out whether he has any other reasonably suitable accommodation. If he has other reasonably suitable accommodation, ihen necessarily it would mean that he does not require the suit premises and his requirement may not be bona fide. In such circumstances further inquiry would be whether that premises is more suitable than the suit premises. Therefore, the questions raised before the Court would not necessarily depend upon only the pleadings. It could be a good defence that the landlord has other reasonably suitable residential accommodation and thereby defend the claim of the landlord.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. There cannot be a pedantic or a dogmatic approach in the matter of analysis of pleadings or of the evidence adduced thereto. It is no doubt true that if the pleadings are clearly set out, it would be easy for the Court to decide the matters. But if the pleadings are lacking or vague and if both parties have understood what was the case pleaded and put forth with reference to requirement of law and placed such material before the Court, neither party is prejudiced. If we analyse from this angle, we do not think that the High Court was not justified in interfering with the order made by the Rent Controller.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">23. From the perusal of the judgment of the Apex Court it is apparent that the Rent Controller must approach the matter in a practical manner. In case the non-disclosure is such as that it goes to the very root of the case the Rent Controller would be justified in non-suiting the landlord. However, if the non-disclosure is such that it would not prejudice the rights of the respondent then the landlord should not be non-suited only on this ground.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">24. The decisions of this Court cited hereinabove were delivered prior to the judgment delivered by the Apex Court in Ram Nar'ain Arora's case. Further more both in Tara Chand Sharma's case and Vijay Kapoor's case decided by this Court, no averment had been made ixi respect of other residential buildings owned by a landlord. There was complete non-disclosure as to whether any such residential building owned by the landlord was in his possession or not. In the present case, as I have held above, the residential premises at 31, The Mall, Shimla was not owned by the landlord and hence these two earlier judgments of this Court are distinguishable on facts also.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">25. In the present case, the landlord has been non-suited only on the ground that he did not disclose the fact that he was in occupation of certain premises on the Mall Road. Under law he was not required to disclose this fact. He was only required to disclose the factum of occupying another residential building owned by him in the urban area concerned. True it may be, that it would have been better if the landlord had disclosed all the facts but non-disclosure of a fact which he was not under law required to disclose could not in my opinion be a ground to dismiss his eviction petition.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">26. However, what are the premises in his occupation even as a tenant can be taken into consideration while deciding the question whether he bona fide requires the demised premises for his personal use or occupation or not.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">27. Lastly comes the question with regard to the bona fide requirement of the landlord. The landlord has no children. According to the landlord as well as his other witnesses i.e. his brother-in-law PW-2 and his wife PW-3, the wife now wants to come back and settle in Shimla. There is no reason to disbelieve their statements. Even according to the evidence led by the tenant the accommodation in possession of the landlord consists of two rooms, kitchen, bath room etc. Admittedly, the landlord is also having his office as an Architect in this building. The landlord belongs to the middle class of the Society. It cannot be expected of a landlord who owns sufficient property to reside in a two room set wherein he also runs his office.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">28. The law by now is well settled that the landlord is the best judge of the suitability of the accommodation required by him. This suitability has however to be judged in the context of reasonable expectations. The landlord and his wife who are both well educated can reasonably be expected to entertain guests and they will have visitors to their house. They would obviously require a drawing room, a bed room and a spare bed room for guests. Even at his residence the landlord may require another room for his professional work. This is the minimum accommodation which they would require. Even if the accommodation possessed by the landlord, though not owned by him, at 31, the Mall, Shimla is taken into consideration such accommodation is not sufficient to meet his requirements since admittedly the landlord is running his profession of Architect from some portion of his these premises.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">29. Keeping in view the entire facts and circumstances, I am of the considered view that the learned Appellate Authority gravely erred in rejecting the eviction petition of the landlord solely on the ground that he had not disclosed the factum of being in possession of the premises at 31, the Mall Shimla. Even though I have held that the said premises are residential premises, in view of the above discussion I hold that the landlord cannot be non-suited only on the ground of his being in possession of such premises since same were not owned by him.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">30. In view of the above discussion, the Revision Petition is allowed, the order of the learned Appellate Authority dated 6.5.2003 is seaside and the order of the Rent Controller dated 22.8.2001 is restored.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">31. Keeping in view the fact that the tenant has been in possession of the premises for a long period he is granted time up to 31st October, 2008 to vacate the premises.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">32. No order as to costs.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '2008(2)ShimLC491',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'Shri S.L. Srivastava',
			'sub' => 'Tenancy',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'shri-arun-bhanwara-vs-s-l-srivastava',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '891084',
		(int) 1 => 'shri-arun-bhanwara-vs-s-l-srivastava'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Shri Arun Bhanwara Vs Shri S L Srivastava - Citation 891084 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '891084',
		'acts' => '',
		'appealno' => '',
		'appellant' => 'Shri Arun Bhanwara',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Shri Arun Bhanwara Vs. Shri S.L. Srivastava',
		'casenote' => ' - CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908.[C.A. No. 5/1908]. Order 14, Rule 2 [As amended by Amending Act of 1976]: [V.K. Gupta, CJ, Deepak Gupta & Surjit Singh, JJ] Preliminary issue of law and fact  Court framing all issues both of law and facts together and also  tried all the issues together, including the issue relating to jurisdiction of Court  Held, Except in situations perceived or warranted under sub-rule (2) of Rule 2 of Order 14 where a  Court in fact frames only issues of law in the first instance and postpones settlement of other issues, clearly and explicitly in situations where the Court has framed all issues together, both of law as well as facts and has also tried all these issues together, it is not open to the Court to adopt the principle of severability and proceed to decide issues of law first, without taking up simultaneously other issues for decision. This course of action is not available to a Court because sub-rule (1) does not permit the  Court to adopt any such principle of severability and to dispose of a suit only on preliminary issues, or what can be termed as issues of law. Sub-rule (1)  clearly mandates that in a situation contemplated under it, where all the issues have been together and have also been taken up for adjudication during the course of the trial, these must be decided together and the judgment in the suit as a whole must be pronounced by the Court covering all the issues framed in the suit.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => 'Ram Narain Arora v. Asha Rani;',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => '',
		'counseldef' => '',
		'court' => 'Himachal Pradesh',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2008-07-31',
		'deposition' => 'Petition allowed',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => ' Deepak Gupta, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>Deepak Gupta, J.</p><p>1. This Revision Petition under Section 25(5) of the H.P. Urban Rent Control Act, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) is directed against the order of the learned Appellate Authority, Shimla in CMA No. 60-S/14 of 2001 whereby the appeal filed by the respondent (hereinafter referred to as the tenant) has been allowed, the order of the Rent Controller has been set-aside and the petition for eviction filed by the present petitioner (hereinafter referred to as the Landlord) on the ground of personal bona fide requirement has been set-aside.</p><p>2. The undisputed facts are that the landlord is owner of the demised premises situated in building known as Tunnel View, Sanjauli, Shimla-6 consisting of two bed rooms with attached bath room and latrine, drawing-cum-dining room, kitchen and balcony. These premises were purchased by the landlord in the year 1986. Thereafter, the landlord had rented out the premises to one Sh. B.K. Chauhan. According to the landlord, when he got married he requested Sh. B.K. Chauhan to vacate the said premises. Sh. Chauhan vacated the said premises but admittedly the landlord did not occupy the same but rented out the same to the tenant in the year 1990.</p><p>3. In the year 1997 the landlord filed a petition for eviction of the tenant on two grounds; firstly that the tenant is in arrears of rent from 1.11.1990 to 31.7.1997 and secondly that the premises are bona fide required by the landlord for the use and occupation of himself and his family.</p><p>4. This petition was contested by the tenant. After trial, the Rent Controller ordered the eviction of the tenant on two grounds; (i) that the tenant was in arrears of rent from November, 1999 till date of order i.e. 22nd August, 2001 and (ii) that the landlord required the premises for his own use and occupation.</p><p>5. The tenant deposited the rent within the time prescribed. He also filed an appeal challenging the finding on the issue of bona fide requirement. The learned Appellate Authority came to the conclusion that the landlord had not made a proper and full disclosure of facts as required under the provisions of the Act and had withheld material facts from the Court viz. that the landlord was in occupation of residential premises on 31, Mall Road in the urban area of Shimla and as such rejected this petition on this short ground.</p><p>6. Aggrieved by the said order, the landlord has filed the present Revision Petition.</p><p>7. I have heard Sh. Ramakant Sharma, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sh. Bhupinder Gupta, learned senior Counsel for the tenant.</p><p>8. It has been urged on behalf of the landlord that the building which is alleged to be in possession of the landlord i.e. 31, the Mall Shimla is not a residential building and secondly that the building is not owned by him.</p><p>9. On the other hand Sh. Bhupinder Gupta, learned Counsel of the tenant has strenuously urged that the landlord in para 18 has not stated anything about any building being owned by him and has only made an averment that he does not own or possess any other such building within the urban area Shimla. It is contended by Sh. Bhupinder Gupta that the landlord of his own volition did not state anything about the ownership of the building and since he has kept silent about the building which he is in occupation he has made a false averment and therefore his petition for eviction has rightly been rejected.</p><p>10. I am not at all in agreement with the contention of the landlord that the premises known as 31, the Mall Shimla which are admittedly in the occupation of the landlord are commercial premises only and not being used by him for his residence. As pointed out above, the landlord purchased the demised premises in 1986. They fell vacant when he got married despite that he did not occupy the same and rented out the same to the tenant in the year 1990. The question that arises is where was the landlord living for this entire period. According to the landlord after the year 1994 he has been living with his brother-in-law Rajan (wife's brother) PW-2, since the year 1994. Prior to 1994 the landlord will have this Court to believe that he was living off and on with one friend or the other. This story is impossible to believe. The landlord was married in the year 1999. He is an Architect by profession. His wife is a law graduate. It is not believable that such a person would have no permanent abode and would continue to live as a guest with his friends for almost 5 years after his marriage. Even the story that he has been living with his brother-in-law after the year 1994 does not inspire confidence. It stands proved on record that the brother-in-law PW-2 Rajan lives with his own family i.e. wife and children. From the evidence it is also clear that the parents of the brother-in-law also reside with him, His flat consists of only two rooms. The flat in possession of the landlord at 31, the Mall Shimla, also consists of two rooms, kitchen and bath room. Even assuming that he was running an office in the part of the flat it cannot be believed that he would not live on his own flat on the Mall Road and reside with his brother-in-law in cramped premises. Even in the electoral list the landlord is shown to be a resident of 31, The Mall, Shimla. Therefore, I am of the considered view that the building 31, the Mall, Shimla was also being used as a residence by the landlord.</p><p>11. Having held so, the question that arises is whether the landlord can be non-suited only on the ground that he has not made any disclosure about the residential accommodation available with him which premises were admittedly not owned by him.</p><p>12. The short question which arises for decision in this petition is whether the landlord was guilty of suppressing and withholding such relevant facts which would disentitle him from seeking eviction of the tenant. To appreciate these contentions it would be necessary to refer to relevant portion of Section 14(3) of the Act:</p><p>Section 14:</p><p>1 and 2 xxxxxxxxxxx</p><p>(3) A landlord may apply to the Controller for an order directing the tenant to put the landlord in possession-</p><p>(a) in case of residential building, if</p><p>(i) he required it for his own occupation:</p><p>Provided that he is not occupying another residential building owned by him, in the urban area concerned:</p><p>Provided further that he has not vacated such a building without sufficient cause within five years of the filing of the application, in the said urban area....</p><p>13. A perusal of the bare provisions of the Act makes it clear that there are certain essential ingredients which the landlord must satisfy before seeking eviction of the tenant under the Act. Not only must he prove that the residential building is bona fide required by him for his own use and occupation but he must also plead and prove that he is not occupying any other residential building owned by him in the urban area concerned and further that he has not vacated such a building without sufficient cause within 5 years of the filing of the application.</p><p>14. Reference may now be made to the relevant allegations made in para 18 of the eviction petition:</p><p>(ii) That the petitioner bona fide requires the premises for his own use and occupation and also for the use and occupation of his family.</p><p>The petitioner does not own or possess any other such building within the urban area of Simla nor the petitioner has vacated any such premises within five years of the filing of this petition.</p><p>The family of the petitioner presently consists of himself and his wife. Due to paucity of accommodation the petitioner has not been able to keep his wife with himself at Simla, where he is working as an Engineer and she has been residing at Chandigarh since 1991 but on account of her ill health she has been brought to Simla by the petitioner. The petitioner at present is seeking temporary shelter, from time to time, with his relations.</p><p>15. The learned Appellate Authority came to the conclusion that the landlord had falsely pleaded that he does not own or possess any other such building within the urban area of Shimla and hence rejected the eviction petition on this ground.</p><p>16. On a close analysis of the proviso to Section 14(3)(a)(i) of the Act it is clear that a landlord is not entitled to seek eviction of a tenant from residential building even in case of bona fide requirement if the landlord is occupying another residential building owned by him in the urban area concerned. One can read three essential ingredients in this proviso i.e. (i) that the landlord is in occupation of another residential building; (ii) that the said residential building is owned by him and (iii) that the said residential building is situated in the concerned urban area.</p><p>17. The question that arises is what is the impact of the landlord not making a disclosure in respect of premises which he is occupying but are not owned by him.</p><p>18. The Apex Court in Onkar Nath v. Ved Vyas ILR 1979 HP 1, held as follows:</p><p>It is common ground that there are three requirements to make out a cause of action for eviction under that provision, and indeed this is apparent from a bare reading of the sub-section. In the present case the finding is to the effect that the landlord requires the residential building for his own occupation. But, the legislation has taken care to insist upon two more conditions, namely; (a) that the landlord is not occupying any other residential building in the area concerned; and (b) that he has not vacated such a building without sufficient cause. There is not a scintilla of evidence nor indeed there is any averment in compliance with these latter conditions. The necessary consequence follows that not merely is there inadequacy of pleadings sufficient to make out a cause of action but total absence of proof of two vital requirements....</p><p>The Supreme Court also said that:.The statute benignly designed to protect tenants from unreasonable evictions has taken case to put restrictions which must be rigorously construed to fulfil the purpose of the statute.</p><p>19. Following the aforesaid judgment and other pronouncements of the Apex Court, a learned Single Judge of this Court in Tara Chand Sharma v. Baij Nath and Ors. 1992 (2) R.C.J. 323, held as follows:</p><p>16. What appears as the legislative intent, in bold relief, is that the landlord, while seeking eviction of a tenant on the ground that he needs a residential building for his own occupation, must come out clearly and honestly with facts relating to the requirement that he is not occupying another residential building owned by him, in the urban area concerned and that he had not vacated such a building without sufficient cause within five years of the filing of the application, in the said urban area. The primal burden of making a clear disclosure would lie upon the landlord, for, the true facts would be in his special knowledge. An order in his favour by the Rent Controller would depend upon the satisfaction of the Rent Controller in regard not only to the claim that the landlord requires the accommodation, from which he wishes to evict a tenant, for his own occupation but also that he was not occupying another residential building owned by him nor had he vacated such building without sufficient cause within five years of the filing of the application in the application in the urban area concerned....</p><p>It was further held as under:</p><p>18. That the landlord should make a full disclosure of the relevant facts, pertaining to the requirements of Sub-section (3)(a)(i) and the two provisos, becomes all the more necessary because the satisfaction of the Rent Controller in regard thereto is the condition precedent for the making of an order in favour of the landlord....</p><p>20. The aforesaid judgment has been followed in a number of other cases including Vijay Kapoor v. Maya Ram 1997 (2) RCR 437, wherein another learned single Judge of this Court following the aforesaid judgment held that the landlord must make complete and proper disclosure of all the material facts.</p><p>21. On the other hand Sh. Ramakant Sharma has relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in Ram Narain Arora v. Asha Rani 1998(2) RCR 268. In that case the Rent Controller came to the conclusion that the landlord had suppressed material information and had not disclosed the fact that he was already in occupation of a house in Subji Mandi. Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act reads as follows:</p><p>Section 14(1)(e). That the premises let for residential purposes are required bona fide by the landlord for occupation as a residence for himself or for any member of his family dependent on him, if he is the owner thereof, or for any person for whose benefit the premises are held and that the landlord or such person has no other reasonably suitable residential accommodation.</p><p>22. The difference between Delhi Act and the present Act is that under the Delhi Act the only requirement is that the landlord has no other reasonably suitable accommodation whereas under the Himachal Act the residential premises are required to be owned by the landlord. The Apex Court in Rama Narain Arora's case (supra) held that the nondisclosure of the fact that the landlord was in occupation of certain premises in Subji Mandi was.not a ground to non-suit the landlord in view of the facts and circumstances of the case. The Apex Court held as follows:</p><p>9. In making a claim that the suit premises is required bona fide for his own occupation as a residence for himself and other members of his family dependent on him and that he has no other reasonably suitable accommodation is a requirement of law before the Court can state whether the landlord requires the premises bona fide for his use and occupation. In doing so, the Court must also find out whether the landlord or such other person for whose benefit the premises is required has no other reasonably suitable residential accommodation. It cannot be said that the requirement of the landlord is not intermixed with the question of finding out whether he has any other reasonably suitable accommodation. If he has other reasonably suitable accommodation, ihen necessarily it would mean that he does not require the suit premises and his requirement may not be bona fide. In such circumstances further inquiry would be whether that premises is more suitable than the suit premises. Therefore, the questions raised before the Court would not necessarily depend upon only the pleadings. It could be a good defence that the landlord has other reasonably suitable residential accommodation and thereby defend the claim of the landlord.</p><p>10. There cannot be a pedantic or a dogmatic approach in the matter of analysis of pleadings or of the evidence adduced thereto. It is no doubt true that if the pleadings are clearly set out, it would be easy for the Court to decide the matters. But if the pleadings are lacking or vague and if both parties have understood what was the case pleaded and put forth with reference to requirement of law and placed such material before the Court, neither party is prejudiced. If we analyse from this angle, we do not think that the High Court was not justified in interfering with the order made by the Rent Controller.</p><p>23. From the perusal of the judgment of the Apex Court it is apparent that the Rent Controller must approach the matter in a practical manner. In case the non-disclosure is such as that it goes to the very root of the case the Rent Controller would be justified in non-suiting the landlord. However, if the non-disclosure is such that it would not prejudice the rights of the respondent then the landlord should not be non-suited only on this ground.</p><p>24. The decisions of this Court cited hereinabove were delivered prior to the judgment delivered by the Apex Court in Ram Nar'ain Arora's case. Further more both in Tara Chand Sharma's case and Vijay Kapoor's case decided by this Court, no averment had been made ixi respect of other residential buildings owned by a landlord. There was complete non-disclosure as to whether any such residential building owned by the landlord was in his possession or not. In the present case, as I have held above, the residential premises at 31, The Mall, Shimla was not owned by the landlord and hence these two earlier judgments of this Court are distinguishable on facts also.</p><p>25. In the present case, the landlord has been non-suited only on the ground that he did not disclose the fact that he was in occupation of certain premises on the Mall Road. Under law he was not required to disclose this fact. He was only required to disclose the factum of occupying another residential building owned by him in the urban area concerned. True it may be, that it would have been better if the landlord had disclosed all the facts but non-disclosure of a fact which he was not under law required to disclose could not in my opinion be a ground to dismiss his eviction petition.</p><p>26. However, what are the premises in his occupation even as a tenant can be taken into consideration while deciding the question whether he bona fide requires the demised premises for his personal use or occupation or not.</p><p>27. Lastly comes the question with regard to the bona fide requirement of the landlord. The landlord has no children. According to the landlord as well as his other witnesses i.e. his brother-in-law PW-2 and his wife PW-3, the wife now wants to come back and settle in Shimla. There is no reason to disbelieve their statements. Even according to the evidence led by the tenant the accommodation in possession of the landlord consists of two rooms, kitchen, bath room etc. Admittedly, the landlord is also having his office as an Architect in this building. The landlord belongs to the middle class of the Society. It cannot be expected of a landlord who owns sufficient property to reside in a two room set wherein he also runs his office.</p><p>28. The law by now is well settled that the landlord is the best judge of the suitability of the accommodation required by him. This suitability has however to be judged in the context of reasonable expectations. The landlord and his wife who are both well educated can reasonably be expected to entertain guests and they will have visitors to their house. They would obviously require a drawing room, a bed room and a spare bed room for guests. Even at his residence the landlord may require another room for his professional work. This is the minimum accommodation which they would require. Even if the accommodation possessed by the landlord, though not owned by him, at 31, the Mall, Shimla is taken into consideration such accommodation is not sufficient to meet his requirements since admittedly the landlord is running his profession of Architect from some portion of his these premises.</p><p>29. Keeping in view the entire facts and circumstances, I am of the considered view that the learned Appellate Authority gravely erred in rejecting the eviction petition of the landlord solely on the ground that he had not disclosed the factum of being in possession of the premises at 31, the Mall Shimla. Even though I have held that the said premises are residential premises, in view of the above discussion I hold that the landlord cannot be non-suited only on the ground of his being in possession of such premises since same were not owned by him.</p><p>30. In view of the above discussion, the Revision Petition is allowed, the order of the learned Appellate Authority dated 6.5.2003 is seaside and the order of the Rent Controller dated 22.8.2001 is restored.</p><p>31. Keeping in view the fact that the tenant has been in possession of the premises for a long period he is granted time up to 31st October, 2008 to vacate the premises.</p><p>32. No order as to costs.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '2008(2)ShimLC491',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'Shri S.L. Srivastava',
		'sub' => 'Tenancy',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'shri-arun-bhanwara-vs-s-l-srivastava'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '891084',
	(int) 1 => 'shri-arun-bhanwara-vs-s-l-srivastava'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/891084/shri-arun-bhanwara-vs-s-l-srivastava'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$caseref = 'Ram Narain Arora v. Asha Rani<br>'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>Deepak Gupta, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. This Revision Petition under Section 25(5) of the H.P. Urban Rent Control Act, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) is directed against the order of the learned Appellate Authority, Shimla in CMA No. 60-S/14 of 2001 whereby the appeal filed by the respondent (hereinafter referred to as the tenant) has been allowed, the order of the Rent Controller has been set-aside and the petition for eviction filed by the present petitioner (hereinafter referred to as the Landlord) on the ground of personal bona fide requirement has been set-aside.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. The undisputed facts are that the landlord is owner of the demised premises situated in building known as Tunnel View, Sanjauli, Shimla-6 consisting of two bed rooms with attached bath room and latrine, drawing-cum-dining room, kitchen and balcony. These premises were purchased by the landlord in the year 1986. Thereafter, the landlord had rented out the premises to one Sh. B.K. Chauhan. According to the landlord, when he got married he requested Sh. B.K. Chauhan to vacate the said premises. Sh. Chauhan vacated the said premises but admittedly the landlord did not occupy the same but rented out the same to the tenant in the year 1990.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. In the year 1997 the landlord filed a petition for eviction of the tenant on two grounds; firstly that the tenant is in arrears of rent from 1.11.1990 to 31.7.1997 and secondly that the premises are bona fide required by the landlord for the use and occupation of himself and his family.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>4. This petition was contested by the tenant. After trial, the Rent Controller ordered the eviction of the tenant on two grounds; (i) that the tenant was in arrears of rent from November, 1999 till date of order i.e. 22nd August, 2001 and (ii) that the landlord required the premises for his own use and occupation.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>5. The tenant deposited the rent within the time prescribed. He also filed an appeal challenging the finding on the issue of bona fide requirement. The learned Appellate Authority came to the conclusion that the landlord had not made a proper and full disclosure of facts as required under the provisions of the Act and had withheld material facts from the Court viz. that the landlord was in occupation of residential premises on 31, Mall Road in the urban area of Shimla and as such rejected this petition on this short ground.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>6. Aggrieved by the said order, the landlord has filed the present Revision Petition.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>7. I have heard Sh. Ramakant Sharma, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sh. Bhupinder Gupta, learned senior Counsel for the tenant.',
	(int) 8 => '<p>8. It has been urged on behalf of the landlord that the building which is alleged to be in possession of the landlord i.e. 31, the Mall Shimla is not a residential building and secondly that the building is not owned by him.',
	(int) 9 => '<p>9. On the other hand Sh. Bhupinder Gupta, learned Counsel of the tenant has strenuously urged that the landlord in para 18 has not stated anything about any building being owned by him and has only made an averment that he does not own or possess any other such building within the urban area Shimla. It is contended by Sh. Bhupinder Gupta that the landlord of his own volition did not state anything about the ownership of the building and since he has kept silent about the building which he is in occupation he has made a false averment and therefore his petition for eviction has rightly been rejected.',
	(int) 10 => '<p>10. I am not at all in agreement with the contention of the landlord that the premises known as 31, the Mall Shimla which are admittedly in the occupation of the landlord are commercial premises only and not being used by him for his residence. As pointed out above, the landlord purchased the demised premises in 1986. They fell vacant when he got married despite that he did not occupy the same and rented out the same to the tenant in the year 1990. The question that arises is where was the landlord living for this entire period. According to the landlord after the year 1994 he has been living with his brother-in-law Rajan (wife's brother) PW-2, since the year 1994. Prior to 1994 the landlord will have this Court to believe that he was living off and on with one friend or the other. This story is impossible to believe. The landlord was married in the year 1999. He is an Architect by profession. His wife is a law graduate. It is not believable that such a person would have no permanent abode and would continue to live as a guest with his friends for almost 5 years after his marriage. Even the story that he has been living with his brother-in-law after the year 1994 does not inspire confidence. It stands proved on record that the brother-in-law PW-2 Rajan lives with his own family i.e. wife and children. From the evidence it is also clear that the parents of the brother-in-law also reside with him, His flat consists of only two rooms. The flat in possession of the landlord at 31, the Mall Shimla, also consists of two rooms, kitchen and bath room. Even assuming that he was running an office in the part of the flat it cannot be believed that he would not live on his own flat on the Mall Road and reside with his brother-in-law in cramped premises. Even in the electoral list the landlord is shown to be a resident of 31, The Mall, Shimla. Therefore, I am of the considered view that the building 31, the Mall, Shimla was also being used as a residence by the landlord.',
	(int) 11 => '<p>11. Having held so, the question that arises is whether the landlord can be non-suited only on the ground that he has not made any disclosure about the residential accommodation available with him which premises were admittedly not owned by him.',
	(int) 12 => '<p>12. The short question which arises for decision in this petition is whether the landlord was guilty of suppressing and withholding such relevant facts which would disentitle him from seeking eviction of the tenant. To appreciate these contentions it would be necessary to refer to relevant portion of Section 14(3) of the Act:',
	(int) 13 => '<p>Section 14:',
	(int) 14 => '<p>1 and 2 xxxxxxxxxxx',
	(int) 15 => '<p>(3) A landlord may apply to the Controller for an order directing the tenant to put the landlord in possession-',
	(int) 16 => '<p>(a) in case of residential building, if',
	(int) 17 => '<p>(i) he required it for his own occupation:',
	(int) 18 => '<p>Provided that he is not occupying another residential building owned by him, in the urban area concerned:',
	(int) 19 => '<p>Provided further that he has not vacated such a building without sufficient cause within five years of the filing of the application, in the said urban area....',
	(int) 20 => '<p>13. A perusal of the bare provisions of the Act makes it clear that there are certain essential ingredients which the landlord must satisfy before seeking eviction of the tenant under the Act. Not only must he prove that the residential building is bona fide required by him for his own use and occupation but he must also plead and prove that he is not occupying any other residential building owned by him in the urban area concerned and further that he has not vacated such a building without sufficient cause within 5 years of the filing of the application.',
	(int) 21 => '<p>14. Reference may now be made to the relevant allegations made in para 18 of the eviction petition:',
	(int) 22 => '<p>(ii) That the petitioner bona fide requires the premises for his own use and occupation and also for the use and occupation of his family.',
	(int) 23 => '<p>The petitioner does not own or possess any other such building within the urban area of Simla nor the petitioner has vacated any such premises within five years of the filing of this petition.',
	(int) 24 => '<p>The family of the petitioner presently consists of himself and his wife. Due to paucity of accommodation the petitioner has not been able to keep his wife with himself at Simla, where he is working as an Engineer and she has been residing at Chandigarh since 1991 but on account of her ill health she has been brought to Simla by the petitioner. The petitioner at present is seeking temporary shelter, from time to time, with his relations.',
	(int) 25 => '<p>15. The learned Appellate Authority came to the conclusion that the landlord had falsely pleaded that he does not own or possess any other such building within the urban area of Shimla and hence rejected the eviction petition on this ground.',
	(int) 26 => '<p>16. On a close analysis of the proviso to Section 14(3)(a)(i) of the Act it is clear that a landlord is not entitled to seek eviction of a tenant from residential building even in case of bona fide requirement if the landlord is occupying another residential building owned by him in the urban area concerned. One can read three essential ingredients in this proviso i.e. (i) that the landlord is in occupation of another residential building; (ii) that the said residential building is owned by him and (iii) that the said residential building is situated in the concerned urban area.',
	(int) 27 => '<p>17. The question that arises is what is the impact of the landlord not making a disclosure in respect of premises which he is occupying but are not owned by him.',
	(int) 28 => '<p>18. The Apex Court in Onkar Nath v. Ved Vyas ILR 1979 HP 1, held as follows:',
	(int) 29 => '<p>It is common ground that there are three requirements to make out a cause of action for eviction under that provision, and indeed this is apparent from a bare reading of the sub-section. In the present case the finding is to the effect that the landlord requires the residential building for his own occupation. But, the legislation has taken care to insist upon two more conditions, namely; (a) that the landlord is not occupying any other residential building in the area concerned; and (b) that he has not vacated such a building without sufficient cause. There is not a scintilla of evidence nor indeed there is any averment in compliance with these latter conditions. The necessary consequence follows that not merely is there inadequacy of pleadings sufficient to make out a cause of action but total absence of proof of two vital requirements....',
	(int) 30 => '<p>The Supreme Court also said that:.The statute benignly designed to protect tenants from unreasonable evictions has taken case to put restrictions which must be rigorously construed to fulfil the purpose of the statute.',
	(int) 31 => '<p>19. Following the aforesaid judgment and other pronouncements of the Apex Court, a learned Single Judge of this Court in Tara Chand Sharma v. Baij Nath and Ors. 1992 (2) R.C.J. 323, held as follows:',
	(int) 32 => '<p>16. What appears as the legislative intent, in bold relief, is that the landlord, while seeking eviction of a tenant on the ground that he needs a residential building for his own occupation, must come out clearly and honestly with facts relating to the requirement that he is not occupying another residential building owned by him, in the urban area concerned and that he had not vacated such a building without sufficient cause within five years of the filing of the application, in the said urban area. The primal burden of making a clear disclosure would lie upon the landlord, for, the true facts would be in his special knowledge. An order in his favour by the Rent Controller would depend upon the satisfaction of the Rent Controller in regard not only to the claim that the landlord requires the accommodation, from which he wishes to evict a tenant, for his own occupation but also that he was not occupying another residential building owned by him nor had he vacated such building without sufficient cause within five years of the filing of the application in the application in the urban area concerned....',
	(int) 33 => '<p>It was further held as under:',
	(int) 34 => '<p>18. That the landlord should make a full disclosure of the relevant facts, pertaining to the requirements of Sub-section (3)(a)(i) and the two provisos, becomes all the more necessary because the satisfaction of the Rent Controller in regard thereto is the condition precedent for the making of an order in favour of the landlord....',
	(int) 35 => '<p>20. The aforesaid judgment has been followed in a number of other cases including Vijay Kapoor v. Maya Ram 1997 (2) RCR 437, wherein another learned single Judge of this Court following the aforesaid judgment held that the landlord must make complete and proper disclosure of all the material facts.',
	(int) 36 => '<p>21. On the other hand Sh. Ramakant Sharma has relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in Ram Narain Arora v. Asha Rani 1998(2) RCR 268. In that case the Rent Controller came to the conclusion that the landlord had suppressed material information and had not disclosed the fact that he was already in occupation of a house in Subji Mandi. Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act reads as follows:',
	(int) 37 => '<p>Section 14(1)(e). That the premises let for residential purposes are required bona fide by the landlord for occupation as a residence for himself or for any member of his family dependent on him, if he is the owner thereof, or for any person for whose benefit the premises are held and that the landlord or such person has no other reasonably suitable residential accommodation.',
	(int) 38 => '<p>22. The difference between Delhi Act and the present Act is that under the Delhi Act the only requirement is that the landlord has no other reasonably suitable accommodation whereas under the Himachal Act the residential premises are required to be owned by the landlord. The Apex Court in Rama Narain Arora's case (supra) held that the nondisclosure of the fact that the landlord was in occupation of certain premises in Subji Mandi was.not a ground to non-suit the landlord in view of the facts and circumstances of the case. The Apex Court held as follows:',
	(int) 39 => '<p>9. In making a claim that the suit premises is required bona fide for his own occupation as a residence for himself and other members of his family dependent on him and that he has no other reasonably suitable accommodation is a requirement of law before the Court can state whether the landlord requires the premises bona fide for his use and occupation. In doing so, the Court must also find out whether the landlord or such other person for whose benefit the premises is required has no other reasonably suitable residential accommodation. It cannot be said that the requirement of the landlord is not intermixed with the question of finding out whether he has any other reasonably suitable accommodation. If he has other reasonably suitable accommodation, ihen necessarily it would mean that he does not require the suit premises and his requirement may not be bona fide. In such circumstances further inquiry would be whether that premises is more suitable than the suit premises. Therefore, the questions raised before the Court would not necessarily depend upon only the pleadings. It could be a good defence that the landlord has other reasonably suitable residential accommodation and thereby defend the claim of the landlord.',
	(int) 40 => '<p>10. There cannot be a pedantic or a dogmatic approach in the matter of analysis of pleadings or of the evidence adduced thereto. It is no doubt true that if the pleadings are clearly set out, it would be easy for the Court to decide the matters. But if the pleadings are lacking or vague and if both parties have understood what was the case pleaded and put forth with reference to requirement of law and placed such material before the Court, neither party is prejudiced. If we analyse from this angle, we do not think that the High Court was not justified in interfering with the order made by the Rent Controller.',
	(int) 41 => '<p>23. From the perusal of the judgment of the Apex Court it is apparent that the Rent Controller must approach the matter in a practical manner. In case the non-disclosure is such as that it goes to the very root of the case the Rent Controller would be justified in non-suiting the landlord. However, if the non-disclosure is such that it would not prejudice the rights of the respondent then the landlord should not be non-suited only on this ground.',
	(int) 42 => '<p>24. The decisions of this Court cited hereinabove were delivered prior to the judgment delivered by the Apex Court in Ram Nar'ain Arora's case. Further more both in Tara Chand Sharma's case and Vijay Kapoor's case decided by this Court, no averment had been made ixi respect of other residential buildings owned by a landlord. There was complete non-disclosure as to whether any such residential building owned by the landlord was in his possession or not. In the present case, as I have held above, the residential premises at 31, The Mall, Shimla was not owned by the landlord and hence these two earlier judgments of this Court are distinguishable on facts also.',
	(int) 43 => '<p>25. In the present case, the landlord has been non-suited only on the ground that he did not disclose the fact that he was in occupation of certain premises on the Mall Road. Under law he was not required to disclose this fact. He was only required to disclose the factum of occupying another residential building owned by him in the urban area concerned. True it may be, that it would have been better if the landlord had disclosed all the facts but non-disclosure of a fact which he was not under law required to disclose could not in my opinion be a ground to dismiss his eviction petition.',
	(int) 44 => '<p>26. However, what are the premises in his occupation even as a tenant can be taken into consideration while deciding the question whether he bona fide requires the demised premises for his personal use or occupation or not.',
	(int) 45 => '<p>27. Lastly comes the question with regard to the bona fide requirement of the landlord. The landlord has no children. According to the landlord as well as his other witnesses i.e. his brother-in-law PW-2 and his wife PW-3, the wife now wants to come back and settle in Shimla. There is no reason to disbelieve their statements. Even according to the evidence led by the tenant the accommodation in possession of the landlord consists of two rooms, kitchen, bath room etc. Admittedly, the landlord is also having his office as an Architect in this building. The landlord belongs to the middle class of the Society. It cannot be expected of a landlord who owns sufficient property to reside in a two room set wherein he also runs his office.',
	(int) 46 => '<p>28. The law by now is well settled that the landlord is the best judge of the suitability of the accommodation required by him. This suitability has however to be judged in the context of reasonable expectations. The landlord and his wife who are both well educated can reasonably be expected to entertain guests and they will have visitors to their house. They would obviously require a drawing room, a bed room and a spare bed room for guests. Even at his residence the landlord may require another room for his professional work. This is the minimum accommodation which they would require. Even if the accommodation possessed by the landlord, though not owned by him, at 31, the Mall, Shimla is taken into consideration such accommodation is not sufficient to meet his requirements since admittedly the landlord is running his profession of Architect from some portion of his these premises.',
	(int) 47 => '<p>29. Keeping in view the entire facts and circumstances, I am of the considered view that the learned Appellate Authority gravely erred in rejecting the eviction petition of the landlord solely on the ground that he had not disclosed the factum of being in possession of the premises at 31, the Mall Shimla. Even though I have held that the said premises are residential premises, in view of the above discussion I hold that the landlord cannot be non-suited only on the ground of his being in possession of such premises since same were not owned by him.',
	(int) 48 => '<p>30. In view of the above discussion, the Revision Petition is allowed, the order of the learned Appellate Authority dated 6.5.2003 is seaside and the order of the Rent Controller dated 22.8.2001 is restored.',
	(int) 49 => '<p>31. Keeping in view the fact that the tenant has been in possession of the premises for a long period he is granted time up to 31st October, 2008 to vacate the premises.',
	(int) 50 => '<p>32. No order as to costs.<p>',
	(int) 51 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 52
$i = (int) 23
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

The petitioner does not own or possess any other such building within the urban area of Simla nor the petitioner has vacated any such premises within five years of the filing of this petition.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Shri Arun Bhanwara Vs Shri S L Srivastava - Citation 891084 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '891084',
			'acts' => '',
			'appealno' => '',
			'appellant' => 'Shri Arun Bhanwara',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Shri Arun Bhanwara Vs. Shri S.L. Srivastava',
			'casenote' => ' - CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908.[C.A. No. 5/1908]. Order 14, Rule 2 [As amended by Amending Act of 1976]: [V.K. Gupta, CJ, Deepak Gupta & Surjit Singh, JJ] Preliminary issue of law and fact  Court framing all issues both of law and facts together and also  tried all the issues together, including the issue relating to jurisdiction of Court  Held, Except in situations perceived or warranted under sub-rule (2) of Rule 2 of Order 14 where a  Court in fact frames only issues of law in the first instance and postpones settlement of other issues, clearly and explicitly in situations where the Court has framed all issues together, both of law as well as facts and has also tried all these issues together, it is not open to the Court to adopt the principle of severability and proceed to decide issues of law first, without taking up simultaneously other issues for decision. This course of action is not available to a Court because sub-rule (1) does not permit the  Court to adopt any such principle of severability and to dispose of a suit only on preliminary issues, or what can be termed as issues of law. Sub-rule (1)  clearly mandates that in a situation contemplated under it, where all the issues have been together and have also been taken up for adjudication during the course of the trial, these must be decided together and the judgment in the suit as a whole must be pronounced by the Court covering all the issues framed in the suit.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => 'Ram Narain Arora v. Asha Rani;',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => '',
			'counseldef' => '',
			'court' => 'Himachal Pradesh',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2008-07-31',
			'deposition' => 'Petition allowed',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => ' Deepak Gupta, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">Deepak Gupta, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. This Revision Petition under Section 25(5) of the H.P. Urban Rent Control Act, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) is directed against the order of the learned Appellate Authority, Shimla in CMA No. 60-S/14 of 2001 whereby the appeal filed by the respondent (hereinafter referred to as the tenant) has been allowed, the order of the Rent Controller has been set-aside and the petition for eviction filed by the present petitioner (hereinafter referred to as the Landlord) on the ground of personal bona fide requirement has been set-aside.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The undisputed facts are that the landlord is owner of the demised premises situated in building known as Tunnel View, Sanjauli, Shimla-6 consisting of two bed rooms with attached bath room and latrine, drawing-cum-dining room, kitchen and balcony. These premises were purchased by the landlord in the year 1986. Thereafter, the landlord had rented out the premises to one Sh. B.K. Chauhan. According to the landlord, when he got married he requested Sh. B.K. Chauhan to vacate the said premises. Sh. Chauhan vacated the said premises but admittedly the landlord did not occupy the same but rented out the same to the tenant in the year 1990.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. In the year 1997 the landlord filed a petition for eviction of the tenant on two grounds; firstly that the tenant is in arrears of rent from 1.11.1990 to 31.7.1997 and secondly that the premises are bona fide required by the landlord for the use and occupation of himself and his family.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. This petition was contested by the tenant. After trial, the Rent Controller ordered the eviction of the tenant on two grounds; (i) that the tenant was in arrears of rent from November, 1999 till date of order i.e. 22nd August, 2001 and (ii) that the landlord required the premises for his own use and occupation.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. The tenant deposited the rent within the time prescribed. He also filed an appeal challenging the finding on the issue of bona fide requirement. The learned Appellate Authority came to the conclusion that the landlord had not made a proper and full disclosure of facts as required under the provisions of the Act and had withheld material facts from the Court viz. that the landlord was in occupation of residential premises on 31, Mall Road in the urban area of Shimla and as such rejected this petition on this short ground.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. Aggrieved by the said order, the landlord has filed the present Revision Petition.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. I have heard Sh. Ramakant Sharma, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sh. Bhupinder Gupta, learned senior Counsel for the tenant.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. It has been urged on behalf of the landlord that the building which is alleged to be in possession of the landlord i.e. 31, the Mall Shimla is not a residential building and secondly that the building is not owned by him.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. On the other hand Sh. Bhupinder Gupta, learned Counsel of the tenant has strenuously urged that the landlord in para 18 has not stated anything about any building being owned by him and has only made an averment that he does not own or possess any other such building within the urban area Shimla. It is contended by Sh. Bhupinder Gupta that the landlord of his own volition did not state anything about the ownership of the building and since he has kept silent about the building which he is in occupation he has made a false averment and therefore his petition for eviction has rightly been rejected.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. I am not at all in agreement with the contention of the landlord that the premises known as 31, the Mall Shimla which are admittedly in the occupation of the landlord are commercial premises only and not being used by him for his residence. As pointed out above, the landlord purchased the demised premises in 1986. They fell vacant when he got married despite that he did not occupy the same and rented out the same to the tenant in the year 1990. The question that arises is where was the landlord living for this entire period. According to the landlord after the year 1994 he has been living with his brother-in-law Rajan (wife's brother) PW-2, since the year 1994. Prior to 1994 the landlord will have this Court to believe that he was living off and on with one friend or the other. This story is impossible to believe. The landlord was married in the year 1999. He is an Architect by profession. His wife is a law graduate. It is not believable that such a person would have no permanent abode and would continue to live as a guest with his friends for almost 5 years after his marriage. Even the story that he has been living with his brother-in-law after the year 1994 does not inspire confidence. It stands proved on record that the brother-in-law PW-2 Rajan lives with his own family i.e. wife and children. From the evidence it is also clear that the parents of the brother-in-law also reside with him, His flat consists of only two rooms. The flat in possession of the landlord at 31, the Mall Shimla, also consists of two rooms, kitchen and bath room. Even assuming that he was running an office in the part of the flat it cannot be believed that he would not live on his own flat on the Mall Road and reside with his brother-in-law in cramped premises. Even in the electoral list the landlord is shown to be a resident of 31, The Mall, Shimla. Therefore, I am of the considered view that the building 31, the Mall, Shimla was also being used as a residence by the landlord.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. Having held so, the question that arises is whether the landlord can be non-suited only on the ground that he has not made any disclosure about the residential accommodation available with him which premises were admittedly not owned by him.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. The short question which arises for decision in this petition is whether the landlord was guilty of suppressing and withholding such relevant facts which would disentitle him from seeking eviction of the tenant. To appreciate these contentions it would be necessary to refer to relevant portion of Section 14(3) of the Act:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Section 14:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1 and 2 xxxxxxxxxxx</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(3) A landlord may apply to the Controller for an order directing the tenant to put the landlord in possession-</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(a) in case of residential building, if</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(i) he required it for his own occupation:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Provided that he is not occupying another residential building owned by him, in the urban area concerned:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Provided further that he has not vacated such a building without sufficient cause within five years of the filing of the application, in the said urban area....</p><p style="text-align: justify;">13. A perusal of the bare provisions of the Act makes it clear that there are certain essential ingredients which the landlord must satisfy before seeking eviction of the tenant under the Act. Not only must he prove that the residential building is bona fide required by him for his own use and occupation but he must also plead and prove that he is not occupying any other residential building owned by him in the urban area concerned and further that he has not vacated such a building without sufficient cause within 5 years of the filing of the application.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">14. Reference may now be made to the relevant allegations made in para 18 of the eviction petition:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(ii) That the petitioner bona fide requires the premises for his own use and occupation and also for the use and occupation of his family.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The petitioner does not own or possess any other such building within the urban area of Simla nor the petitioner has vacated any such premises within five years of the filing of this petition.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The family of the petitioner presently consists of himself and his wife. Due to paucity of accommodation the petitioner has not been able to keep his wife with himself at Simla, where he is working as an Engineer and she has been residing at Chandigarh since 1991 but on account of her ill health she has been brought to Simla by the petitioner. The petitioner at present is seeking temporary shelter, from time to time, with his relations.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">15. The learned Appellate Authority came to the conclusion that the landlord had falsely pleaded that he does not own or possess any other such building within the urban area of Shimla and hence rejected the eviction petition on this ground.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">16. On a close analysis of the proviso to Section 14(3)(a)(i) of the Act it is clear that a landlord is not entitled to seek eviction of a tenant from residential building even in case of bona fide requirement if the landlord is occupying another residential building owned by him in the urban area concerned. One can read three essential ingredients in this proviso i.e. (i) that the landlord is in occupation of another residential building; (ii) that the said residential building is owned by him and (iii) that the said residential building is situated in the concerned urban area.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">17. The question that arises is what is the impact of the landlord not making a disclosure in respect of premises which he is occupying but are not owned by him.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">18. The Apex Court in Onkar Nath v. Ved Vyas ILR 1979 HP 1, held as follows:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">It is common ground that there are three requirements to make out a cause of action for eviction under that provision, and indeed this is apparent from a bare reading of the sub-section. In the present case the finding is to the effect that the landlord requires the residential building for his own occupation. But, the legislation has taken care to insist upon two more conditions, namely; (a) that the landlord is not occupying any other residential building in the area concerned; and (b) that he has not vacated such a building without sufficient cause. There is not a scintilla of evidence nor indeed there is any averment in compliance with these latter conditions. The necessary consequence follows that not merely is there inadequacy of pleadings sufficient to make out a cause of action but total absence of proof of two vital requirements....</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The Supreme Court also said that:.The statute benignly designed to protect tenants from unreasonable evictions has taken case to put restrictions which must be rigorously construed to fulfil the purpose of the statute.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">19. Following the aforesaid judgment and other pronouncements of the Apex Court, a learned Single Judge of this Court in Tara Chand Sharma v. Baij Nath and Ors. 1992 (2) R.C.J. 323, held as follows:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">16. What appears as the legislative intent, in bold relief, is that the landlord, while seeking eviction of a tenant on the ground that he needs a residential building for his own occupation, must come out clearly and honestly with facts relating to the requirement that he is not occupying another residential building owned by him, in the urban area concerned and that he had not vacated such a building without sufficient cause within five years of the filing of the application, in the said urban area. The primal burden of making a clear disclosure would lie upon the landlord, for, the true facts would be in his special knowledge. An order in his favour by the Rent Controller would depend upon the satisfaction of the Rent Controller in regard not only to the claim that the landlord requires the accommodation, from which he wishes to evict a tenant, for his own occupation but also that he was not occupying another residential building owned by him nor had he vacated such building without sufficient cause within five years of the filing of the application in the application in the urban area concerned....</p><p style="text-align: justify;">It was further held as under:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">18. That the landlord should make a full disclosure of the relevant facts, pertaining to the requirements of Sub-section (3)(a)(i) and the two provisos, becomes all the more necessary because the satisfaction of the Rent Controller in regard thereto is the condition precedent for the making of an order in favour of the landlord....</p><p style="text-align: justify;">20. The aforesaid judgment has been followed in a number of other cases including Vijay Kapoor v. Maya Ram 1997 (2) RCR 437, wherein another learned single Judge of this Court following the aforesaid judgment held that the landlord must make complete and proper disclosure of all the material facts.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">21. On the other hand Sh. Ramakant Sharma has relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in Ram Narain Arora v. Asha Rani 1998(2) RCR 268. In that case the Rent Controller came to the conclusion that the landlord had suppressed material information and had not disclosed the fact that he was already in occupation of a house in Subji Mandi. Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act reads as follows:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Section 14(1)(e). That the premises let for residential purposes are required bona fide by the landlord for occupation as a residence for himself or for any member of his family dependent on him, if he is the owner thereof, or for any person for whose benefit the premises are held and that the landlord or such person has no other reasonably suitable residential accommodation.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">22. The difference between Delhi Act and the present Act is that under the Delhi Act the only requirement is that the landlord has no other reasonably suitable accommodation whereas under the Himachal Act the residential premises are required to be owned by the landlord. The Apex Court in Rama Narain Arora's case (supra) held that the nondisclosure of the fact that the landlord was in occupation of certain premises in Subji Mandi was.not a ground to non-suit the landlord in view of the facts and circumstances of the case. The Apex Court held as follows:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. In making a claim that the suit premises is required bona fide for his own occupation as a residence for himself and other members of his family dependent on him and that he has no other reasonably suitable accommodation is a requirement of law before the Court can state whether the landlord requires the premises bona fide for his use and occupation. In doing so, the Court must also find out whether the landlord or such other person for whose benefit the premises is required has no other reasonably suitable residential accommodation. It cannot be said that the requirement of the landlord is not intermixed with the question of finding out whether he has any other reasonably suitable accommodation. If he has other reasonably suitable accommodation, ihen necessarily it would mean that he does not require the suit premises and his requirement may not be bona fide. In such circumstances further inquiry would be whether that premises is more suitable than the suit premises. Therefore, the questions raised before the Court would not necessarily depend upon only the pleadings. It could be a good defence that the landlord has other reasonably suitable residential accommodation and thereby defend the claim of the landlord.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. There cannot be a pedantic or a dogmatic approach in the matter of analysis of pleadings or of the evidence adduced thereto. It is no doubt true that if the pleadings are clearly set out, it would be easy for the Court to decide the matters. But if the pleadings are lacking or vague and if both parties have understood what was the case pleaded and put forth with reference to requirement of law and placed such material before the Court, neither party is prejudiced. If we analyse from this angle, we do not think that the High Court was not justified in interfering with the order made by the Rent Controller.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">23. From the perusal of the judgment of the Apex Court it is apparent that the Rent Controller must approach the matter in a practical manner. In case the non-disclosure is such as that it goes to the very root of the case the Rent Controller would be justified in non-suiting the landlord. However, if the non-disclosure is such that it would not prejudice the rights of the respondent then the landlord should not be non-suited only on this ground.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">24. The decisions of this Court cited hereinabove were delivered prior to the judgment delivered by the Apex Court in Ram Nar'ain Arora's case. Further more both in Tara Chand Sharma's case and Vijay Kapoor's case decided by this Court, no averment had been made ixi respect of other residential buildings owned by a landlord. There was complete non-disclosure as to whether any such residential building owned by the landlord was in his possession or not. In the present case, as I have held above, the residential premises at 31, The Mall, Shimla was not owned by the landlord and hence these two earlier judgments of this Court are distinguishable on facts also.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">25. In the present case, the landlord has been non-suited only on the ground that he did not disclose the fact that he was in occupation of certain premises on the Mall Road. Under law he was not required to disclose this fact. He was only required to disclose the factum of occupying another residential building owned by him in the urban area concerned. True it may be, that it would have been better if the landlord had disclosed all the facts but non-disclosure of a fact which he was not under law required to disclose could not in my opinion be a ground to dismiss his eviction petition.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">26. However, what are the premises in his occupation even as a tenant can be taken into consideration while deciding the question whether he bona fide requires the demised premises for his personal use or occupation or not.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">27. Lastly comes the question with regard to the bona fide requirement of the landlord. The landlord has no children. According to the landlord as well as his other witnesses i.e. his brother-in-law PW-2 and his wife PW-3, the wife now wants to come back and settle in Shimla. There is no reason to disbelieve their statements. Even according to the evidence led by the tenant the accommodation in possession of the landlord consists of two rooms, kitchen, bath room etc. Admittedly, the landlord is also having his office as an Architect in this building. The landlord belongs to the middle class of the Society. It cannot be expected of a landlord who owns sufficient property to reside in a two room set wherein he also runs his office.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">28. The law by now is well settled that the landlord is the best judge of the suitability of the accommodation required by him. This suitability has however to be judged in the context of reasonable expectations. The landlord and his wife who are both well educated can reasonably be expected to entertain guests and they will have visitors to their house. They would obviously require a drawing room, a bed room and a spare bed room for guests. Even at his residence the landlord may require another room for his professional work. This is the minimum accommodation which they would require. Even if the accommodation possessed by the landlord, though not owned by him, at 31, the Mall, Shimla is taken into consideration such accommodation is not sufficient to meet his requirements since admittedly the landlord is running his profession of Architect from some portion of his these premises.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">29. Keeping in view the entire facts and circumstances, I am of the considered view that the learned Appellate Authority gravely erred in rejecting the eviction petition of the landlord solely on the ground that he had not disclosed the factum of being in possession of the premises at 31, the Mall Shimla. Even though I have held that the said premises are residential premises, in view of the above discussion I hold that the landlord cannot be non-suited only on the ground of his being in possession of such premises since same were not owned by him.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">30. In view of the above discussion, the Revision Petition is allowed, the order of the learned Appellate Authority dated 6.5.2003 is seaside and the order of the Rent Controller dated 22.8.2001 is restored.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">31. Keeping in view the fact that the tenant has been in possession of the premises for a long period he is granted time up to 31st October, 2008 to vacate the premises.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">32. No order as to costs.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '2008(2)ShimLC491',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'Shri S.L. Srivastava',
			'sub' => 'Tenancy',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'shri-arun-bhanwara-vs-s-l-srivastava',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '891084',
		(int) 1 => 'shri-arun-bhanwara-vs-s-l-srivastava'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Shri Arun Bhanwara Vs Shri S L Srivastava - Citation 891084 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '891084',
		'acts' => '',
		'appealno' => '',
		'appellant' => 'Shri Arun Bhanwara',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Shri Arun Bhanwara Vs. Shri S.L. Srivastava',
		'casenote' => ' - CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908.[C.A. No. 5/1908]. Order 14, Rule 2 [As amended by Amending Act of 1976]: [V.K. Gupta, CJ, Deepak Gupta & Surjit Singh, JJ] Preliminary issue of law and fact  Court framing all issues both of law and facts together and also  tried all the issues together, including the issue relating to jurisdiction of Court  Held, Except in situations perceived or warranted under sub-rule (2) of Rule 2 of Order 14 where a  Court in fact frames only issues of law in the first instance and postpones settlement of other issues, clearly and explicitly in situations where the Court has framed all issues together, both of law as well as facts and has also tried all these issues together, it is not open to the Court to adopt the principle of severability and proceed to decide issues of law first, without taking up simultaneously other issues for decision. This course of action is not available to a Court because sub-rule (1) does not permit the  Court to adopt any such principle of severability and to dispose of a suit only on preliminary issues, or what can be termed as issues of law. Sub-rule (1)  clearly mandates that in a situation contemplated under it, where all the issues have been together and have also been taken up for adjudication during the course of the trial, these must be decided together and the judgment in the suit as a whole must be pronounced by the Court covering all the issues framed in the suit.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => 'Ram Narain Arora v. Asha Rani;',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => '',
		'counseldef' => '',
		'court' => 'Himachal Pradesh',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2008-07-31',
		'deposition' => 'Petition allowed',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => ' Deepak Gupta, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>Deepak Gupta, J.</p><p>1. This Revision Petition under Section 25(5) of the H.P. Urban Rent Control Act, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) is directed against the order of the learned Appellate Authority, Shimla in CMA No. 60-S/14 of 2001 whereby the appeal filed by the respondent (hereinafter referred to as the tenant) has been allowed, the order of the Rent Controller has been set-aside and the petition for eviction filed by the present petitioner (hereinafter referred to as the Landlord) on the ground of personal bona fide requirement has been set-aside.</p><p>2. The undisputed facts are that the landlord is owner of the demised premises situated in building known as Tunnel View, Sanjauli, Shimla-6 consisting of two bed rooms with attached bath room and latrine, drawing-cum-dining room, kitchen and balcony. These premises were purchased by the landlord in the year 1986. Thereafter, the landlord had rented out the premises to one Sh. B.K. Chauhan. According to the landlord, when he got married he requested Sh. B.K. Chauhan to vacate the said premises. Sh. Chauhan vacated the said premises but admittedly the landlord did not occupy the same but rented out the same to the tenant in the year 1990.</p><p>3. In the year 1997 the landlord filed a petition for eviction of the tenant on two grounds; firstly that the tenant is in arrears of rent from 1.11.1990 to 31.7.1997 and secondly that the premises are bona fide required by the landlord for the use and occupation of himself and his family.</p><p>4. This petition was contested by the tenant. After trial, the Rent Controller ordered the eviction of the tenant on two grounds; (i) that the tenant was in arrears of rent from November, 1999 till date of order i.e. 22nd August, 2001 and (ii) that the landlord required the premises for his own use and occupation.</p><p>5. The tenant deposited the rent within the time prescribed. He also filed an appeal challenging the finding on the issue of bona fide requirement. The learned Appellate Authority came to the conclusion that the landlord had not made a proper and full disclosure of facts as required under the provisions of the Act and had withheld material facts from the Court viz. that the landlord was in occupation of residential premises on 31, Mall Road in the urban area of Shimla and as such rejected this petition on this short ground.</p><p>6. Aggrieved by the said order, the landlord has filed the present Revision Petition.</p><p>7. I have heard Sh. Ramakant Sharma, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sh. Bhupinder Gupta, learned senior Counsel for the tenant.</p><p>8. It has been urged on behalf of the landlord that the building which is alleged to be in possession of the landlord i.e. 31, the Mall Shimla is not a residential building and secondly that the building is not owned by him.</p><p>9. On the other hand Sh. Bhupinder Gupta, learned Counsel of the tenant has strenuously urged that the landlord in para 18 has not stated anything about any building being owned by him and has only made an averment that he does not own or possess any other such building within the urban area Shimla. It is contended by Sh. Bhupinder Gupta that the landlord of his own volition did not state anything about the ownership of the building and since he has kept silent about the building which he is in occupation he has made a false averment and therefore his petition for eviction has rightly been rejected.</p><p>10. I am not at all in agreement with the contention of the landlord that the premises known as 31, the Mall Shimla which are admittedly in the occupation of the landlord are commercial premises only and not being used by him for his residence. As pointed out above, the landlord purchased the demised premises in 1986. They fell vacant when he got married despite that he did not occupy the same and rented out the same to the tenant in the year 1990. The question that arises is where was the landlord living for this entire period. According to the landlord after the year 1994 he has been living with his brother-in-law Rajan (wife's brother) PW-2, since the year 1994. Prior to 1994 the landlord will have this Court to believe that he was living off and on with one friend or the other. This story is impossible to believe. The landlord was married in the year 1999. He is an Architect by profession. His wife is a law graduate. It is not believable that such a person would have no permanent abode and would continue to live as a guest with his friends for almost 5 years after his marriage. Even the story that he has been living with his brother-in-law after the year 1994 does not inspire confidence. It stands proved on record that the brother-in-law PW-2 Rajan lives with his own family i.e. wife and children. From the evidence it is also clear that the parents of the brother-in-law also reside with him, His flat consists of only two rooms. The flat in possession of the landlord at 31, the Mall Shimla, also consists of two rooms, kitchen and bath room. Even assuming that he was running an office in the part of the flat it cannot be believed that he would not live on his own flat on the Mall Road and reside with his brother-in-law in cramped premises. Even in the electoral list the landlord is shown to be a resident of 31, The Mall, Shimla. Therefore, I am of the considered view that the building 31, the Mall, Shimla was also being used as a residence by the landlord.</p><p>11. Having held so, the question that arises is whether the landlord can be non-suited only on the ground that he has not made any disclosure about the residential accommodation available with him which premises were admittedly not owned by him.</p><p>12. The short question which arises for decision in this petition is whether the landlord was guilty of suppressing and withholding such relevant facts which would disentitle him from seeking eviction of the tenant. To appreciate these contentions it would be necessary to refer to relevant portion of Section 14(3) of the Act:</p><p>Section 14:</p><p>1 and 2 xxxxxxxxxxx</p><p>(3) A landlord may apply to the Controller for an order directing the tenant to put the landlord in possession-</p><p>(a) in case of residential building, if</p><p>(i) he required it for his own occupation:</p><p>Provided that he is not occupying another residential building owned by him, in the urban area concerned:</p><p>Provided further that he has not vacated such a building without sufficient cause within five years of the filing of the application, in the said urban area....</p><p>13. A perusal of the bare provisions of the Act makes it clear that there are certain essential ingredients which the landlord must satisfy before seeking eviction of the tenant under the Act. Not only must he prove that the residential building is bona fide required by him for his own use and occupation but he must also plead and prove that he is not occupying any other residential building owned by him in the urban area concerned and further that he has not vacated such a building without sufficient cause within 5 years of the filing of the application.</p><p>14. Reference may now be made to the relevant allegations made in para 18 of the eviction petition:</p><p>(ii) That the petitioner bona fide requires the premises for his own use and occupation and also for the use and occupation of his family.</p><p>The petitioner does not own or possess any other such building within the urban area of Simla nor the petitioner has vacated any such premises within five years of the filing of this petition.</p><p>The family of the petitioner presently consists of himself and his wife. Due to paucity of accommodation the petitioner has not been able to keep his wife with himself at Simla, where he is working as an Engineer and she has been residing at Chandigarh since 1991 but on account of her ill health she has been brought to Simla by the petitioner. The petitioner at present is seeking temporary shelter, from time to time, with his relations.</p><p>15. The learned Appellate Authority came to the conclusion that the landlord had falsely pleaded that he does not own or possess any other such building within the urban area of Shimla and hence rejected the eviction petition on this ground.</p><p>16. On a close analysis of the proviso to Section 14(3)(a)(i) of the Act it is clear that a landlord is not entitled to seek eviction of a tenant from residential building even in case of bona fide requirement if the landlord is occupying another residential building owned by him in the urban area concerned. One can read three essential ingredients in this proviso i.e. (i) that the landlord is in occupation of another residential building; (ii) that the said residential building is owned by him and (iii) that the said residential building is situated in the concerned urban area.</p><p>17. The question that arises is what is the impact of the landlord not making a disclosure in respect of premises which he is occupying but are not owned by him.</p><p>18. The Apex Court in Onkar Nath v. Ved Vyas ILR 1979 HP 1, held as follows:</p><p>It is common ground that there are three requirements to make out a cause of action for eviction under that provision, and indeed this is apparent from a bare reading of the sub-section. In the present case the finding is to the effect that the landlord requires the residential building for his own occupation. But, the legislation has taken care to insist upon two more conditions, namely; (a) that the landlord is not occupying any other residential building in the area concerned; and (b) that he has not vacated such a building without sufficient cause. There is not a scintilla of evidence nor indeed there is any averment in compliance with these latter conditions. The necessary consequence follows that not merely is there inadequacy of pleadings sufficient to make out a cause of action but total absence of proof of two vital requirements....</p><p>The Supreme Court also said that:.The statute benignly designed to protect tenants from unreasonable evictions has taken case to put restrictions which must be rigorously construed to fulfil the purpose of the statute.</p><p>19. Following the aforesaid judgment and other pronouncements of the Apex Court, a learned Single Judge of this Court in Tara Chand Sharma v. Baij Nath and Ors. 1992 (2) R.C.J. 323, held as follows:</p><p>16. What appears as the legislative intent, in bold relief, is that the landlord, while seeking eviction of a tenant on the ground that he needs a residential building for his own occupation, must come out clearly and honestly with facts relating to the requirement that he is not occupying another residential building owned by him, in the urban area concerned and that he had not vacated such a building without sufficient cause within five years of the filing of the application, in the said urban area. The primal burden of making a clear disclosure would lie upon the landlord, for, the true facts would be in his special knowledge. An order in his favour by the Rent Controller would depend upon the satisfaction of the Rent Controller in regard not only to the claim that the landlord requires the accommodation, from which he wishes to evict a tenant, for his own occupation but also that he was not occupying another residential building owned by him nor had he vacated such building without sufficient cause within five years of the filing of the application in the application in the urban area concerned....</p><p>It was further held as under:</p><p>18. That the landlord should make a full disclosure of the relevant facts, pertaining to the requirements of Sub-section (3)(a)(i) and the two provisos, becomes all the more necessary because the satisfaction of the Rent Controller in regard thereto is the condition precedent for the making of an order in favour of the landlord....</p><p>20. The aforesaid judgment has been followed in a number of other cases including Vijay Kapoor v. Maya Ram 1997 (2) RCR 437, wherein another learned single Judge of this Court following the aforesaid judgment held that the landlord must make complete and proper disclosure of all the material facts.</p><p>21. On the other hand Sh. Ramakant Sharma has relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in Ram Narain Arora v. Asha Rani 1998(2) RCR 268. In that case the Rent Controller came to the conclusion that the landlord had suppressed material information and had not disclosed the fact that he was already in occupation of a house in Subji Mandi. Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act reads as follows:</p><p>Section 14(1)(e). That the premises let for residential purposes are required bona fide by the landlord for occupation as a residence for himself or for any member of his family dependent on him, if he is the owner thereof, or for any person for whose benefit the premises are held and that the landlord or such person has no other reasonably suitable residential accommodation.</p><p>22. The difference between Delhi Act and the present Act is that under the Delhi Act the only requirement is that the landlord has no other reasonably suitable accommodation whereas under the Himachal Act the residential premises are required to be owned by the landlord. The Apex Court in Rama Narain Arora's case (supra) held that the nondisclosure of the fact that the landlord was in occupation of certain premises in Subji Mandi was.not a ground to non-suit the landlord in view of the facts and circumstances of the case. The Apex Court held as follows:</p><p>9. In making a claim that the suit premises is required bona fide for his own occupation as a residence for himself and other members of his family dependent on him and that he has no other reasonably suitable accommodation is a requirement of law before the Court can state whether the landlord requires the premises bona fide for his use and occupation. In doing so, the Court must also find out whether the landlord or such other person for whose benefit the premises is required has no other reasonably suitable residential accommodation. It cannot be said that the requirement of the landlord is not intermixed with the question of finding out whether he has any other reasonably suitable accommodation. If he has other reasonably suitable accommodation, ihen necessarily it would mean that he does not require the suit premises and his requirement may not be bona fide. In such circumstances further inquiry would be whether that premises is more suitable than the suit premises. Therefore, the questions raised before the Court would not necessarily depend upon only the pleadings. It could be a good defence that the landlord has other reasonably suitable residential accommodation and thereby defend the claim of the landlord.</p><p>10. There cannot be a pedantic or a dogmatic approach in the matter of analysis of pleadings or of the evidence adduced thereto. It is no doubt true that if the pleadings are clearly set out, it would be easy for the Court to decide the matters. But if the pleadings are lacking or vague and if both parties have understood what was the case pleaded and put forth with reference to requirement of law and placed such material before the Court, neither party is prejudiced. If we analyse from this angle, we do not think that the High Court was not justified in interfering with the order made by the Rent Controller.</p><p>23. From the perusal of the judgment of the Apex Court it is apparent that the Rent Controller must approach the matter in a practical manner. In case the non-disclosure is such as that it goes to the very root of the case the Rent Controller would be justified in non-suiting the landlord. However, if the non-disclosure is such that it would not prejudice the rights of the respondent then the landlord should not be non-suited only on this ground.</p><p>24. The decisions of this Court cited hereinabove were delivered prior to the judgment delivered by the Apex Court in Ram Nar'ain Arora's case. Further more both in Tara Chand Sharma's case and Vijay Kapoor's case decided by this Court, no averment had been made ixi respect of other residential buildings owned by a landlord. There was complete non-disclosure as to whether any such residential building owned by the landlord was in his possession or not. In the present case, as I have held above, the residential premises at 31, The Mall, Shimla was not owned by the landlord and hence these two earlier judgments of this Court are distinguishable on facts also.</p><p>25. In the present case, the landlord has been non-suited only on the ground that he did not disclose the fact that he was in occupation of certain premises on the Mall Road. Under law he was not required to disclose this fact. He was only required to disclose the factum of occupying another residential building owned by him in the urban area concerned. True it may be, that it would have been better if the landlord had disclosed all the facts but non-disclosure of a fact which he was not under law required to disclose could not in my opinion be a ground to dismiss his eviction petition.</p><p>26. However, what are the premises in his occupation even as a tenant can be taken into consideration while deciding the question whether he bona fide requires the demised premises for his personal use or occupation or not.</p><p>27. Lastly comes the question with regard to the bona fide requirement of the landlord. The landlord has no children. According to the landlord as well as his other witnesses i.e. his brother-in-law PW-2 and his wife PW-3, the wife now wants to come back and settle in Shimla. There is no reason to disbelieve their statements. Even according to the evidence led by the tenant the accommodation in possession of the landlord consists of two rooms, kitchen, bath room etc. Admittedly, the landlord is also having his office as an Architect in this building. The landlord belongs to the middle class of the Society. It cannot be expected of a landlord who owns sufficient property to reside in a two room set wherein he also runs his office.</p><p>28. The law by now is well settled that the landlord is the best judge of the suitability of the accommodation required by him. This suitability has however to be judged in the context of reasonable expectations. The landlord and his wife who are both well educated can reasonably be expected to entertain guests and they will have visitors to their house. They would obviously require a drawing room, a bed room and a spare bed room for guests. Even at his residence the landlord may require another room for his professional work. This is the minimum accommodation which they would require. Even if the accommodation possessed by the landlord, though not owned by him, at 31, the Mall, Shimla is taken into consideration such accommodation is not sufficient to meet his requirements since admittedly the landlord is running his profession of Architect from some portion of his these premises.</p><p>29. Keeping in view the entire facts and circumstances, I am of the considered view that the learned Appellate Authority gravely erred in rejecting the eviction petition of the landlord solely on the ground that he had not disclosed the factum of being in possession of the premises at 31, the Mall Shimla. Even though I have held that the said premises are residential premises, in view of the above discussion I hold that the landlord cannot be non-suited only on the ground of his being in possession of such premises since same were not owned by him.</p><p>30. In view of the above discussion, the Revision Petition is allowed, the order of the learned Appellate Authority dated 6.5.2003 is seaside and the order of the Rent Controller dated 22.8.2001 is restored.</p><p>31. Keeping in view the fact that the tenant has been in possession of the premises for a long period he is granted time up to 31st October, 2008 to vacate the premises.</p><p>32. No order as to costs.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '2008(2)ShimLC491',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'Shri S.L. Srivastava',
		'sub' => 'Tenancy',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'shri-arun-bhanwara-vs-s-l-srivastava'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '891084',
	(int) 1 => 'shri-arun-bhanwara-vs-s-l-srivastava'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/891084/shri-arun-bhanwara-vs-s-l-srivastava'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$caseref = 'Ram Narain Arora v. Asha Rani<br>'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>Deepak Gupta, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. This Revision Petition under Section 25(5) of the H.P. Urban Rent Control Act, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) is directed against the order of the learned Appellate Authority, Shimla in CMA No. 60-S/14 of 2001 whereby the appeal filed by the respondent (hereinafter referred to as the tenant) has been allowed, the order of the Rent Controller has been set-aside and the petition for eviction filed by the present petitioner (hereinafter referred to as the Landlord) on the ground of personal bona fide requirement has been set-aside.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. The undisputed facts are that the landlord is owner of the demised premises situated in building known as Tunnel View, Sanjauli, Shimla-6 consisting of two bed rooms with attached bath room and latrine, drawing-cum-dining room, kitchen and balcony. These premises were purchased by the landlord in the year 1986. Thereafter, the landlord had rented out the premises to one Sh. B.K. Chauhan. According to the landlord, when he got married he requested Sh. B.K. Chauhan to vacate the said premises. Sh. Chauhan vacated the said premises but admittedly the landlord did not occupy the same but rented out the same to the tenant in the year 1990.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. In the year 1997 the landlord filed a petition for eviction of the tenant on two grounds; firstly that the tenant is in arrears of rent from 1.11.1990 to 31.7.1997 and secondly that the premises are bona fide required by the landlord for the use and occupation of himself and his family.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>4. This petition was contested by the tenant. After trial, the Rent Controller ordered the eviction of the tenant on two grounds; (i) that the tenant was in arrears of rent from November, 1999 till date of order i.e. 22nd August, 2001 and (ii) that the landlord required the premises for his own use and occupation.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>5. The tenant deposited the rent within the time prescribed. He also filed an appeal challenging the finding on the issue of bona fide requirement. The learned Appellate Authority came to the conclusion that the landlord had not made a proper and full disclosure of facts as required under the provisions of the Act and had withheld material facts from the Court viz. that the landlord was in occupation of residential premises on 31, Mall Road in the urban area of Shimla and as such rejected this petition on this short ground.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>6. Aggrieved by the said order, the landlord has filed the present Revision Petition.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>7. I have heard Sh. Ramakant Sharma, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sh. Bhupinder Gupta, learned senior Counsel for the tenant.',
	(int) 8 => '<p>8. It has been urged on behalf of the landlord that the building which is alleged to be in possession of the landlord i.e. 31, the Mall Shimla is not a residential building and secondly that the building is not owned by him.',
	(int) 9 => '<p>9. On the other hand Sh. Bhupinder Gupta, learned Counsel of the tenant has strenuously urged that the landlord in para 18 has not stated anything about any building being owned by him and has only made an averment that he does not own or possess any other such building within the urban area Shimla. It is contended by Sh. Bhupinder Gupta that the landlord of his own volition did not state anything about the ownership of the building and since he has kept silent about the building which he is in occupation he has made a false averment and therefore his petition for eviction has rightly been rejected.',
	(int) 10 => '<p>10. I am not at all in agreement with the contention of the landlord that the premises known as 31, the Mall Shimla which are admittedly in the occupation of the landlord are commercial premises only and not being used by him for his residence. As pointed out above, the landlord purchased the demised premises in 1986. They fell vacant when he got married despite that he did not occupy the same and rented out the same to the tenant in the year 1990. The question that arises is where was the landlord living for this entire period. According to the landlord after the year 1994 he has been living with his brother-in-law Rajan (wife's brother) PW-2, since the year 1994. Prior to 1994 the landlord will have this Court to believe that he was living off and on with one friend or the other. This story is impossible to believe. The landlord was married in the year 1999. He is an Architect by profession. His wife is a law graduate. It is not believable that such a person would have no permanent abode and would continue to live as a guest with his friends for almost 5 years after his marriage. Even the story that he has been living with his brother-in-law after the year 1994 does not inspire confidence. It stands proved on record that the brother-in-law PW-2 Rajan lives with his own family i.e. wife and children. From the evidence it is also clear that the parents of the brother-in-law also reside with him, His flat consists of only two rooms. The flat in possession of the landlord at 31, the Mall Shimla, also consists of two rooms, kitchen and bath room. Even assuming that he was running an office in the part of the flat it cannot be believed that he would not live on his own flat on the Mall Road and reside with his brother-in-law in cramped premises. Even in the electoral list the landlord is shown to be a resident of 31, The Mall, Shimla. Therefore, I am of the considered view that the building 31, the Mall, Shimla was also being used as a residence by the landlord.',
	(int) 11 => '<p>11. Having held so, the question that arises is whether the landlord can be non-suited only on the ground that he has not made any disclosure about the residential accommodation available with him which premises were admittedly not owned by him.',
	(int) 12 => '<p>12. The short question which arises for decision in this petition is whether the landlord was guilty of suppressing and withholding such relevant facts which would disentitle him from seeking eviction of the tenant. To appreciate these contentions it would be necessary to refer to relevant portion of Section 14(3) of the Act:',
	(int) 13 => '<p>Section 14:',
	(int) 14 => '<p>1 and 2 xxxxxxxxxxx',
	(int) 15 => '<p>(3) A landlord may apply to the Controller for an order directing the tenant to put the landlord in possession-',
	(int) 16 => '<p>(a) in case of residential building, if',
	(int) 17 => '<p>(i) he required it for his own occupation:',
	(int) 18 => '<p>Provided that he is not occupying another residential building owned by him, in the urban area concerned:',
	(int) 19 => '<p>Provided further that he has not vacated such a building without sufficient cause within five years of the filing of the application, in the said urban area....',
	(int) 20 => '<p>13. A perusal of the bare provisions of the Act makes it clear that there are certain essential ingredients which the landlord must satisfy before seeking eviction of the tenant under the Act. Not only must he prove that the residential building is bona fide required by him for his own use and occupation but he must also plead and prove that he is not occupying any other residential building owned by him in the urban area concerned and further that he has not vacated such a building without sufficient cause within 5 years of the filing of the application.',
	(int) 21 => '<p>14. Reference may now be made to the relevant allegations made in para 18 of the eviction petition:',
	(int) 22 => '<p>(ii) That the petitioner bona fide requires the premises for his own use and occupation and also for the use and occupation of his family.',
	(int) 23 => '<p>The petitioner does not own or possess any other such building within the urban area of Simla nor the petitioner has vacated any such premises within five years of the filing of this petition.',
	(int) 24 => '<p>The family of the petitioner presently consists of himself and his wife. Due to paucity of accommodation the petitioner has not been able to keep his wife with himself at Simla, where he is working as an Engineer and she has been residing at Chandigarh since 1991 but on account of her ill health she has been brought to Simla by the petitioner. The petitioner at present is seeking temporary shelter, from time to time, with his relations.',
	(int) 25 => '<p>15. The learned Appellate Authority came to the conclusion that the landlord had falsely pleaded that he does not own or possess any other such building within the urban area of Shimla and hence rejected the eviction petition on this ground.',
	(int) 26 => '<p>16. On a close analysis of the proviso to Section 14(3)(a)(i) of the Act it is clear that a landlord is not entitled to seek eviction of a tenant from residential building even in case of bona fide requirement if the landlord is occupying another residential building owned by him in the urban area concerned. One can read three essential ingredients in this proviso i.e. (i) that the landlord is in occupation of another residential building; (ii) that the said residential building is owned by him and (iii) that the said residential building is situated in the concerned urban area.',
	(int) 27 => '<p>17. The question that arises is what is the impact of the landlord not making a disclosure in respect of premises which he is occupying but are not owned by him.',
	(int) 28 => '<p>18. The Apex Court in Onkar Nath v. Ved Vyas ILR 1979 HP 1, held as follows:',
	(int) 29 => '<p>It is common ground that there are three requirements to make out a cause of action for eviction under that provision, and indeed this is apparent from a bare reading of the sub-section. In the present case the finding is to the effect that the landlord requires the residential building for his own occupation. But, the legislation has taken care to insist upon two more conditions, namely; (a) that the landlord is not occupying any other residential building in the area concerned; and (b) that he has not vacated such a building without sufficient cause. There is not a scintilla of evidence nor indeed there is any averment in compliance with these latter conditions. The necessary consequence follows that not merely is there inadequacy of pleadings sufficient to make out a cause of action but total absence of proof of two vital requirements....',
	(int) 30 => '<p>The Supreme Court also said that:.The statute benignly designed to protect tenants from unreasonable evictions has taken case to put restrictions which must be rigorously construed to fulfil the purpose of the statute.',
	(int) 31 => '<p>19. Following the aforesaid judgment and other pronouncements of the Apex Court, a learned Single Judge of this Court in Tara Chand Sharma v. Baij Nath and Ors. 1992 (2) R.C.J. 323, held as follows:',
	(int) 32 => '<p>16. What appears as the legislative intent, in bold relief, is that the landlord, while seeking eviction of a tenant on the ground that he needs a residential building for his own occupation, must come out clearly and honestly with facts relating to the requirement that he is not occupying another residential building owned by him, in the urban area concerned and that he had not vacated such a building without sufficient cause within five years of the filing of the application, in the said urban area. The primal burden of making a clear disclosure would lie upon the landlord, for, the true facts would be in his special knowledge. An order in his favour by the Rent Controller would depend upon the satisfaction of the Rent Controller in regard not only to the claim that the landlord requires the accommodation, from which he wishes to evict a tenant, for his own occupation but also that he was not occupying another residential building owned by him nor had he vacated such building without sufficient cause within five years of the filing of the application in the application in the urban area concerned....',
	(int) 33 => '<p>It was further held as under:',
	(int) 34 => '<p>18. That the landlord should make a full disclosure of the relevant facts, pertaining to the requirements of Sub-section (3)(a)(i) and the two provisos, becomes all the more necessary because the satisfaction of the Rent Controller in regard thereto is the condition precedent for the making of an order in favour of the landlord....',
	(int) 35 => '<p>20. The aforesaid judgment has been followed in a number of other cases including Vijay Kapoor v. Maya Ram 1997 (2) RCR 437, wherein another learned single Judge of this Court following the aforesaid judgment held that the landlord must make complete and proper disclosure of all the material facts.',
	(int) 36 => '<p>21. On the other hand Sh. Ramakant Sharma has relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in Ram Narain Arora v. Asha Rani 1998(2) RCR 268. In that case the Rent Controller came to the conclusion that the landlord had suppressed material information and had not disclosed the fact that he was already in occupation of a house in Subji Mandi. Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act reads as follows:',
	(int) 37 => '<p>Section 14(1)(e). That the premises let for residential purposes are required bona fide by the landlord for occupation as a residence for himself or for any member of his family dependent on him, if he is the owner thereof, or for any person for whose benefit the premises are held and that the landlord or such person has no other reasonably suitable residential accommodation.',
	(int) 38 => '<p>22. The difference between Delhi Act and the present Act is that under the Delhi Act the only requirement is that the landlord has no other reasonably suitable accommodation whereas under the Himachal Act the residential premises are required to be owned by the landlord. The Apex Court in Rama Narain Arora's case (supra) held that the nondisclosure of the fact that the landlord was in occupation of certain premises in Subji Mandi was.not a ground to non-suit the landlord in view of the facts and circumstances of the case. The Apex Court held as follows:',
	(int) 39 => '<p>9. In making a claim that the suit premises is required bona fide for his own occupation as a residence for himself and other members of his family dependent on him and that he has no other reasonably suitable accommodation is a requirement of law before the Court can state whether the landlord requires the premises bona fide for his use and occupation. In doing so, the Court must also find out whether the landlord or such other person for whose benefit the premises is required has no other reasonably suitable residential accommodation. It cannot be said that the requirement of the landlord is not intermixed with the question of finding out whether he has any other reasonably suitable accommodation. If he has other reasonably suitable accommodation, ihen necessarily it would mean that he does not require the suit premises and his requirement may not be bona fide. In such circumstances further inquiry would be whether that premises is more suitable than the suit premises. Therefore, the questions raised before the Court would not necessarily depend upon only the pleadings. It could be a good defence that the landlord has other reasonably suitable residential accommodation and thereby defend the claim of the landlord.',
	(int) 40 => '<p>10. There cannot be a pedantic or a dogmatic approach in the matter of analysis of pleadings or of the evidence adduced thereto. It is no doubt true that if the pleadings are clearly set out, it would be easy for the Court to decide the matters. But if the pleadings are lacking or vague and if both parties have understood what was the case pleaded and put forth with reference to requirement of law and placed such material before the Court, neither party is prejudiced. If we analyse from this angle, we do not think that the High Court was not justified in interfering with the order made by the Rent Controller.',
	(int) 41 => '<p>23. From the perusal of the judgment of the Apex Court it is apparent that the Rent Controller must approach the matter in a practical manner. In case the non-disclosure is such as that it goes to the very root of the case the Rent Controller would be justified in non-suiting the landlord. However, if the non-disclosure is such that it would not prejudice the rights of the respondent then the landlord should not be non-suited only on this ground.',
	(int) 42 => '<p>24. The decisions of this Court cited hereinabove were delivered prior to the judgment delivered by the Apex Court in Ram Nar'ain Arora's case. Further more both in Tara Chand Sharma's case and Vijay Kapoor's case decided by this Court, no averment had been made ixi respect of other residential buildings owned by a landlord. There was complete non-disclosure as to whether any such residential building owned by the landlord was in his possession or not. In the present case, as I have held above, the residential premises at 31, The Mall, Shimla was not owned by the landlord and hence these two earlier judgments of this Court are distinguishable on facts also.',
	(int) 43 => '<p>25. In the present case, the landlord has been non-suited only on the ground that he did not disclose the fact that he was in occupation of certain premises on the Mall Road. Under law he was not required to disclose this fact. He was only required to disclose the factum of occupying another residential building owned by him in the urban area concerned. True it may be, that it would have been better if the landlord had disclosed all the facts but non-disclosure of a fact which he was not under law required to disclose could not in my opinion be a ground to dismiss his eviction petition.',
	(int) 44 => '<p>26. However, what are the premises in his occupation even as a tenant can be taken into consideration while deciding the question whether he bona fide requires the demised premises for his personal use or occupation or not.',
	(int) 45 => '<p>27. Lastly comes the question with regard to the bona fide requirement of the landlord. The landlord has no children. According to the landlord as well as his other witnesses i.e. his brother-in-law PW-2 and his wife PW-3, the wife now wants to come back and settle in Shimla. There is no reason to disbelieve their statements. Even according to the evidence led by the tenant the accommodation in possession of the landlord consists of two rooms, kitchen, bath room etc. Admittedly, the landlord is also having his office as an Architect in this building. The landlord belongs to the middle class of the Society. It cannot be expected of a landlord who owns sufficient property to reside in a two room set wherein he also runs his office.',
	(int) 46 => '<p>28. The law by now is well settled that the landlord is the best judge of the suitability of the accommodation required by him. This suitability has however to be judged in the context of reasonable expectations. The landlord and his wife who are both well educated can reasonably be expected to entertain guests and they will have visitors to their house. They would obviously require a drawing room, a bed room and a spare bed room for guests. Even at his residence the landlord may require another room for his professional work. This is the minimum accommodation which they would require. Even if the accommodation possessed by the landlord, though not owned by him, at 31, the Mall, Shimla is taken into consideration such accommodation is not sufficient to meet his requirements since admittedly the landlord is running his profession of Architect from some portion of his these premises.',
	(int) 47 => '<p>29. Keeping in view the entire facts and circumstances, I am of the considered view that the learned Appellate Authority gravely erred in rejecting the eviction petition of the landlord solely on the ground that he had not disclosed the factum of being in possession of the premises at 31, the Mall Shimla. Even though I have held that the said premises are residential premises, in view of the above discussion I hold that the landlord cannot be non-suited only on the ground of his being in possession of such premises since same were not owned by him.',
	(int) 48 => '<p>30. In view of the above discussion, the Revision Petition is allowed, the order of the learned Appellate Authority dated 6.5.2003 is seaside and the order of the Rent Controller dated 22.8.2001 is restored.',
	(int) 49 => '<p>31. Keeping in view the fact that the tenant has been in possession of the premises for a long period he is granted time up to 31st October, 2008 to vacate the premises.',
	(int) 50 => '<p>32. No order as to costs.<p>',
	(int) 51 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 52
$i = (int) 24
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

The family of the petitioner presently consists of himself and his wife. Due to paucity of accommodation the petitioner has not been able to keep his wife with himself at Simla, where he is working as an Engineer and she has been residing at Chandigarh since 1991 but on account of her ill health she has been brought to Simla by the petitioner. The petitioner at present is seeking temporary shelter, from time to time, with his relations.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Shri Arun Bhanwara Vs Shri S L Srivastava - Citation 891084 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '891084',
			'acts' => '',
			'appealno' => '',
			'appellant' => 'Shri Arun Bhanwara',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Shri Arun Bhanwara Vs. Shri S.L. Srivastava',
			'casenote' => ' - CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908.[C.A. No. 5/1908]. Order 14, Rule 2 [As amended by Amending Act of 1976]: [V.K. Gupta, CJ, Deepak Gupta & Surjit Singh, JJ] Preliminary issue of law and fact  Court framing all issues both of law and facts together and also  tried all the issues together, including the issue relating to jurisdiction of Court  Held, Except in situations perceived or warranted under sub-rule (2) of Rule 2 of Order 14 where a  Court in fact frames only issues of law in the first instance and postpones settlement of other issues, clearly and explicitly in situations where the Court has framed all issues together, both of law as well as facts and has also tried all these issues together, it is not open to the Court to adopt the principle of severability and proceed to decide issues of law first, without taking up simultaneously other issues for decision. This course of action is not available to a Court because sub-rule (1) does not permit the  Court to adopt any such principle of severability and to dispose of a suit only on preliminary issues, or what can be termed as issues of law. Sub-rule (1)  clearly mandates that in a situation contemplated under it, where all the issues have been together and have also been taken up for adjudication during the course of the trial, these must be decided together and the judgment in the suit as a whole must be pronounced by the Court covering all the issues framed in the suit.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => 'Ram Narain Arora v. Asha Rani;',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => '',
			'counseldef' => '',
			'court' => 'Himachal Pradesh',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2008-07-31',
			'deposition' => 'Petition allowed',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => ' Deepak Gupta, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">Deepak Gupta, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. This Revision Petition under Section 25(5) of the H.P. Urban Rent Control Act, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) is directed against the order of the learned Appellate Authority, Shimla in CMA No. 60-S/14 of 2001 whereby the appeal filed by the respondent (hereinafter referred to as the tenant) has been allowed, the order of the Rent Controller has been set-aside and the petition for eviction filed by the present petitioner (hereinafter referred to as the Landlord) on the ground of personal bona fide requirement has been set-aside.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The undisputed facts are that the landlord is owner of the demised premises situated in building known as Tunnel View, Sanjauli, Shimla-6 consisting of two bed rooms with attached bath room and latrine, drawing-cum-dining room, kitchen and balcony. These premises were purchased by the landlord in the year 1986. Thereafter, the landlord had rented out the premises to one Sh. B.K. Chauhan. According to the landlord, when he got married he requested Sh. B.K. Chauhan to vacate the said premises. Sh. Chauhan vacated the said premises but admittedly the landlord did not occupy the same but rented out the same to the tenant in the year 1990.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. In the year 1997 the landlord filed a petition for eviction of the tenant on two grounds; firstly that the tenant is in arrears of rent from 1.11.1990 to 31.7.1997 and secondly that the premises are bona fide required by the landlord for the use and occupation of himself and his family.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. This petition was contested by the tenant. After trial, the Rent Controller ordered the eviction of the tenant on two grounds; (i) that the tenant was in arrears of rent from November, 1999 till date of order i.e. 22nd August, 2001 and (ii) that the landlord required the premises for his own use and occupation.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. The tenant deposited the rent within the time prescribed. He also filed an appeal challenging the finding on the issue of bona fide requirement. The learned Appellate Authority came to the conclusion that the landlord had not made a proper and full disclosure of facts as required under the provisions of the Act and had withheld material facts from the Court viz. that the landlord was in occupation of residential premises on 31, Mall Road in the urban area of Shimla and as such rejected this petition on this short ground.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. Aggrieved by the said order, the landlord has filed the present Revision Petition.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. I have heard Sh. Ramakant Sharma, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sh. Bhupinder Gupta, learned senior Counsel for the tenant.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. It has been urged on behalf of the landlord that the building which is alleged to be in possession of the landlord i.e. 31, the Mall Shimla is not a residential building and secondly that the building is not owned by him.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. On the other hand Sh. Bhupinder Gupta, learned Counsel of the tenant has strenuously urged that the landlord in para 18 has not stated anything about any building being owned by him and has only made an averment that he does not own or possess any other such building within the urban area Shimla. It is contended by Sh. Bhupinder Gupta that the landlord of his own volition did not state anything about the ownership of the building and since he has kept silent about the building which he is in occupation he has made a false averment and therefore his petition for eviction has rightly been rejected.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. I am not at all in agreement with the contention of the landlord that the premises known as 31, the Mall Shimla which are admittedly in the occupation of the landlord are commercial premises only and not being used by him for his residence. As pointed out above, the landlord purchased the demised premises in 1986. They fell vacant when he got married despite that he did not occupy the same and rented out the same to the tenant in the year 1990. The question that arises is where was the landlord living for this entire period. According to the landlord after the year 1994 he has been living with his brother-in-law Rajan (wife's brother) PW-2, since the year 1994. Prior to 1994 the landlord will have this Court to believe that he was living off and on with one friend or the other. This story is impossible to believe. The landlord was married in the year 1999. He is an Architect by profession. His wife is a law graduate. It is not believable that such a person would have no permanent abode and would continue to live as a guest with his friends for almost 5 years after his marriage. Even the story that he has been living with his brother-in-law after the year 1994 does not inspire confidence. It stands proved on record that the brother-in-law PW-2 Rajan lives with his own family i.e. wife and children. From the evidence it is also clear that the parents of the brother-in-law also reside with him, His flat consists of only two rooms. The flat in possession of the landlord at 31, the Mall Shimla, also consists of two rooms, kitchen and bath room. Even assuming that he was running an office in the part of the flat it cannot be believed that he would not live on his own flat on the Mall Road and reside with his brother-in-law in cramped premises. Even in the electoral list the landlord is shown to be a resident of 31, The Mall, Shimla. Therefore, I am of the considered view that the building 31, the Mall, Shimla was also being used as a residence by the landlord.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. Having held so, the question that arises is whether the landlord can be non-suited only on the ground that he has not made any disclosure about the residential accommodation available with him which premises were admittedly not owned by him.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. The short question which arises for decision in this petition is whether the landlord was guilty of suppressing and withholding such relevant facts which would disentitle him from seeking eviction of the tenant. To appreciate these contentions it would be necessary to refer to relevant portion of Section 14(3) of the Act:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Section 14:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1 and 2 xxxxxxxxxxx</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(3) A landlord may apply to the Controller for an order directing the tenant to put the landlord in possession-</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(a) in case of residential building, if</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(i) he required it for his own occupation:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Provided that he is not occupying another residential building owned by him, in the urban area concerned:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Provided further that he has not vacated such a building without sufficient cause within five years of the filing of the application, in the said urban area....</p><p style="text-align: justify;">13. A perusal of the bare provisions of the Act makes it clear that there are certain essential ingredients which the landlord must satisfy before seeking eviction of the tenant under the Act. Not only must he prove that the residential building is bona fide required by him for his own use and occupation but he must also plead and prove that he is not occupying any other residential building owned by him in the urban area concerned and further that he has not vacated such a building without sufficient cause within 5 years of the filing of the application.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">14. Reference may now be made to the relevant allegations made in para 18 of the eviction petition:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(ii) That the petitioner bona fide requires the premises for his own use and occupation and also for the use and occupation of his family.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The petitioner does not own or possess any other such building within the urban area of Simla nor the petitioner has vacated any such premises within five years of the filing of this petition.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The family of the petitioner presently consists of himself and his wife. Due to paucity of accommodation the petitioner has not been able to keep his wife with himself at Simla, where he is working as an Engineer and she has been residing at Chandigarh since 1991 but on account of her ill health she has been brought to Simla by the petitioner. The petitioner at present is seeking temporary shelter, from time to time, with his relations.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">15. The learned Appellate Authority came to the conclusion that the landlord had falsely pleaded that he does not own or possess any other such building within the urban area of Shimla and hence rejected the eviction petition on this ground.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">16. On a close analysis of the proviso to Section 14(3)(a)(i) of the Act it is clear that a landlord is not entitled to seek eviction of a tenant from residential building even in case of bona fide requirement if the landlord is occupying another residential building owned by him in the urban area concerned. One can read three essential ingredients in this proviso i.e. (i) that the landlord is in occupation of another residential building; (ii) that the said residential building is owned by him and (iii) that the said residential building is situated in the concerned urban area.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">17. The question that arises is what is the impact of the landlord not making a disclosure in respect of premises which he is occupying but are not owned by him.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">18. The Apex Court in Onkar Nath v. Ved Vyas ILR 1979 HP 1, held as follows:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">It is common ground that there are three requirements to make out a cause of action for eviction under that provision, and indeed this is apparent from a bare reading of the sub-section. In the present case the finding is to the effect that the landlord requires the residential building for his own occupation. But, the legislation has taken care to insist upon two more conditions, namely; (a) that the landlord is not occupying any other residential building in the area concerned; and (b) that he has not vacated such a building without sufficient cause. There is not a scintilla of evidence nor indeed there is any averment in compliance with these latter conditions. The necessary consequence follows that not merely is there inadequacy of pleadings sufficient to make out a cause of action but total absence of proof of two vital requirements....</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The Supreme Court also said that:.The statute benignly designed to protect tenants from unreasonable evictions has taken case to put restrictions which must be rigorously construed to fulfil the purpose of the statute.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">19. Following the aforesaid judgment and other pronouncements of the Apex Court, a learned Single Judge of this Court in Tara Chand Sharma v. Baij Nath and Ors. 1992 (2) R.C.J. 323, held as follows:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">16. What appears as the legislative intent, in bold relief, is that the landlord, while seeking eviction of a tenant on the ground that he needs a residential building for his own occupation, must come out clearly and honestly with facts relating to the requirement that he is not occupying another residential building owned by him, in the urban area concerned and that he had not vacated such a building without sufficient cause within five years of the filing of the application, in the said urban area. The primal burden of making a clear disclosure would lie upon the landlord, for, the true facts would be in his special knowledge. An order in his favour by the Rent Controller would depend upon the satisfaction of the Rent Controller in regard not only to the claim that the landlord requires the accommodation, from which he wishes to evict a tenant, for his own occupation but also that he was not occupying another residential building owned by him nor had he vacated such building without sufficient cause within five years of the filing of the application in the application in the urban area concerned....</p><p style="text-align: justify;">It was further held as under:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">18. That the landlord should make a full disclosure of the relevant facts, pertaining to the requirements of Sub-section (3)(a)(i) and the two provisos, becomes all the more necessary because the satisfaction of the Rent Controller in regard thereto is the condition precedent for the making of an order in favour of the landlord....</p><p style="text-align: justify;">20. The aforesaid judgment has been followed in a number of other cases including Vijay Kapoor v. Maya Ram 1997 (2) RCR 437, wherein another learned single Judge of this Court following the aforesaid judgment held that the landlord must make complete and proper disclosure of all the material facts.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">21. On the other hand Sh. Ramakant Sharma has relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in Ram Narain Arora v. Asha Rani 1998(2) RCR 268. In that case the Rent Controller came to the conclusion that the landlord had suppressed material information and had not disclosed the fact that he was already in occupation of a house in Subji Mandi. Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act reads as follows:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Section 14(1)(e). That the premises let for residential purposes are required bona fide by the landlord for occupation as a residence for himself or for any member of his family dependent on him, if he is the owner thereof, or for any person for whose benefit the premises are held and that the landlord or such person has no other reasonably suitable residential accommodation.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">22. The difference between Delhi Act and the present Act is that under the Delhi Act the only requirement is that the landlord has no other reasonably suitable accommodation whereas under the Himachal Act the residential premises are required to be owned by the landlord. The Apex Court in Rama Narain Arora's case (supra) held that the nondisclosure of the fact that the landlord was in occupation of certain premises in Subji Mandi was.not a ground to non-suit the landlord in view of the facts and circumstances of the case. The Apex Court held as follows:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. In making a claim that the suit premises is required bona fide for his own occupation as a residence for himself and other members of his family dependent on him and that he has no other reasonably suitable accommodation is a requirement of law before the Court can state whether the landlord requires the premises bona fide for his use and occupation. In doing so, the Court must also find out whether the landlord or such other person for whose benefit the premises is required has no other reasonably suitable residential accommodation. It cannot be said that the requirement of the landlord is not intermixed with the question of finding out whether he has any other reasonably suitable accommodation. If he has other reasonably suitable accommodation, ihen necessarily it would mean that he does not require the suit premises and his requirement may not be bona fide. In such circumstances further inquiry would be whether that premises is more suitable than the suit premises. Therefore, the questions raised before the Court would not necessarily depend upon only the pleadings. It could be a good defence that the landlord has other reasonably suitable residential accommodation and thereby defend the claim of the landlord.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. There cannot be a pedantic or a dogmatic approach in the matter of analysis of pleadings or of the evidence adduced thereto. It is no doubt true that if the pleadings are clearly set out, it would be easy for the Court to decide the matters. But if the pleadings are lacking or vague and if both parties have understood what was the case pleaded and put forth with reference to requirement of law and placed such material before the Court, neither party is prejudiced. If we analyse from this angle, we do not think that the High Court was not justified in interfering with the order made by the Rent Controller.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">23. From the perusal of the judgment of the Apex Court it is apparent that the Rent Controller must approach the matter in a practical manner. In case the non-disclosure is such as that it goes to the very root of the case the Rent Controller would be justified in non-suiting the landlord. However, if the non-disclosure is such that it would not prejudice the rights of the respondent then the landlord should not be non-suited only on this ground.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">24. The decisions of this Court cited hereinabove were delivered prior to the judgment delivered by the Apex Court in Ram Nar'ain Arora's case. Further more both in Tara Chand Sharma's case and Vijay Kapoor's case decided by this Court, no averment had been made ixi respect of other residential buildings owned by a landlord. There was complete non-disclosure as to whether any such residential building owned by the landlord was in his possession or not. In the present case, as I have held above, the residential premises at 31, The Mall, Shimla was not owned by the landlord and hence these two earlier judgments of this Court are distinguishable on facts also.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">25. In the present case, the landlord has been non-suited only on the ground that he did not disclose the fact that he was in occupation of certain premises on the Mall Road. Under law he was not required to disclose this fact. He was only required to disclose the factum of occupying another residential building owned by him in the urban area concerned. True it may be, that it would have been better if the landlord had disclosed all the facts but non-disclosure of a fact which he was not under law required to disclose could not in my opinion be a ground to dismiss his eviction petition.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">26. However, what are the premises in his occupation even as a tenant can be taken into consideration while deciding the question whether he bona fide requires the demised premises for his personal use or occupation or not.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">27. Lastly comes the question with regard to the bona fide requirement of the landlord. The landlord has no children. According to the landlord as well as his other witnesses i.e. his brother-in-law PW-2 and his wife PW-3, the wife now wants to come back and settle in Shimla. There is no reason to disbelieve their statements. Even according to the evidence led by the tenant the accommodation in possession of the landlord consists of two rooms, kitchen, bath room etc. Admittedly, the landlord is also having his office as an Architect in this building. The landlord belongs to the middle class of the Society. It cannot be expected of a landlord who owns sufficient property to reside in a two room set wherein he also runs his office.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">28. The law by now is well settled that the landlord is the best judge of the suitability of the accommodation required by him. This suitability has however to be judged in the context of reasonable expectations. The landlord and his wife who are both well educated can reasonably be expected to entertain guests and they will have visitors to their house. They would obviously require a drawing room, a bed room and a spare bed room for guests. Even at his residence the landlord may require another room for his professional work. This is the minimum accommodation which they would require. Even if the accommodation possessed by the landlord, though not owned by him, at 31, the Mall, Shimla is taken into consideration such accommodation is not sufficient to meet his requirements since admittedly the landlord is running his profession of Architect from some portion of his these premises.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">29. Keeping in view the entire facts and circumstances, I am of the considered view that the learned Appellate Authority gravely erred in rejecting the eviction petition of the landlord solely on the ground that he had not disclosed the factum of being in possession of the premises at 31, the Mall Shimla. Even though I have held that the said premises are residential premises, in view of the above discussion I hold that the landlord cannot be non-suited only on the ground of his being in possession of such premises since same were not owned by him.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">30. In view of the above discussion, the Revision Petition is allowed, the order of the learned Appellate Authority dated 6.5.2003 is seaside and the order of the Rent Controller dated 22.8.2001 is restored.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">31. Keeping in view the fact that the tenant has been in possession of the premises for a long period he is granted time up to 31st October, 2008 to vacate the premises.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">32. No order as to costs.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '2008(2)ShimLC491',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'Shri S.L. Srivastava',
			'sub' => 'Tenancy',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'shri-arun-bhanwara-vs-s-l-srivastava',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '891084',
		(int) 1 => 'shri-arun-bhanwara-vs-s-l-srivastava'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Shri Arun Bhanwara Vs Shri S L Srivastava - Citation 891084 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '891084',
		'acts' => '',
		'appealno' => '',
		'appellant' => 'Shri Arun Bhanwara',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Shri Arun Bhanwara Vs. Shri S.L. Srivastava',
		'casenote' => ' - CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908.[C.A. No. 5/1908]. Order 14, Rule 2 [As amended by Amending Act of 1976]: [V.K. Gupta, CJ, Deepak Gupta & Surjit Singh, JJ] Preliminary issue of law and fact  Court framing all issues both of law and facts together and also  tried all the issues together, including the issue relating to jurisdiction of Court  Held, Except in situations perceived or warranted under sub-rule (2) of Rule 2 of Order 14 where a  Court in fact frames only issues of law in the first instance and postpones settlement of other issues, clearly and explicitly in situations where the Court has framed all issues together, both of law as well as facts and has also tried all these issues together, it is not open to the Court to adopt the principle of severability and proceed to decide issues of law first, without taking up simultaneously other issues for decision. This course of action is not available to a Court because sub-rule (1) does not permit the  Court to adopt any such principle of severability and to dispose of a suit only on preliminary issues, or what can be termed as issues of law. Sub-rule (1)  clearly mandates that in a situation contemplated under it, where all the issues have been together and have also been taken up for adjudication during the course of the trial, these must be decided together and the judgment in the suit as a whole must be pronounced by the Court covering all the issues framed in the suit.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => 'Ram Narain Arora v. Asha Rani;',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => '',
		'counseldef' => '',
		'court' => 'Himachal Pradesh',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2008-07-31',
		'deposition' => 'Petition allowed',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => ' Deepak Gupta, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>Deepak Gupta, J.</p><p>1. This Revision Petition under Section 25(5) of the H.P. Urban Rent Control Act, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) is directed against the order of the learned Appellate Authority, Shimla in CMA No. 60-S/14 of 2001 whereby the appeal filed by the respondent (hereinafter referred to as the tenant) has been allowed, the order of the Rent Controller has been set-aside and the petition for eviction filed by the present petitioner (hereinafter referred to as the Landlord) on the ground of personal bona fide requirement has been set-aside.</p><p>2. The undisputed facts are that the landlord is owner of the demised premises situated in building known as Tunnel View, Sanjauli, Shimla-6 consisting of two bed rooms with attached bath room and latrine, drawing-cum-dining room, kitchen and balcony. These premises were purchased by the landlord in the year 1986. Thereafter, the landlord had rented out the premises to one Sh. B.K. Chauhan. According to the landlord, when he got married he requested Sh. B.K. Chauhan to vacate the said premises. Sh. Chauhan vacated the said premises but admittedly the landlord did not occupy the same but rented out the same to the tenant in the year 1990.</p><p>3. In the year 1997 the landlord filed a petition for eviction of the tenant on two grounds; firstly that the tenant is in arrears of rent from 1.11.1990 to 31.7.1997 and secondly that the premises are bona fide required by the landlord for the use and occupation of himself and his family.</p><p>4. This petition was contested by the tenant. After trial, the Rent Controller ordered the eviction of the tenant on two grounds; (i) that the tenant was in arrears of rent from November, 1999 till date of order i.e. 22nd August, 2001 and (ii) that the landlord required the premises for his own use and occupation.</p><p>5. The tenant deposited the rent within the time prescribed. He also filed an appeal challenging the finding on the issue of bona fide requirement. The learned Appellate Authority came to the conclusion that the landlord had not made a proper and full disclosure of facts as required under the provisions of the Act and had withheld material facts from the Court viz. that the landlord was in occupation of residential premises on 31, Mall Road in the urban area of Shimla and as such rejected this petition on this short ground.</p><p>6. Aggrieved by the said order, the landlord has filed the present Revision Petition.</p><p>7. I have heard Sh. Ramakant Sharma, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sh. Bhupinder Gupta, learned senior Counsel for the tenant.</p><p>8. It has been urged on behalf of the landlord that the building which is alleged to be in possession of the landlord i.e. 31, the Mall Shimla is not a residential building and secondly that the building is not owned by him.</p><p>9. On the other hand Sh. Bhupinder Gupta, learned Counsel of the tenant has strenuously urged that the landlord in para 18 has not stated anything about any building being owned by him and has only made an averment that he does not own or possess any other such building within the urban area Shimla. It is contended by Sh. Bhupinder Gupta that the landlord of his own volition did not state anything about the ownership of the building and since he has kept silent about the building which he is in occupation he has made a false averment and therefore his petition for eviction has rightly been rejected.</p><p>10. I am not at all in agreement with the contention of the landlord that the premises known as 31, the Mall Shimla which are admittedly in the occupation of the landlord are commercial premises only and not being used by him for his residence. As pointed out above, the landlord purchased the demised premises in 1986. They fell vacant when he got married despite that he did not occupy the same and rented out the same to the tenant in the year 1990. The question that arises is where was the landlord living for this entire period. According to the landlord after the year 1994 he has been living with his brother-in-law Rajan (wife's brother) PW-2, since the year 1994. Prior to 1994 the landlord will have this Court to believe that he was living off and on with one friend or the other. This story is impossible to believe. The landlord was married in the year 1999. He is an Architect by profession. His wife is a law graduate. It is not believable that such a person would have no permanent abode and would continue to live as a guest with his friends for almost 5 years after his marriage. Even the story that he has been living with his brother-in-law after the year 1994 does not inspire confidence. It stands proved on record that the brother-in-law PW-2 Rajan lives with his own family i.e. wife and children. From the evidence it is also clear that the parents of the brother-in-law also reside with him, His flat consists of only two rooms. The flat in possession of the landlord at 31, the Mall Shimla, also consists of two rooms, kitchen and bath room. Even assuming that he was running an office in the part of the flat it cannot be believed that he would not live on his own flat on the Mall Road and reside with his brother-in-law in cramped premises. Even in the electoral list the landlord is shown to be a resident of 31, The Mall, Shimla. Therefore, I am of the considered view that the building 31, the Mall, Shimla was also being used as a residence by the landlord.</p><p>11. Having held so, the question that arises is whether the landlord can be non-suited only on the ground that he has not made any disclosure about the residential accommodation available with him which premises were admittedly not owned by him.</p><p>12. The short question which arises for decision in this petition is whether the landlord was guilty of suppressing and withholding such relevant facts which would disentitle him from seeking eviction of the tenant. To appreciate these contentions it would be necessary to refer to relevant portion of Section 14(3) of the Act:</p><p>Section 14:</p><p>1 and 2 xxxxxxxxxxx</p><p>(3) A landlord may apply to the Controller for an order directing the tenant to put the landlord in possession-</p><p>(a) in case of residential building, if</p><p>(i) he required it for his own occupation:</p><p>Provided that he is not occupying another residential building owned by him, in the urban area concerned:</p><p>Provided further that he has not vacated such a building without sufficient cause within five years of the filing of the application, in the said urban area....</p><p>13. A perusal of the bare provisions of the Act makes it clear that there are certain essential ingredients which the landlord must satisfy before seeking eviction of the tenant under the Act. Not only must he prove that the residential building is bona fide required by him for his own use and occupation but he must also plead and prove that he is not occupying any other residential building owned by him in the urban area concerned and further that he has not vacated such a building without sufficient cause within 5 years of the filing of the application.</p><p>14. Reference may now be made to the relevant allegations made in para 18 of the eviction petition:</p><p>(ii) That the petitioner bona fide requires the premises for his own use and occupation and also for the use and occupation of his family.</p><p>The petitioner does not own or possess any other such building within the urban area of Simla nor the petitioner has vacated any such premises within five years of the filing of this petition.</p><p>The family of the petitioner presently consists of himself and his wife. Due to paucity of accommodation the petitioner has not been able to keep his wife with himself at Simla, where he is working as an Engineer and she has been residing at Chandigarh since 1991 but on account of her ill health she has been brought to Simla by the petitioner. The petitioner at present is seeking temporary shelter, from time to time, with his relations.</p><p>15. The learned Appellate Authority came to the conclusion that the landlord had falsely pleaded that he does not own or possess any other such building within the urban area of Shimla and hence rejected the eviction petition on this ground.</p><p>16. On a close analysis of the proviso to Section 14(3)(a)(i) of the Act it is clear that a landlord is not entitled to seek eviction of a tenant from residential building even in case of bona fide requirement if the landlord is occupying another residential building owned by him in the urban area concerned. One can read three essential ingredients in this proviso i.e. (i) that the landlord is in occupation of another residential building; (ii) that the said residential building is owned by him and (iii) that the said residential building is situated in the concerned urban area.</p><p>17. The question that arises is what is the impact of the landlord not making a disclosure in respect of premises which he is occupying but are not owned by him.</p><p>18. The Apex Court in Onkar Nath v. Ved Vyas ILR 1979 HP 1, held as follows:</p><p>It is common ground that there are three requirements to make out a cause of action for eviction under that provision, and indeed this is apparent from a bare reading of the sub-section. In the present case the finding is to the effect that the landlord requires the residential building for his own occupation. But, the legislation has taken care to insist upon two more conditions, namely; (a) that the landlord is not occupying any other residential building in the area concerned; and (b) that he has not vacated such a building without sufficient cause. There is not a scintilla of evidence nor indeed there is any averment in compliance with these latter conditions. The necessary consequence follows that not merely is there inadequacy of pleadings sufficient to make out a cause of action but total absence of proof of two vital requirements....</p><p>The Supreme Court also said that:.The statute benignly designed to protect tenants from unreasonable evictions has taken case to put restrictions which must be rigorously construed to fulfil the purpose of the statute.</p><p>19. Following the aforesaid judgment and other pronouncements of the Apex Court, a learned Single Judge of this Court in Tara Chand Sharma v. Baij Nath and Ors. 1992 (2) R.C.J. 323, held as follows:</p><p>16. What appears as the legislative intent, in bold relief, is that the landlord, while seeking eviction of a tenant on the ground that he needs a residential building for his own occupation, must come out clearly and honestly with facts relating to the requirement that he is not occupying another residential building owned by him, in the urban area concerned and that he had not vacated such a building without sufficient cause within five years of the filing of the application, in the said urban area. The primal burden of making a clear disclosure would lie upon the landlord, for, the true facts would be in his special knowledge. An order in his favour by the Rent Controller would depend upon the satisfaction of the Rent Controller in regard not only to the claim that the landlord requires the accommodation, from which he wishes to evict a tenant, for his own occupation but also that he was not occupying another residential building owned by him nor had he vacated such building without sufficient cause within five years of the filing of the application in the application in the urban area concerned....</p><p>It was further held as under:</p><p>18. That the landlord should make a full disclosure of the relevant facts, pertaining to the requirements of Sub-section (3)(a)(i) and the two provisos, becomes all the more necessary because the satisfaction of the Rent Controller in regard thereto is the condition precedent for the making of an order in favour of the landlord....</p><p>20. The aforesaid judgment has been followed in a number of other cases including Vijay Kapoor v. Maya Ram 1997 (2) RCR 437, wherein another learned single Judge of this Court following the aforesaid judgment held that the landlord must make complete and proper disclosure of all the material facts.</p><p>21. On the other hand Sh. Ramakant Sharma has relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in Ram Narain Arora v. Asha Rani 1998(2) RCR 268. In that case the Rent Controller came to the conclusion that the landlord had suppressed material information and had not disclosed the fact that he was already in occupation of a house in Subji Mandi. Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act reads as follows:</p><p>Section 14(1)(e). That the premises let for residential purposes are required bona fide by the landlord for occupation as a residence for himself or for any member of his family dependent on him, if he is the owner thereof, or for any person for whose benefit the premises are held and that the landlord or such person has no other reasonably suitable residential accommodation.</p><p>22. The difference between Delhi Act and the present Act is that under the Delhi Act the only requirement is that the landlord has no other reasonably suitable accommodation whereas under the Himachal Act the residential premises are required to be owned by the landlord. The Apex Court in Rama Narain Arora's case (supra) held that the nondisclosure of the fact that the landlord was in occupation of certain premises in Subji Mandi was.not a ground to non-suit the landlord in view of the facts and circumstances of the case. The Apex Court held as follows:</p><p>9. In making a claim that the suit premises is required bona fide for his own occupation as a residence for himself and other members of his family dependent on him and that he has no other reasonably suitable accommodation is a requirement of law before the Court can state whether the landlord requires the premises bona fide for his use and occupation. In doing so, the Court must also find out whether the landlord or such other person for whose benefit the premises is required has no other reasonably suitable residential accommodation. It cannot be said that the requirement of the landlord is not intermixed with the question of finding out whether he has any other reasonably suitable accommodation. If he has other reasonably suitable accommodation, ihen necessarily it would mean that he does not require the suit premises and his requirement may not be bona fide. In such circumstances further inquiry would be whether that premises is more suitable than the suit premises. Therefore, the questions raised before the Court would not necessarily depend upon only the pleadings. It could be a good defence that the landlord has other reasonably suitable residential accommodation and thereby defend the claim of the landlord.</p><p>10. There cannot be a pedantic or a dogmatic approach in the matter of analysis of pleadings or of the evidence adduced thereto. It is no doubt true that if the pleadings are clearly set out, it would be easy for the Court to decide the matters. But if the pleadings are lacking or vague and if both parties have understood what was the case pleaded and put forth with reference to requirement of law and placed such material before the Court, neither party is prejudiced. If we analyse from this angle, we do not think that the High Court was not justified in interfering with the order made by the Rent Controller.</p><p>23. From the perusal of the judgment of the Apex Court it is apparent that the Rent Controller must approach the matter in a practical manner. In case the non-disclosure is such as that it goes to the very root of the case the Rent Controller would be justified in non-suiting the landlord. However, if the non-disclosure is such that it would not prejudice the rights of the respondent then the landlord should not be non-suited only on this ground.</p><p>24. The decisions of this Court cited hereinabove were delivered prior to the judgment delivered by the Apex Court in Ram Nar'ain Arora's case. Further more both in Tara Chand Sharma's case and Vijay Kapoor's case decided by this Court, no averment had been made ixi respect of other residential buildings owned by a landlord. There was complete non-disclosure as to whether any such residential building owned by the landlord was in his possession or not. In the present case, as I have held above, the residential premises at 31, The Mall, Shimla was not owned by the landlord and hence these two earlier judgments of this Court are distinguishable on facts also.</p><p>25. In the present case, the landlord has been non-suited only on the ground that he did not disclose the fact that he was in occupation of certain premises on the Mall Road. Under law he was not required to disclose this fact. He was only required to disclose the factum of occupying another residential building owned by him in the urban area concerned. True it may be, that it would have been better if the landlord had disclosed all the facts but non-disclosure of a fact which he was not under law required to disclose could not in my opinion be a ground to dismiss his eviction petition.</p><p>26. However, what are the premises in his occupation even as a tenant can be taken into consideration while deciding the question whether he bona fide requires the demised premises for his personal use or occupation or not.</p><p>27. Lastly comes the question with regard to the bona fide requirement of the landlord. The landlord has no children. According to the landlord as well as his other witnesses i.e. his brother-in-law PW-2 and his wife PW-3, the wife now wants to come back and settle in Shimla. There is no reason to disbelieve their statements. Even according to the evidence led by the tenant the accommodation in possession of the landlord consists of two rooms, kitchen, bath room etc. Admittedly, the landlord is also having his office as an Architect in this building. The landlord belongs to the middle class of the Society. It cannot be expected of a landlord who owns sufficient property to reside in a two room set wherein he also runs his office.</p><p>28. The law by now is well settled that the landlord is the best judge of the suitability of the accommodation required by him. This suitability has however to be judged in the context of reasonable expectations. The landlord and his wife who are both well educated can reasonably be expected to entertain guests and they will have visitors to their house. They would obviously require a drawing room, a bed room and a spare bed room for guests. Even at his residence the landlord may require another room for his professional work. This is the minimum accommodation which they would require. Even if the accommodation possessed by the landlord, though not owned by him, at 31, the Mall, Shimla is taken into consideration such accommodation is not sufficient to meet his requirements since admittedly the landlord is running his profession of Architect from some portion of his these premises.</p><p>29. Keeping in view the entire facts and circumstances, I am of the considered view that the learned Appellate Authority gravely erred in rejecting the eviction petition of the landlord solely on the ground that he had not disclosed the factum of being in possession of the premises at 31, the Mall Shimla. Even though I have held that the said premises are residential premises, in view of the above discussion I hold that the landlord cannot be non-suited only on the ground of his being in possession of such premises since same were not owned by him.</p><p>30. In view of the above discussion, the Revision Petition is allowed, the order of the learned Appellate Authority dated 6.5.2003 is seaside and the order of the Rent Controller dated 22.8.2001 is restored.</p><p>31. Keeping in view the fact that the tenant has been in possession of the premises for a long period he is granted time up to 31st October, 2008 to vacate the premises.</p><p>32. No order as to costs.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '2008(2)ShimLC491',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'Shri S.L. Srivastava',
		'sub' => 'Tenancy',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'shri-arun-bhanwara-vs-s-l-srivastava'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '891084',
	(int) 1 => 'shri-arun-bhanwara-vs-s-l-srivastava'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/891084/shri-arun-bhanwara-vs-s-l-srivastava'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$caseref = 'Ram Narain Arora v. Asha Rani<br>'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>Deepak Gupta, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. This Revision Petition under Section 25(5) of the H.P. Urban Rent Control Act, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) is directed against the order of the learned Appellate Authority, Shimla in CMA No. 60-S/14 of 2001 whereby the appeal filed by the respondent (hereinafter referred to as the tenant) has been allowed, the order of the Rent Controller has been set-aside and the petition for eviction filed by the present petitioner (hereinafter referred to as the Landlord) on the ground of personal bona fide requirement has been set-aside.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. The undisputed facts are that the landlord is owner of the demised premises situated in building known as Tunnel View, Sanjauli, Shimla-6 consisting of two bed rooms with attached bath room and latrine, drawing-cum-dining room, kitchen and balcony. These premises were purchased by the landlord in the year 1986. Thereafter, the landlord had rented out the premises to one Sh. B.K. Chauhan. According to the landlord, when he got married he requested Sh. B.K. Chauhan to vacate the said premises. Sh. Chauhan vacated the said premises but admittedly the landlord did not occupy the same but rented out the same to the tenant in the year 1990.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. In the year 1997 the landlord filed a petition for eviction of the tenant on two grounds; firstly that the tenant is in arrears of rent from 1.11.1990 to 31.7.1997 and secondly that the premises are bona fide required by the landlord for the use and occupation of himself and his family.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>4. This petition was contested by the tenant. After trial, the Rent Controller ordered the eviction of the tenant on two grounds; (i) that the tenant was in arrears of rent from November, 1999 till date of order i.e. 22nd August, 2001 and (ii) that the landlord required the premises for his own use and occupation.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>5. The tenant deposited the rent within the time prescribed. He also filed an appeal challenging the finding on the issue of bona fide requirement. The learned Appellate Authority came to the conclusion that the landlord had not made a proper and full disclosure of facts as required under the provisions of the Act and had withheld material facts from the Court viz. that the landlord was in occupation of residential premises on 31, Mall Road in the urban area of Shimla and as such rejected this petition on this short ground.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>6. Aggrieved by the said order, the landlord has filed the present Revision Petition.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>7. I have heard Sh. Ramakant Sharma, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sh. Bhupinder Gupta, learned senior Counsel for the tenant.',
	(int) 8 => '<p>8. It has been urged on behalf of the landlord that the building which is alleged to be in possession of the landlord i.e. 31, the Mall Shimla is not a residential building and secondly that the building is not owned by him.',
	(int) 9 => '<p>9. On the other hand Sh. Bhupinder Gupta, learned Counsel of the tenant has strenuously urged that the landlord in para 18 has not stated anything about any building being owned by him and has only made an averment that he does not own or possess any other such building within the urban area Shimla. It is contended by Sh. Bhupinder Gupta that the landlord of his own volition did not state anything about the ownership of the building and since he has kept silent about the building which he is in occupation he has made a false averment and therefore his petition for eviction has rightly been rejected.',
	(int) 10 => '<p>10. I am not at all in agreement with the contention of the landlord that the premises known as 31, the Mall Shimla which are admittedly in the occupation of the landlord are commercial premises only and not being used by him for his residence. As pointed out above, the landlord purchased the demised premises in 1986. They fell vacant when he got married despite that he did not occupy the same and rented out the same to the tenant in the year 1990. The question that arises is where was the landlord living for this entire period. According to the landlord after the year 1994 he has been living with his brother-in-law Rajan (wife's brother) PW-2, since the year 1994. Prior to 1994 the landlord will have this Court to believe that he was living off and on with one friend or the other. This story is impossible to believe. The landlord was married in the year 1999. He is an Architect by profession. His wife is a law graduate. It is not believable that such a person would have no permanent abode and would continue to live as a guest with his friends for almost 5 years after his marriage. Even the story that he has been living with his brother-in-law after the year 1994 does not inspire confidence. It stands proved on record that the brother-in-law PW-2 Rajan lives with his own family i.e. wife and children. From the evidence it is also clear that the parents of the brother-in-law also reside with him, His flat consists of only two rooms. The flat in possession of the landlord at 31, the Mall Shimla, also consists of two rooms, kitchen and bath room. Even assuming that he was running an office in the part of the flat it cannot be believed that he would not live on his own flat on the Mall Road and reside with his brother-in-law in cramped premises. Even in the electoral list the landlord is shown to be a resident of 31, The Mall, Shimla. Therefore, I am of the considered view that the building 31, the Mall, Shimla was also being used as a residence by the landlord.',
	(int) 11 => '<p>11. Having held so, the question that arises is whether the landlord can be non-suited only on the ground that he has not made any disclosure about the residential accommodation available with him which premises were admittedly not owned by him.',
	(int) 12 => '<p>12. The short question which arises for decision in this petition is whether the landlord was guilty of suppressing and withholding such relevant facts which would disentitle him from seeking eviction of the tenant. To appreciate these contentions it would be necessary to refer to relevant portion of Section 14(3) of the Act:',
	(int) 13 => '<p>Section 14:',
	(int) 14 => '<p>1 and 2 xxxxxxxxxxx',
	(int) 15 => '<p>(3) A landlord may apply to the Controller for an order directing the tenant to put the landlord in possession-',
	(int) 16 => '<p>(a) in case of residential building, if',
	(int) 17 => '<p>(i) he required it for his own occupation:',
	(int) 18 => '<p>Provided that he is not occupying another residential building owned by him, in the urban area concerned:',
	(int) 19 => '<p>Provided further that he has not vacated such a building without sufficient cause within five years of the filing of the application, in the said urban area....',
	(int) 20 => '<p>13. A perusal of the bare provisions of the Act makes it clear that there are certain essential ingredients which the landlord must satisfy before seeking eviction of the tenant under the Act. Not only must he prove that the residential building is bona fide required by him for his own use and occupation but he must also plead and prove that he is not occupying any other residential building owned by him in the urban area concerned and further that he has not vacated such a building without sufficient cause within 5 years of the filing of the application.',
	(int) 21 => '<p>14. Reference may now be made to the relevant allegations made in para 18 of the eviction petition:',
	(int) 22 => '<p>(ii) That the petitioner bona fide requires the premises for his own use and occupation and also for the use and occupation of his family.',
	(int) 23 => '<p>The petitioner does not own or possess any other such building within the urban area of Simla nor the petitioner has vacated any such premises within five years of the filing of this petition.',
	(int) 24 => '<p>The family of the petitioner presently consists of himself and his wife. Due to paucity of accommodation the petitioner has not been able to keep his wife with himself at Simla, where he is working as an Engineer and she has been residing at Chandigarh since 1991 but on account of her ill health she has been brought to Simla by the petitioner. The petitioner at present is seeking temporary shelter, from time to time, with his relations.',
	(int) 25 => '<p>15. The learned Appellate Authority came to the conclusion that the landlord had falsely pleaded that he does not own or possess any other such building within the urban area of Shimla and hence rejected the eviction petition on this ground.',
	(int) 26 => '<p>16. On a close analysis of the proviso to Section 14(3)(a)(i) of the Act it is clear that a landlord is not entitled to seek eviction of a tenant from residential building even in case of bona fide requirement if the landlord is occupying another residential building owned by him in the urban area concerned. One can read three essential ingredients in this proviso i.e. (i) that the landlord is in occupation of another residential building; (ii) that the said residential building is owned by him and (iii) that the said residential building is situated in the concerned urban area.',
	(int) 27 => '<p>17. The question that arises is what is the impact of the landlord not making a disclosure in respect of premises which he is occupying but are not owned by him.',
	(int) 28 => '<p>18. The Apex Court in Onkar Nath v. Ved Vyas ILR 1979 HP 1, held as follows:',
	(int) 29 => '<p>It is common ground that there are three requirements to make out a cause of action for eviction under that provision, and indeed this is apparent from a bare reading of the sub-section. In the present case the finding is to the effect that the landlord requires the residential building for his own occupation. But, the legislation has taken care to insist upon two more conditions, namely; (a) that the landlord is not occupying any other residential building in the area concerned; and (b) that he has not vacated such a building without sufficient cause. There is not a scintilla of evidence nor indeed there is any averment in compliance with these latter conditions. The necessary consequence follows that not merely is there inadequacy of pleadings sufficient to make out a cause of action but total absence of proof of two vital requirements....',
	(int) 30 => '<p>The Supreme Court also said that:.The statute benignly designed to protect tenants from unreasonable evictions has taken case to put restrictions which must be rigorously construed to fulfil the purpose of the statute.',
	(int) 31 => '<p>19. Following the aforesaid judgment and other pronouncements of the Apex Court, a learned Single Judge of this Court in Tara Chand Sharma v. Baij Nath and Ors. 1992 (2) R.C.J. 323, held as follows:',
	(int) 32 => '<p>16. What appears as the legislative intent, in bold relief, is that the landlord, while seeking eviction of a tenant on the ground that he needs a residential building for his own occupation, must come out clearly and honestly with facts relating to the requirement that he is not occupying another residential building owned by him, in the urban area concerned and that he had not vacated such a building without sufficient cause within five years of the filing of the application, in the said urban area. The primal burden of making a clear disclosure would lie upon the landlord, for, the true facts would be in his special knowledge. An order in his favour by the Rent Controller would depend upon the satisfaction of the Rent Controller in regard not only to the claim that the landlord requires the accommodation, from which he wishes to evict a tenant, for his own occupation but also that he was not occupying another residential building owned by him nor had he vacated such building without sufficient cause within five years of the filing of the application in the application in the urban area concerned....',
	(int) 33 => '<p>It was further held as under:',
	(int) 34 => '<p>18. That the landlord should make a full disclosure of the relevant facts, pertaining to the requirements of Sub-section (3)(a)(i) and the two provisos, becomes all the more necessary because the satisfaction of the Rent Controller in regard thereto is the condition precedent for the making of an order in favour of the landlord....',
	(int) 35 => '<p>20. The aforesaid judgment has been followed in a number of other cases including Vijay Kapoor v. Maya Ram 1997 (2) RCR 437, wherein another learned single Judge of this Court following the aforesaid judgment held that the landlord must make complete and proper disclosure of all the material facts.',
	(int) 36 => '<p>21. On the other hand Sh. Ramakant Sharma has relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in Ram Narain Arora v. Asha Rani 1998(2) RCR 268. In that case the Rent Controller came to the conclusion that the landlord had suppressed material information and had not disclosed the fact that he was already in occupation of a house in Subji Mandi. Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act reads as follows:',
	(int) 37 => '<p>Section 14(1)(e). That the premises let for residential purposes are required bona fide by the landlord for occupation as a residence for himself or for any member of his family dependent on him, if he is the owner thereof, or for any person for whose benefit the premises are held and that the landlord or such person has no other reasonably suitable residential accommodation.',
	(int) 38 => '<p>22. The difference between Delhi Act and the present Act is that under the Delhi Act the only requirement is that the landlord has no other reasonably suitable accommodation whereas under the Himachal Act the residential premises are required to be owned by the landlord. The Apex Court in Rama Narain Arora's case (supra) held that the nondisclosure of the fact that the landlord was in occupation of certain premises in Subji Mandi was.not a ground to non-suit the landlord in view of the facts and circumstances of the case. The Apex Court held as follows:',
	(int) 39 => '<p>9. In making a claim that the suit premises is required bona fide for his own occupation as a residence for himself and other members of his family dependent on him and that he has no other reasonably suitable accommodation is a requirement of law before the Court can state whether the landlord requires the premises bona fide for his use and occupation. In doing so, the Court must also find out whether the landlord or such other person for whose benefit the premises is required has no other reasonably suitable residential accommodation. It cannot be said that the requirement of the landlord is not intermixed with the question of finding out whether he has any other reasonably suitable accommodation. If he has other reasonably suitable accommodation, ihen necessarily it would mean that he does not require the suit premises and his requirement may not be bona fide. In such circumstances further inquiry would be whether that premises is more suitable than the suit premises. Therefore, the questions raised before the Court would not necessarily depend upon only the pleadings. It could be a good defence that the landlord has other reasonably suitable residential accommodation and thereby defend the claim of the landlord.',
	(int) 40 => '<p>10. There cannot be a pedantic or a dogmatic approach in the matter of analysis of pleadings or of the evidence adduced thereto. It is no doubt true that if the pleadings are clearly set out, it would be easy for the Court to decide the matters. But if the pleadings are lacking or vague and if both parties have understood what was the case pleaded and put forth with reference to requirement of law and placed such material before the Court, neither party is prejudiced. If we analyse from this angle, we do not think that the High Court was not justified in interfering with the order made by the Rent Controller.',
	(int) 41 => '<p>23. From the perusal of the judgment of the Apex Court it is apparent that the Rent Controller must approach the matter in a practical manner. In case the non-disclosure is such as that it goes to the very root of the case the Rent Controller would be justified in non-suiting the landlord. However, if the non-disclosure is such that it would not prejudice the rights of the respondent then the landlord should not be non-suited only on this ground.',
	(int) 42 => '<p>24. The decisions of this Court cited hereinabove were delivered prior to the judgment delivered by the Apex Court in Ram Nar'ain Arora's case. Further more both in Tara Chand Sharma's case and Vijay Kapoor's case decided by this Court, no averment had been made ixi respect of other residential buildings owned by a landlord. There was complete non-disclosure as to whether any such residential building owned by the landlord was in his possession or not. In the present case, as I have held above, the residential premises at 31, The Mall, Shimla was not owned by the landlord and hence these two earlier judgments of this Court are distinguishable on facts also.',
	(int) 43 => '<p>25. In the present case, the landlord has been non-suited only on the ground that he did not disclose the fact that he was in occupation of certain premises on the Mall Road. Under law he was not required to disclose this fact. He was only required to disclose the factum of occupying another residential building owned by him in the urban area concerned. True it may be, that it would have been better if the landlord had disclosed all the facts but non-disclosure of a fact which he was not under law required to disclose could not in my opinion be a ground to dismiss his eviction petition.',
	(int) 44 => '<p>26. However, what are the premises in his occupation even as a tenant can be taken into consideration while deciding the question whether he bona fide requires the demised premises for his personal use or occupation or not.',
	(int) 45 => '<p>27. Lastly comes the question with regard to the bona fide requirement of the landlord. The landlord has no children. According to the landlord as well as his other witnesses i.e. his brother-in-law PW-2 and his wife PW-3, the wife now wants to come back and settle in Shimla. There is no reason to disbelieve their statements. Even according to the evidence led by the tenant the accommodation in possession of the landlord consists of two rooms, kitchen, bath room etc. Admittedly, the landlord is also having his office as an Architect in this building. The landlord belongs to the middle class of the Society. It cannot be expected of a landlord who owns sufficient property to reside in a two room set wherein he also runs his office.',
	(int) 46 => '<p>28. The law by now is well settled that the landlord is the best judge of the suitability of the accommodation required by him. This suitability has however to be judged in the context of reasonable expectations. The landlord and his wife who are both well educated can reasonably be expected to entertain guests and they will have visitors to their house. They would obviously require a drawing room, a bed room and a spare bed room for guests. Even at his residence the landlord may require another room for his professional work. This is the minimum accommodation which they would require. Even if the accommodation possessed by the landlord, though not owned by him, at 31, the Mall, Shimla is taken into consideration such accommodation is not sufficient to meet his requirements since admittedly the landlord is running his profession of Architect from some portion of his these premises.',
	(int) 47 => '<p>29. Keeping in view the entire facts and circumstances, I am of the considered view that the learned Appellate Authority gravely erred in rejecting the eviction petition of the landlord solely on the ground that he had not disclosed the factum of being in possession of the premises at 31, the Mall Shimla. Even though I have held that the said premises are residential premises, in view of the above discussion I hold that the landlord cannot be non-suited only on the ground of his being in possession of such premises since same were not owned by him.',
	(int) 48 => '<p>30. In view of the above discussion, the Revision Petition is allowed, the order of the learned Appellate Authority dated 6.5.2003 is seaside and the order of the Rent Controller dated 22.8.2001 is restored.',
	(int) 49 => '<p>31. Keeping in view the fact that the tenant has been in possession of the premises for a long period he is granted time up to 31st October, 2008 to vacate the premises.',
	(int) 50 => '<p>32. No order as to costs.<p>',
	(int) 51 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 52
$i = (int) 25
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

15. The learned Appellate Authority came to the conclusion that the landlord had falsely pleaded that he does not own or possess any other such building within the urban area of Shimla and hence rejected the eviction petition on this ground.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Shri Arun Bhanwara Vs Shri S L Srivastava - Citation 891084 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '891084',
			'acts' => '',
			'appealno' => '',
			'appellant' => 'Shri Arun Bhanwara',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Shri Arun Bhanwara Vs. Shri S.L. Srivastava',
			'casenote' => ' - CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908.[C.A. No. 5/1908]. Order 14, Rule 2 [As amended by Amending Act of 1976]: [V.K. Gupta, CJ, Deepak Gupta & Surjit Singh, JJ] Preliminary issue of law and fact  Court framing all issues both of law and facts together and also  tried all the issues together, including the issue relating to jurisdiction of Court  Held, Except in situations perceived or warranted under sub-rule (2) of Rule 2 of Order 14 where a  Court in fact frames only issues of law in the first instance and postpones settlement of other issues, clearly and explicitly in situations where the Court has framed all issues together, both of law as well as facts and has also tried all these issues together, it is not open to the Court to adopt the principle of severability and proceed to decide issues of law first, without taking up simultaneously other issues for decision. This course of action is not available to a Court because sub-rule (1) does not permit the  Court to adopt any such principle of severability and to dispose of a suit only on preliminary issues, or what can be termed as issues of law. Sub-rule (1)  clearly mandates that in a situation contemplated under it, where all the issues have been together and have also been taken up for adjudication during the course of the trial, these must be decided together and the judgment in the suit as a whole must be pronounced by the Court covering all the issues framed in the suit.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => 'Ram Narain Arora v. Asha Rani;',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => '',
			'counseldef' => '',
			'court' => 'Himachal Pradesh',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2008-07-31',
			'deposition' => 'Petition allowed',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => ' Deepak Gupta, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">Deepak Gupta, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. This Revision Petition under Section 25(5) of the H.P. Urban Rent Control Act, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) is directed against the order of the learned Appellate Authority, Shimla in CMA No. 60-S/14 of 2001 whereby the appeal filed by the respondent (hereinafter referred to as the tenant) has been allowed, the order of the Rent Controller has been set-aside and the petition for eviction filed by the present petitioner (hereinafter referred to as the Landlord) on the ground of personal bona fide requirement has been set-aside.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The undisputed facts are that the landlord is owner of the demised premises situated in building known as Tunnel View, Sanjauli, Shimla-6 consisting of two bed rooms with attached bath room and latrine, drawing-cum-dining room, kitchen and balcony. These premises were purchased by the landlord in the year 1986. Thereafter, the landlord had rented out the premises to one Sh. B.K. Chauhan. According to the landlord, when he got married he requested Sh. B.K. Chauhan to vacate the said premises. Sh. Chauhan vacated the said premises but admittedly the landlord did not occupy the same but rented out the same to the tenant in the year 1990.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. In the year 1997 the landlord filed a petition for eviction of the tenant on two grounds; firstly that the tenant is in arrears of rent from 1.11.1990 to 31.7.1997 and secondly that the premises are bona fide required by the landlord for the use and occupation of himself and his family.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. This petition was contested by the tenant. After trial, the Rent Controller ordered the eviction of the tenant on two grounds; (i) that the tenant was in arrears of rent from November, 1999 till date of order i.e. 22nd August, 2001 and (ii) that the landlord required the premises for his own use and occupation.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. The tenant deposited the rent within the time prescribed. He also filed an appeal challenging the finding on the issue of bona fide requirement. The learned Appellate Authority came to the conclusion that the landlord had not made a proper and full disclosure of facts as required under the provisions of the Act and had withheld material facts from the Court viz. that the landlord was in occupation of residential premises on 31, Mall Road in the urban area of Shimla and as such rejected this petition on this short ground.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. Aggrieved by the said order, the landlord has filed the present Revision Petition.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. I have heard Sh. Ramakant Sharma, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sh. Bhupinder Gupta, learned senior Counsel for the tenant.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. It has been urged on behalf of the landlord that the building which is alleged to be in possession of the landlord i.e. 31, the Mall Shimla is not a residential building and secondly that the building is not owned by him.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. On the other hand Sh. Bhupinder Gupta, learned Counsel of the tenant has strenuously urged that the landlord in para 18 has not stated anything about any building being owned by him and has only made an averment that he does not own or possess any other such building within the urban area Shimla. It is contended by Sh. Bhupinder Gupta that the landlord of his own volition did not state anything about the ownership of the building and since he has kept silent about the building which he is in occupation he has made a false averment and therefore his petition for eviction has rightly been rejected.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. I am not at all in agreement with the contention of the landlord that the premises known as 31, the Mall Shimla which are admittedly in the occupation of the landlord are commercial premises only and not being used by him for his residence. As pointed out above, the landlord purchased the demised premises in 1986. They fell vacant when he got married despite that he did not occupy the same and rented out the same to the tenant in the year 1990. The question that arises is where was the landlord living for this entire period. According to the landlord after the year 1994 he has been living with his brother-in-law Rajan (wife's brother) PW-2, since the year 1994. Prior to 1994 the landlord will have this Court to believe that he was living off and on with one friend or the other. This story is impossible to believe. The landlord was married in the year 1999. He is an Architect by profession. His wife is a law graduate. It is not believable that such a person would have no permanent abode and would continue to live as a guest with his friends for almost 5 years after his marriage. Even the story that he has been living with his brother-in-law after the year 1994 does not inspire confidence. It stands proved on record that the brother-in-law PW-2 Rajan lives with his own family i.e. wife and children. From the evidence it is also clear that the parents of the brother-in-law also reside with him, His flat consists of only two rooms. The flat in possession of the landlord at 31, the Mall Shimla, also consists of two rooms, kitchen and bath room. Even assuming that he was running an office in the part of the flat it cannot be believed that he would not live on his own flat on the Mall Road and reside with his brother-in-law in cramped premises. Even in the electoral list the landlord is shown to be a resident of 31, The Mall, Shimla. Therefore, I am of the considered view that the building 31, the Mall, Shimla was also being used as a residence by the landlord.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. Having held so, the question that arises is whether the landlord can be non-suited only on the ground that he has not made any disclosure about the residential accommodation available with him which premises were admittedly not owned by him.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. The short question which arises for decision in this petition is whether the landlord was guilty of suppressing and withholding such relevant facts which would disentitle him from seeking eviction of the tenant. To appreciate these contentions it would be necessary to refer to relevant portion of Section 14(3) of the Act:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Section 14:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1 and 2 xxxxxxxxxxx</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(3) A landlord may apply to the Controller for an order directing the tenant to put the landlord in possession-</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(a) in case of residential building, if</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(i) he required it for his own occupation:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Provided that he is not occupying another residential building owned by him, in the urban area concerned:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Provided further that he has not vacated such a building without sufficient cause within five years of the filing of the application, in the said urban area....</p><p style="text-align: justify;">13. A perusal of the bare provisions of the Act makes it clear that there are certain essential ingredients which the landlord must satisfy before seeking eviction of the tenant under the Act. Not only must he prove that the residential building is bona fide required by him for his own use and occupation but he must also plead and prove that he is not occupying any other residential building owned by him in the urban area concerned and further that he has not vacated such a building without sufficient cause within 5 years of the filing of the application.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">14. Reference may now be made to the relevant allegations made in para 18 of the eviction petition:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(ii) That the petitioner bona fide requires the premises for his own use and occupation and also for the use and occupation of his family.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The petitioner does not own or possess any other such building within the urban area of Simla nor the petitioner has vacated any such premises within five years of the filing of this petition.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The family of the petitioner presently consists of himself and his wife. Due to paucity of accommodation the petitioner has not been able to keep his wife with himself at Simla, where he is working as an Engineer and she has been residing at Chandigarh since 1991 but on account of her ill health she has been brought to Simla by the petitioner. The petitioner at present is seeking temporary shelter, from time to time, with his relations.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">15. The learned Appellate Authority came to the conclusion that the landlord had falsely pleaded that he does not own or possess any other such building within the urban area of Shimla and hence rejected the eviction petition on this ground.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">16. On a close analysis of the proviso to Section 14(3)(a)(i) of the Act it is clear that a landlord is not entitled to seek eviction of a tenant from residential building even in case of bona fide requirement if the landlord is occupying another residential building owned by him in the urban area concerned. One can read three essential ingredients in this proviso i.e. (i) that the landlord is in occupation of another residential building; (ii) that the said residential building is owned by him and (iii) that the said residential building is situated in the concerned urban area.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">17. The question that arises is what is the impact of the landlord not making a disclosure in respect of premises which he is occupying but are not owned by him.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">18. The Apex Court in Onkar Nath v. Ved Vyas ILR 1979 HP 1, held as follows:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">It is common ground that there are three requirements to make out a cause of action for eviction under that provision, and indeed this is apparent from a bare reading of the sub-section. In the present case the finding is to the effect that the landlord requires the residential building for his own occupation. But, the legislation has taken care to insist upon two more conditions, namely; (a) that the landlord is not occupying any other residential building in the area concerned; and (b) that he has not vacated such a building without sufficient cause. There is not a scintilla of evidence nor indeed there is any averment in compliance with these latter conditions. The necessary consequence follows that not merely is there inadequacy of pleadings sufficient to make out a cause of action but total absence of proof of two vital requirements....</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The Supreme Court also said that:.The statute benignly designed to protect tenants from unreasonable evictions has taken case to put restrictions which must be rigorously construed to fulfil the purpose of the statute.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">19. Following the aforesaid judgment and other pronouncements of the Apex Court, a learned Single Judge of this Court in Tara Chand Sharma v. Baij Nath and Ors. 1992 (2) R.C.J. 323, held as follows:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">16. What appears as the legislative intent, in bold relief, is that the landlord, while seeking eviction of a tenant on the ground that he needs a residential building for his own occupation, must come out clearly and honestly with facts relating to the requirement that he is not occupying another residential building owned by him, in the urban area concerned and that he had not vacated such a building without sufficient cause within five years of the filing of the application, in the said urban area. The primal burden of making a clear disclosure would lie upon the landlord, for, the true facts would be in his special knowledge. An order in his favour by the Rent Controller would depend upon the satisfaction of the Rent Controller in regard not only to the claim that the landlord requires the accommodation, from which he wishes to evict a tenant, for his own occupation but also that he was not occupying another residential building owned by him nor had he vacated such building without sufficient cause within five years of the filing of the application in the application in the urban area concerned....</p><p style="text-align: justify;">It was further held as under:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">18. That the landlord should make a full disclosure of the relevant facts, pertaining to the requirements of Sub-section (3)(a)(i) and the two provisos, becomes all the more necessary because the satisfaction of the Rent Controller in regard thereto is the condition precedent for the making of an order in favour of the landlord....</p><p style="text-align: justify;">20. The aforesaid judgment has been followed in a number of other cases including Vijay Kapoor v. Maya Ram 1997 (2) RCR 437, wherein another learned single Judge of this Court following the aforesaid judgment held that the landlord must make complete and proper disclosure of all the material facts.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">21. On the other hand Sh. Ramakant Sharma has relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in Ram Narain Arora v. Asha Rani 1998(2) RCR 268. In that case the Rent Controller came to the conclusion that the landlord had suppressed material information and had not disclosed the fact that he was already in occupation of a house in Subji Mandi. Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act reads as follows:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Section 14(1)(e). That the premises let for residential purposes are required bona fide by the landlord for occupation as a residence for himself or for any member of his family dependent on him, if he is the owner thereof, or for any person for whose benefit the premises are held and that the landlord or such person has no other reasonably suitable residential accommodation.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">22. The difference between Delhi Act and the present Act is that under the Delhi Act the only requirement is that the landlord has no other reasonably suitable accommodation whereas under the Himachal Act the residential premises are required to be owned by the landlord. The Apex Court in Rama Narain Arora's case (supra) held that the nondisclosure of the fact that the landlord was in occupation of certain premises in Subji Mandi was.not a ground to non-suit the landlord in view of the facts and circumstances of the case. The Apex Court held as follows:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. In making a claim that the suit premises is required bona fide for his own occupation as a residence for himself and other members of his family dependent on him and that he has no other reasonably suitable accommodation is a requirement of law before the Court can state whether the landlord requires the premises bona fide for his use and occupation. In doing so, the Court must also find out whether the landlord or such other person for whose benefit the premises is required has no other reasonably suitable residential accommodation. It cannot be said that the requirement of the landlord is not intermixed with the question of finding out whether he has any other reasonably suitable accommodation. If he has other reasonably suitable accommodation, ihen necessarily it would mean that he does not require the suit premises and his requirement may not be bona fide. In such circumstances further inquiry would be whether that premises is more suitable than the suit premises. Therefore, the questions raised before the Court would not necessarily depend upon only the pleadings. It could be a good defence that the landlord has other reasonably suitable residential accommodation and thereby defend the claim of the landlord.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. There cannot be a pedantic or a dogmatic approach in the matter of analysis of pleadings or of the evidence adduced thereto. It is no doubt true that if the pleadings are clearly set out, it would be easy for the Court to decide the matters. But if the pleadings are lacking or vague and if both parties have understood what was the case pleaded and put forth with reference to requirement of law and placed such material before the Court, neither party is prejudiced. If we analyse from this angle, we do not think that the High Court was not justified in interfering with the order made by the Rent Controller.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">23. From the perusal of the judgment of the Apex Court it is apparent that the Rent Controller must approach the matter in a practical manner. In case the non-disclosure is such as that it goes to the very root of the case the Rent Controller would be justified in non-suiting the landlord. However, if the non-disclosure is such that it would not prejudice the rights of the respondent then the landlord should not be non-suited only on this ground.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">24. The decisions of this Court cited hereinabove were delivered prior to the judgment delivered by the Apex Court in Ram Nar'ain Arora's case. Further more both in Tara Chand Sharma's case and Vijay Kapoor's case decided by this Court, no averment had been made ixi respect of other residential buildings owned by a landlord. There was complete non-disclosure as to whether any such residential building owned by the landlord was in his possession or not. In the present case, as I have held above, the residential premises at 31, The Mall, Shimla was not owned by the landlord and hence these two earlier judgments of this Court are distinguishable on facts also.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">25. In the present case, the landlord has been non-suited only on the ground that he did not disclose the fact that he was in occupation of certain premises on the Mall Road. Under law he was not required to disclose this fact. He was only required to disclose the factum of occupying another residential building owned by him in the urban area concerned. True it may be, that it would have been better if the landlord had disclosed all the facts but non-disclosure of a fact which he was not under law required to disclose could not in my opinion be a ground to dismiss his eviction petition.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">26. However, what are the premises in his occupation even as a tenant can be taken into consideration while deciding the question whether he bona fide requires the demised premises for his personal use or occupation or not.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">27. Lastly comes the question with regard to the bona fide requirement of the landlord. The landlord has no children. According to the landlord as well as his other witnesses i.e. his brother-in-law PW-2 and his wife PW-3, the wife now wants to come back and settle in Shimla. There is no reason to disbelieve their statements. Even according to the evidence led by the tenant the accommodation in possession of the landlord consists of two rooms, kitchen, bath room etc. Admittedly, the landlord is also having his office as an Architect in this building. The landlord belongs to the middle class of the Society. It cannot be expected of a landlord who owns sufficient property to reside in a two room set wherein he also runs his office.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">28. The law by now is well settled that the landlord is the best judge of the suitability of the accommodation required by him. This suitability has however to be judged in the context of reasonable expectations. The landlord and his wife who are both well educated can reasonably be expected to entertain guests and they will have visitors to their house. They would obviously require a drawing room, a bed room and a spare bed room for guests. Even at his residence the landlord may require another room for his professional work. This is the minimum accommodation which they would require. Even if the accommodation possessed by the landlord, though not owned by him, at 31, the Mall, Shimla is taken into consideration such accommodation is not sufficient to meet his requirements since admittedly the landlord is running his profession of Architect from some portion of his these premises.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">29. Keeping in view the entire facts and circumstances, I am of the considered view that the learned Appellate Authority gravely erred in rejecting the eviction petition of the landlord solely on the ground that he had not disclosed the factum of being in possession of the premises at 31, the Mall Shimla. Even though I have held that the said premises are residential premises, in view of the above discussion I hold that the landlord cannot be non-suited only on the ground of his being in possession of such premises since same were not owned by him.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">30. In view of the above discussion, the Revision Petition is allowed, the order of the learned Appellate Authority dated 6.5.2003 is seaside and the order of the Rent Controller dated 22.8.2001 is restored.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">31. Keeping in view the fact that the tenant has been in possession of the premises for a long period he is granted time up to 31st October, 2008 to vacate the premises.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">32. No order as to costs.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '2008(2)ShimLC491',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'Shri S.L. Srivastava',
			'sub' => 'Tenancy',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'shri-arun-bhanwara-vs-s-l-srivastava',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '891084',
		(int) 1 => 'shri-arun-bhanwara-vs-s-l-srivastava'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Shri Arun Bhanwara Vs Shri S L Srivastava - Citation 891084 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '891084',
		'acts' => '',
		'appealno' => '',
		'appellant' => 'Shri Arun Bhanwara',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Shri Arun Bhanwara Vs. Shri S.L. Srivastava',
		'casenote' => ' - CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908.[C.A. No. 5/1908]. Order 14, Rule 2 [As amended by Amending Act of 1976]: [V.K. Gupta, CJ, Deepak Gupta & Surjit Singh, JJ] Preliminary issue of law and fact  Court framing all issues both of law and facts together and also  tried all the issues together, including the issue relating to jurisdiction of Court  Held, Except in situations perceived or warranted under sub-rule (2) of Rule 2 of Order 14 where a  Court in fact frames only issues of law in the first instance and postpones settlement of other issues, clearly and explicitly in situations where the Court has framed all issues together, both of law as well as facts and has also tried all these issues together, it is not open to the Court to adopt the principle of severability and proceed to decide issues of law first, without taking up simultaneously other issues for decision. This course of action is not available to a Court because sub-rule (1) does not permit the  Court to adopt any such principle of severability and to dispose of a suit only on preliminary issues, or what can be termed as issues of law. Sub-rule (1)  clearly mandates that in a situation contemplated under it, where all the issues have been together and have also been taken up for adjudication during the course of the trial, these must be decided together and the judgment in the suit as a whole must be pronounced by the Court covering all the issues framed in the suit.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => 'Ram Narain Arora v. Asha Rani;',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => '',
		'counseldef' => '',
		'court' => 'Himachal Pradesh',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2008-07-31',
		'deposition' => 'Petition allowed',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => ' Deepak Gupta, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>Deepak Gupta, J.</p><p>1. This Revision Petition under Section 25(5) of the H.P. Urban Rent Control Act, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) is directed against the order of the learned Appellate Authority, Shimla in CMA No. 60-S/14 of 2001 whereby the appeal filed by the respondent (hereinafter referred to as the tenant) has been allowed, the order of the Rent Controller has been set-aside and the petition for eviction filed by the present petitioner (hereinafter referred to as the Landlord) on the ground of personal bona fide requirement has been set-aside.</p><p>2. The undisputed facts are that the landlord is owner of the demised premises situated in building known as Tunnel View, Sanjauli, Shimla-6 consisting of two bed rooms with attached bath room and latrine, drawing-cum-dining room, kitchen and balcony. These premises were purchased by the landlord in the year 1986. Thereafter, the landlord had rented out the premises to one Sh. B.K. Chauhan. According to the landlord, when he got married he requested Sh. B.K. Chauhan to vacate the said premises. Sh. Chauhan vacated the said premises but admittedly the landlord did not occupy the same but rented out the same to the tenant in the year 1990.</p><p>3. In the year 1997 the landlord filed a petition for eviction of the tenant on two grounds; firstly that the tenant is in arrears of rent from 1.11.1990 to 31.7.1997 and secondly that the premises are bona fide required by the landlord for the use and occupation of himself and his family.</p><p>4. This petition was contested by the tenant. After trial, the Rent Controller ordered the eviction of the tenant on two grounds; (i) that the tenant was in arrears of rent from November, 1999 till date of order i.e. 22nd August, 2001 and (ii) that the landlord required the premises for his own use and occupation.</p><p>5. The tenant deposited the rent within the time prescribed. He also filed an appeal challenging the finding on the issue of bona fide requirement. The learned Appellate Authority came to the conclusion that the landlord had not made a proper and full disclosure of facts as required under the provisions of the Act and had withheld material facts from the Court viz. that the landlord was in occupation of residential premises on 31, Mall Road in the urban area of Shimla and as such rejected this petition on this short ground.</p><p>6. Aggrieved by the said order, the landlord has filed the present Revision Petition.</p><p>7. I have heard Sh. Ramakant Sharma, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sh. Bhupinder Gupta, learned senior Counsel for the tenant.</p><p>8. It has been urged on behalf of the landlord that the building which is alleged to be in possession of the landlord i.e. 31, the Mall Shimla is not a residential building and secondly that the building is not owned by him.</p><p>9. On the other hand Sh. Bhupinder Gupta, learned Counsel of the tenant has strenuously urged that the landlord in para 18 has not stated anything about any building being owned by him and has only made an averment that he does not own or possess any other such building within the urban area Shimla. It is contended by Sh. Bhupinder Gupta that the landlord of his own volition did not state anything about the ownership of the building and since he has kept silent about the building which he is in occupation he has made a false averment and therefore his petition for eviction has rightly been rejected.</p><p>10. I am not at all in agreement with the contention of the landlord that the premises known as 31, the Mall Shimla which are admittedly in the occupation of the landlord are commercial premises only and not being used by him for his residence. As pointed out above, the landlord purchased the demised premises in 1986. They fell vacant when he got married despite that he did not occupy the same and rented out the same to the tenant in the year 1990. The question that arises is where was the landlord living for this entire period. According to the landlord after the year 1994 he has been living with his brother-in-law Rajan (wife's brother) PW-2, since the year 1994. Prior to 1994 the landlord will have this Court to believe that he was living off and on with one friend or the other. This story is impossible to believe. The landlord was married in the year 1999. He is an Architect by profession. His wife is a law graduate. It is not believable that such a person would have no permanent abode and would continue to live as a guest with his friends for almost 5 years after his marriage. Even the story that he has been living with his brother-in-law after the year 1994 does not inspire confidence. It stands proved on record that the brother-in-law PW-2 Rajan lives with his own family i.e. wife and children. From the evidence it is also clear that the parents of the brother-in-law also reside with him, His flat consists of only two rooms. The flat in possession of the landlord at 31, the Mall Shimla, also consists of two rooms, kitchen and bath room. Even assuming that he was running an office in the part of the flat it cannot be believed that he would not live on his own flat on the Mall Road and reside with his brother-in-law in cramped premises. Even in the electoral list the landlord is shown to be a resident of 31, The Mall, Shimla. Therefore, I am of the considered view that the building 31, the Mall, Shimla was also being used as a residence by the landlord.</p><p>11. Having held so, the question that arises is whether the landlord can be non-suited only on the ground that he has not made any disclosure about the residential accommodation available with him which premises were admittedly not owned by him.</p><p>12. The short question which arises for decision in this petition is whether the landlord was guilty of suppressing and withholding such relevant facts which would disentitle him from seeking eviction of the tenant. To appreciate these contentions it would be necessary to refer to relevant portion of Section 14(3) of the Act:</p><p>Section 14:</p><p>1 and 2 xxxxxxxxxxx</p><p>(3) A landlord may apply to the Controller for an order directing the tenant to put the landlord in possession-</p><p>(a) in case of residential building, if</p><p>(i) he required it for his own occupation:</p><p>Provided that he is not occupying another residential building owned by him, in the urban area concerned:</p><p>Provided further that he has not vacated such a building without sufficient cause within five years of the filing of the application, in the said urban area....</p><p>13. A perusal of the bare provisions of the Act makes it clear that there are certain essential ingredients which the landlord must satisfy before seeking eviction of the tenant under the Act. Not only must he prove that the residential building is bona fide required by him for his own use and occupation but he must also plead and prove that he is not occupying any other residential building owned by him in the urban area concerned and further that he has not vacated such a building without sufficient cause within 5 years of the filing of the application.</p><p>14. Reference may now be made to the relevant allegations made in para 18 of the eviction petition:</p><p>(ii) That the petitioner bona fide requires the premises for his own use and occupation and also for the use and occupation of his family.</p><p>The petitioner does not own or possess any other such building within the urban area of Simla nor the petitioner has vacated any such premises within five years of the filing of this petition.</p><p>The family of the petitioner presently consists of himself and his wife. Due to paucity of accommodation the petitioner has not been able to keep his wife with himself at Simla, where he is working as an Engineer and she has been residing at Chandigarh since 1991 but on account of her ill health she has been brought to Simla by the petitioner. The petitioner at present is seeking temporary shelter, from time to time, with his relations.</p><p>15. The learned Appellate Authority came to the conclusion that the landlord had falsely pleaded that he does not own or possess any other such building within the urban area of Shimla and hence rejected the eviction petition on this ground.</p><p>16. On a close analysis of the proviso to Section 14(3)(a)(i) of the Act it is clear that a landlord is not entitled to seek eviction of a tenant from residential building even in case of bona fide requirement if the landlord is occupying another residential building owned by him in the urban area concerned. One can read three essential ingredients in this proviso i.e. (i) that the landlord is in occupation of another residential building; (ii) that the said residential building is owned by him and (iii) that the said residential building is situated in the concerned urban area.</p><p>17. The question that arises is what is the impact of the landlord not making a disclosure in respect of premises which he is occupying but are not owned by him.</p><p>18. The Apex Court in Onkar Nath v. Ved Vyas ILR 1979 HP 1, held as follows:</p><p>It is common ground that there are three requirements to make out a cause of action for eviction under that provision, and indeed this is apparent from a bare reading of the sub-section. In the present case the finding is to the effect that the landlord requires the residential building for his own occupation. But, the legislation has taken care to insist upon two more conditions, namely; (a) that the landlord is not occupying any other residential building in the area concerned; and (b) that he has not vacated such a building without sufficient cause. There is not a scintilla of evidence nor indeed there is any averment in compliance with these latter conditions. The necessary consequence follows that not merely is there inadequacy of pleadings sufficient to make out a cause of action but total absence of proof of two vital requirements....</p><p>The Supreme Court also said that:.The statute benignly designed to protect tenants from unreasonable evictions has taken case to put restrictions which must be rigorously construed to fulfil the purpose of the statute.</p><p>19. Following the aforesaid judgment and other pronouncements of the Apex Court, a learned Single Judge of this Court in Tara Chand Sharma v. Baij Nath and Ors. 1992 (2) R.C.J. 323, held as follows:</p><p>16. What appears as the legislative intent, in bold relief, is that the landlord, while seeking eviction of a tenant on the ground that he needs a residential building for his own occupation, must come out clearly and honestly with facts relating to the requirement that he is not occupying another residential building owned by him, in the urban area concerned and that he had not vacated such a building without sufficient cause within five years of the filing of the application, in the said urban area. The primal burden of making a clear disclosure would lie upon the landlord, for, the true facts would be in his special knowledge. An order in his favour by the Rent Controller would depend upon the satisfaction of the Rent Controller in regard not only to the claim that the landlord requires the accommodation, from which he wishes to evict a tenant, for his own occupation but also that he was not occupying another residential building owned by him nor had he vacated such building without sufficient cause within five years of the filing of the application in the application in the urban area concerned....</p><p>It was further held as under:</p><p>18. That the landlord should make a full disclosure of the relevant facts, pertaining to the requirements of Sub-section (3)(a)(i) and the two provisos, becomes all the more necessary because the satisfaction of the Rent Controller in regard thereto is the condition precedent for the making of an order in favour of the landlord....</p><p>20. The aforesaid judgment has been followed in a number of other cases including Vijay Kapoor v. Maya Ram 1997 (2) RCR 437, wherein another learned single Judge of this Court following the aforesaid judgment held that the landlord must make complete and proper disclosure of all the material facts.</p><p>21. On the other hand Sh. Ramakant Sharma has relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in Ram Narain Arora v. Asha Rani 1998(2) RCR 268. In that case the Rent Controller came to the conclusion that the landlord had suppressed material information and had not disclosed the fact that he was already in occupation of a house in Subji Mandi. Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act reads as follows:</p><p>Section 14(1)(e). That the premises let for residential purposes are required bona fide by the landlord for occupation as a residence for himself or for any member of his family dependent on him, if he is the owner thereof, or for any person for whose benefit the premises are held and that the landlord or such person has no other reasonably suitable residential accommodation.</p><p>22. The difference between Delhi Act and the present Act is that under the Delhi Act the only requirement is that the landlord has no other reasonably suitable accommodation whereas under the Himachal Act the residential premises are required to be owned by the landlord. The Apex Court in Rama Narain Arora's case (supra) held that the nondisclosure of the fact that the landlord was in occupation of certain premises in Subji Mandi was.not a ground to non-suit the landlord in view of the facts and circumstances of the case. The Apex Court held as follows:</p><p>9. In making a claim that the suit premises is required bona fide for his own occupation as a residence for himself and other members of his family dependent on him and that he has no other reasonably suitable accommodation is a requirement of law before the Court can state whether the landlord requires the premises bona fide for his use and occupation. In doing so, the Court must also find out whether the landlord or such other person for whose benefit the premises is required has no other reasonably suitable residential accommodation. It cannot be said that the requirement of the landlord is not intermixed with the question of finding out whether he has any other reasonably suitable accommodation. If he has other reasonably suitable accommodation, ihen necessarily it would mean that he does not require the suit premises and his requirement may not be bona fide. In such circumstances further inquiry would be whether that premises is more suitable than the suit premises. Therefore, the questions raised before the Court would not necessarily depend upon only the pleadings. It could be a good defence that the landlord has other reasonably suitable residential accommodation and thereby defend the claim of the landlord.</p><p>10. There cannot be a pedantic or a dogmatic approach in the matter of analysis of pleadings or of the evidence adduced thereto. It is no doubt true that if the pleadings are clearly set out, it would be easy for the Court to decide the matters. But if the pleadings are lacking or vague and if both parties have understood what was the case pleaded and put forth with reference to requirement of law and placed such material before the Court, neither party is prejudiced. If we analyse from this angle, we do not think that the High Court was not justified in interfering with the order made by the Rent Controller.</p><p>23. From the perusal of the judgment of the Apex Court it is apparent that the Rent Controller must approach the matter in a practical manner. In case the non-disclosure is such as that it goes to the very root of the case the Rent Controller would be justified in non-suiting the landlord. However, if the non-disclosure is such that it would not prejudice the rights of the respondent then the landlord should not be non-suited only on this ground.</p><p>24. The decisions of this Court cited hereinabove were delivered prior to the judgment delivered by the Apex Court in Ram Nar'ain Arora's case. Further more both in Tara Chand Sharma's case and Vijay Kapoor's case decided by this Court, no averment had been made ixi respect of other residential buildings owned by a landlord. There was complete non-disclosure as to whether any such residential building owned by the landlord was in his possession or not. In the present case, as I have held above, the residential premises at 31, The Mall, Shimla was not owned by the landlord and hence these two earlier judgments of this Court are distinguishable on facts also.</p><p>25. In the present case, the landlord has been non-suited only on the ground that he did not disclose the fact that he was in occupation of certain premises on the Mall Road. Under law he was not required to disclose this fact. He was only required to disclose the factum of occupying another residential building owned by him in the urban area concerned. True it may be, that it would have been better if the landlord had disclosed all the facts but non-disclosure of a fact which he was not under law required to disclose could not in my opinion be a ground to dismiss his eviction petition.</p><p>26. However, what are the premises in his occupation even as a tenant can be taken into consideration while deciding the question whether he bona fide requires the demised premises for his personal use or occupation or not.</p><p>27. Lastly comes the question with regard to the bona fide requirement of the landlord. The landlord has no children. According to the landlord as well as his other witnesses i.e. his brother-in-law PW-2 and his wife PW-3, the wife now wants to come back and settle in Shimla. There is no reason to disbelieve their statements. Even according to the evidence led by the tenant the accommodation in possession of the landlord consists of two rooms, kitchen, bath room etc. Admittedly, the landlord is also having his office as an Architect in this building. The landlord belongs to the middle class of the Society. It cannot be expected of a landlord who owns sufficient property to reside in a two room set wherein he also runs his office.</p><p>28. The law by now is well settled that the landlord is the best judge of the suitability of the accommodation required by him. This suitability has however to be judged in the context of reasonable expectations. The landlord and his wife who are both well educated can reasonably be expected to entertain guests and they will have visitors to their house. They would obviously require a drawing room, a bed room and a spare bed room for guests. Even at his residence the landlord may require another room for his professional work. This is the minimum accommodation which they would require. Even if the accommodation possessed by the landlord, though not owned by him, at 31, the Mall, Shimla is taken into consideration such accommodation is not sufficient to meet his requirements since admittedly the landlord is running his profession of Architect from some portion of his these premises.</p><p>29. Keeping in view the entire facts and circumstances, I am of the considered view that the learned Appellate Authority gravely erred in rejecting the eviction petition of the landlord solely on the ground that he had not disclosed the factum of being in possession of the premises at 31, the Mall Shimla. Even though I have held that the said premises are residential premises, in view of the above discussion I hold that the landlord cannot be non-suited only on the ground of his being in possession of such premises since same were not owned by him.</p><p>30. In view of the above discussion, the Revision Petition is allowed, the order of the learned Appellate Authority dated 6.5.2003 is seaside and the order of the Rent Controller dated 22.8.2001 is restored.</p><p>31. Keeping in view the fact that the tenant has been in possession of the premises for a long period he is granted time up to 31st October, 2008 to vacate the premises.</p><p>32. No order as to costs.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '2008(2)ShimLC491',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'Shri S.L. Srivastava',
		'sub' => 'Tenancy',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'shri-arun-bhanwara-vs-s-l-srivastava'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '891084',
	(int) 1 => 'shri-arun-bhanwara-vs-s-l-srivastava'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/891084/shri-arun-bhanwara-vs-s-l-srivastava'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$caseref = 'Ram Narain Arora v. Asha Rani<br>'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>Deepak Gupta, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. This Revision Petition under Section 25(5) of the H.P. Urban Rent Control Act, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) is directed against the order of the learned Appellate Authority, Shimla in CMA No. 60-S/14 of 2001 whereby the appeal filed by the respondent (hereinafter referred to as the tenant) has been allowed, the order of the Rent Controller has been set-aside and the petition for eviction filed by the present petitioner (hereinafter referred to as the Landlord) on the ground of personal bona fide requirement has been set-aside.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. The undisputed facts are that the landlord is owner of the demised premises situated in building known as Tunnel View, Sanjauli, Shimla-6 consisting of two bed rooms with attached bath room and latrine, drawing-cum-dining room, kitchen and balcony. These premises were purchased by the landlord in the year 1986. Thereafter, the landlord had rented out the premises to one Sh. B.K. Chauhan. According to the landlord, when he got married he requested Sh. B.K. Chauhan to vacate the said premises. Sh. Chauhan vacated the said premises but admittedly the landlord did not occupy the same but rented out the same to the tenant in the year 1990.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. In the year 1997 the landlord filed a petition for eviction of the tenant on two grounds; firstly that the tenant is in arrears of rent from 1.11.1990 to 31.7.1997 and secondly that the premises are bona fide required by the landlord for the use and occupation of himself and his family.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>4. This petition was contested by the tenant. After trial, the Rent Controller ordered the eviction of the tenant on two grounds; (i) that the tenant was in arrears of rent from November, 1999 till date of order i.e. 22nd August, 2001 and (ii) that the landlord required the premises for his own use and occupation.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>5. The tenant deposited the rent within the time prescribed. He also filed an appeal challenging the finding on the issue of bona fide requirement. The learned Appellate Authority came to the conclusion that the landlord had not made a proper and full disclosure of facts as required under the provisions of the Act and had withheld material facts from the Court viz. that the landlord was in occupation of residential premises on 31, Mall Road in the urban area of Shimla and as such rejected this petition on this short ground.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>6. Aggrieved by the said order, the landlord has filed the present Revision Petition.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>7. I have heard Sh. Ramakant Sharma, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sh. Bhupinder Gupta, learned senior Counsel for the tenant.',
	(int) 8 => '<p>8. It has been urged on behalf of the landlord that the building which is alleged to be in possession of the landlord i.e. 31, the Mall Shimla is not a residential building and secondly that the building is not owned by him.',
	(int) 9 => '<p>9. On the other hand Sh. Bhupinder Gupta, learned Counsel of the tenant has strenuously urged that the landlord in para 18 has not stated anything about any building being owned by him and has only made an averment that he does not own or possess any other such building within the urban area Shimla. It is contended by Sh. Bhupinder Gupta that the landlord of his own volition did not state anything about the ownership of the building and since he has kept silent about the building which he is in occupation he has made a false averment and therefore his petition for eviction has rightly been rejected.',
	(int) 10 => '<p>10. I am not at all in agreement with the contention of the landlord that the premises known as 31, the Mall Shimla which are admittedly in the occupation of the landlord are commercial premises only and not being used by him for his residence. As pointed out above, the landlord purchased the demised premises in 1986. They fell vacant when he got married despite that he did not occupy the same and rented out the same to the tenant in the year 1990. The question that arises is where was the landlord living for this entire period. According to the landlord after the year 1994 he has been living with his brother-in-law Rajan (wife's brother) PW-2, since the year 1994. Prior to 1994 the landlord will have this Court to believe that he was living off and on with one friend or the other. This story is impossible to believe. The landlord was married in the year 1999. He is an Architect by profession. His wife is a law graduate. It is not believable that such a person would have no permanent abode and would continue to live as a guest with his friends for almost 5 years after his marriage. Even the story that he has been living with his brother-in-law after the year 1994 does not inspire confidence. It stands proved on record that the brother-in-law PW-2 Rajan lives with his own family i.e. wife and children. From the evidence it is also clear that the parents of the brother-in-law also reside with him, His flat consists of only two rooms. The flat in possession of the landlord at 31, the Mall Shimla, also consists of two rooms, kitchen and bath room. Even assuming that he was running an office in the part of the flat it cannot be believed that he would not live on his own flat on the Mall Road and reside with his brother-in-law in cramped premises. Even in the electoral list the landlord is shown to be a resident of 31, The Mall, Shimla. Therefore, I am of the considered view that the building 31, the Mall, Shimla was also being used as a residence by the landlord.',
	(int) 11 => '<p>11. Having held so, the question that arises is whether the landlord can be non-suited only on the ground that he has not made any disclosure about the residential accommodation available with him which premises were admittedly not owned by him.',
	(int) 12 => '<p>12. The short question which arises for decision in this petition is whether the landlord was guilty of suppressing and withholding such relevant facts which would disentitle him from seeking eviction of the tenant. To appreciate these contentions it would be necessary to refer to relevant portion of Section 14(3) of the Act:',
	(int) 13 => '<p>Section 14:',
	(int) 14 => '<p>1 and 2 xxxxxxxxxxx',
	(int) 15 => '<p>(3) A landlord may apply to the Controller for an order directing the tenant to put the landlord in possession-',
	(int) 16 => '<p>(a) in case of residential building, if',
	(int) 17 => '<p>(i) he required it for his own occupation:',
	(int) 18 => '<p>Provided that he is not occupying another residential building owned by him, in the urban area concerned:',
	(int) 19 => '<p>Provided further that he has not vacated such a building without sufficient cause within five years of the filing of the application, in the said urban area....',
	(int) 20 => '<p>13. A perusal of the bare provisions of the Act makes it clear that there are certain essential ingredients which the landlord must satisfy before seeking eviction of the tenant under the Act. Not only must he prove that the residential building is bona fide required by him for his own use and occupation but he must also plead and prove that he is not occupying any other residential building owned by him in the urban area concerned and further that he has not vacated such a building without sufficient cause within 5 years of the filing of the application.',
	(int) 21 => '<p>14. Reference may now be made to the relevant allegations made in para 18 of the eviction petition:',
	(int) 22 => '<p>(ii) That the petitioner bona fide requires the premises for his own use and occupation and also for the use and occupation of his family.',
	(int) 23 => '<p>The petitioner does not own or possess any other such building within the urban area of Simla nor the petitioner has vacated any such premises within five years of the filing of this petition.',
	(int) 24 => '<p>The family of the petitioner presently consists of himself and his wife. Due to paucity of accommodation the petitioner has not been able to keep his wife with himself at Simla, where he is working as an Engineer and she has been residing at Chandigarh since 1991 but on account of her ill health she has been brought to Simla by the petitioner. The petitioner at present is seeking temporary shelter, from time to time, with his relations.',
	(int) 25 => '<p>15. The learned Appellate Authority came to the conclusion that the landlord had falsely pleaded that he does not own or possess any other such building within the urban area of Shimla and hence rejected the eviction petition on this ground.',
	(int) 26 => '<p>16. On a close analysis of the proviso to Section 14(3)(a)(i) of the Act it is clear that a landlord is not entitled to seek eviction of a tenant from residential building even in case of bona fide requirement if the landlord is occupying another residential building owned by him in the urban area concerned. One can read three essential ingredients in this proviso i.e. (i) that the landlord is in occupation of another residential building; (ii) that the said residential building is owned by him and (iii) that the said residential building is situated in the concerned urban area.',
	(int) 27 => '<p>17. The question that arises is what is the impact of the landlord not making a disclosure in respect of premises which he is occupying but are not owned by him.',
	(int) 28 => '<p>18. The Apex Court in Onkar Nath v. Ved Vyas ILR 1979 HP 1, held as follows:',
	(int) 29 => '<p>It is common ground that there are three requirements to make out a cause of action for eviction under that provision, and indeed this is apparent from a bare reading of the sub-section. In the present case the finding is to the effect that the landlord requires the residential building for his own occupation. But, the legislation has taken care to insist upon two more conditions, namely; (a) that the landlord is not occupying any other residential building in the area concerned; and (b) that he has not vacated such a building without sufficient cause. There is not a scintilla of evidence nor indeed there is any averment in compliance with these latter conditions. The necessary consequence follows that not merely is there inadequacy of pleadings sufficient to make out a cause of action but total absence of proof of two vital requirements....',
	(int) 30 => '<p>The Supreme Court also said that:.The statute benignly designed to protect tenants from unreasonable evictions has taken case to put restrictions which must be rigorously construed to fulfil the purpose of the statute.',
	(int) 31 => '<p>19. Following the aforesaid judgment and other pronouncements of the Apex Court, a learned Single Judge of this Court in Tara Chand Sharma v. Baij Nath and Ors. 1992 (2) R.C.J. 323, held as follows:',
	(int) 32 => '<p>16. What appears as the legislative intent, in bold relief, is that the landlord, while seeking eviction of a tenant on the ground that he needs a residential building for his own occupation, must come out clearly and honestly with facts relating to the requirement that he is not occupying another residential building owned by him, in the urban area concerned and that he had not vacated such a building without sufficient cause within five years of the filing of the application, in the said urban area. The primal burden of making a clear disclosure would lie upon the landlord, for, the true facts would be in his special knowledge. An order in his favour by the Rent Controller would depend upon the satisfaction of the Rent Controller in regard not only to the claim that the landlord requires the accommodation, from which he wishes to evict a tenant, for his own occupation but also that he was not occupying another residential building owned by him nor had he vacated such building without sufficient cause within five years of the filing of the application in the application in the urban area concerned....',
	(int) 33 => '<p>It was further held as under:',
	(int) 34 => '<p>18. That the landlord should make a full disclosure of the relevant facts, pertaining to the requirements of Sub-section (3)(a)(i) and the two provisos, becomes all the more necessary because the satisfaction of the Rent Controller in regard thereto is the condition precedent for the making of an order in favour of the landlord....',
	(int) 35 => '<p>20. The aforesaid judgment has been followed in a number of other cases including Vijay Kapoor v. Maya Ram 1997 (2) RCR 437, wherein another learned single Judge of this Court following the aforesaid judgment held that the landlord must make complete and proper disclosure of all the material facts.',
	(int) 36 => '<p>21. On the other hand Sh. Ramakant Sharma has relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in Ram Narain Arora v. Asha Rani 1998(2) RCR 268. In that case the Rent Controller came to the conclusion that the landlord had suppressed material information and had not disclosed the fact that he was already in occupation of a house in Subji Mandi. Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act reads as follows:',
	(int) 37 => '<p>Section 14(1)(e). That the premises let for residential purposes are required bona fide by the landlord for occupation as a residence for himself or for any member of his family dependent on him, if he is the owner thereof, or for any person for whose benefit the premises are held and that the landlord or such person has no other reasonably suitable residential accommodation.',
	(int) 38 => '<p>22. The difference between Delhi Act and the present Act is that under the Delhi Act the only requirement is that the landlord has no other reasonably suitable accommodation whereas under the Himachal Act the residential premises are required to be owned by the landlord. The Apex Court in Rama Narain Arora's case (supra) held that the nondisclosure of the fact that the landlord was in occupation of certain premises in Subji Mandi was.not a ground to non-suit the landlord in view of the facts and circumstances of the case. The Apex Court held as follows:',
	(int) 39 => '<p>9. In making a claim that the suit premises is required bona fide for his own occupation as a residence for himself and other members of his family dependent on him and that he has no other reasonably suitable accommodation is a requirement of law before the Court can state whether the landlord requires the premises bona fide for his use and occupation. In doing so, the Court must also find out whether the landlord or such other person for whose benefit the premises is required has no other reasonably suitable residential accommodation. It cannot be said that the requirement of the landlord is not intermixed with the question of finding out whether he has any other reasonably suitable accommodation. If he has other reasonably suitable accommodation, ihen necessarily it would mean that he does not require the suit premises and his requirement may not be bona fide. In such circumstances further inquiry would be whether that premises is more suitable than the suit premises. Therefore, the questions raised before the Court would not necessarily depend upon only the pleadings. It could be a good defence that the landlord has other reasonably suitable residential accommodation and thereby defend the claim of the landlord.',
	(int) 40 => '<p>10. There cannot be a pedantic or a dogmatic approach in the matter of analysis of pleadings or of the evidence adduced thereto. It is no doubt true that if the pleadings are clearly set out, it would be easy for the Court to decide the matters. But if the pleadings are lacking or vague and if both parties have understood what was the case pleaded and put forth with reference to requirement of law and placed such material before the Court, neither party is prejudiced. If we analyse from this angle, we do not think that the High Court was not justified in interfering with the order made by the Rent Controller.',
	(int) 41 => '<p>23. From the perusal of the judgment of the Apex Court it is apparent that the Rent Controller must approach the matter in a practical manner. In case the non-disclosure is such as that it goes to the very root of the case the Rent Controller would be justified in non-suiting the landlord. However, if the non-disclosure is such that it would not prejudice the rights of the respondent then the landlord should not be non-suited only on this ground.',
	(int) 42 => '<p>24. The decisions of this Court cited hereinabove were delivered prior to the judgment delivered by the Apex Court in Ram Nar'ain Arora's case. Further more both in Tara Chand Sharma's case and Vijay Kapoor's case decided by this Court, no averment had been made ixi respect of other residential buildings owned by a landlord. There was complete non-disclosure as to whether any such residential building owned by the landlord was in his possession or not. In the present case, as I have held above, the residential premises at 31, The Mall, Shimla was not owned by the landlord and hence these two earlier judgments of this Court are distinguishable on facts also.',
	(int) 43 => '<p>25. In the present case, the landlord has been non-suited only on the ground that he did not disclose the fact that he was in occupation of certain premises on the Mall Road. Under law he was not required to disclose this fact. He was only required to disclose the factum of occupying another residential building owned by him in the urban area concerned. True it may be, that it would have been better if the landlord had disclosed all the facts but non-disclosure of a fact which he was not under law required to disclose could not in my opinion be a ground to dismiss his eviction petition.',
	(int) 44 => '<p>26. However, what are the premises in his occupation even as a tenant can be taken into consideration while deciding the question whether he bona fide requires the demised premises for his personal use or occupation or not.',
	(int) 45 => '<p>27. Lastly comes the question with regard to the bona fide requirement of the landlord. The landlord has no children. According to the landlord as well as his other witnesses i.e. his brother-in-law PW-2 and his wife PW-3, the wife now wants to come back and settle in Shimla. There is no reason to disbelieve their statements. Even according to the evidence led by the tenant the accommodation in possession of the landlord consists of two rooms, kitchen, bath room etc. Admittedly, the landlord is also having his office as an Architect in this building. The landlord belongs to the middle class of the Society. It cannot be expected of a landlord who owns sufficient property to reside in a two room set wherein he also runs his office.',
	(int) 46 => '<p>28. The law by now is well settled that the landlord is the best judge of the suitability of the accommodation required by him. This suitability has however to be judged in the context of reasonable expectations. The landlord and his wife who are both well educated can reasonably be expected to entertain guests and they will have visitors to their house. They would obviously require a drawing room, a bed room and a spare bed room for guests. Even at his residence the landlord may require another room for his professional work. This is the minimum accommodation which they would require. Even if the accommodation possessed by the landlord, though not owned by him, at 31, the Mall, Shimla is taken into consideration such accommodation is not sufficient to meet his requirements since admittedly the landlord is running his profession of Architect from some portion of his these premises.',
	(int) 47 => '<p>29. Keeping in view the entire facts and circumstances, I am of the considered view that the learned Appellate Authority gravely erred in rejecting the eviction petition of the landlord solely on the ground that he had not disclosed the factum of being in possession of the premises at 31, the Mall Shimla. Even though I have held that the said premises are residential premises, in view of the above discussion I hold that the landlord cannot be non-suited only on the ground of his being in possession of such premises since same were not owned by him.',
	(int) 48 => '<p>30. In view of the above discussion, the Revision Petition is allowed, the order of the learned Appellate Authority dated 6.5.2003 is seaside and the order of the Rent Controller dated 22.8.2001 is restored.',
	(int) 49 => '<p>31. Keeping in view the fact that the tenant has been in possession of the premises for a long period he is granted time up to 31st October, 2008 to vacate the premises.',
	(int) 50 => '<p>32. No order as to costs.<p>',
	(int) 51 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 52
$i = (int) 26
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

16. On a close analysis of the proviso to Section 14(3)(a)(i) of the Act it is clear that a landlord is not entitled to seek eviction of a tenant from residential building even in case of bona fide requirement if the landlord is occupying another residential building owned by him in the urban area concerned. One can read three essential ingredients in this proviso i.e. (i) that the landlord is in occupation of another residential building; (ii) that the said residential building is owned by him and (iii) that the said residential building is situated in the concerned urban area.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Shri Arun Bhanwara Vs Shri S L Srivastava - Citation 891084 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '891084',
			'acts' => '',
			'appealno' => '',
			'appellant' => 'Shri Arun Bhanwara',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Shri Arun Bhanwara Vs. Shri S.L. Srivastava',
			'casenote' => ' - CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908.[C.A. No. 5/1908]. Order 14, Rule 2 [As amended by Amending Act of 1976]: [V.K. Gupta, CJ, Deepak Gupta & Surjit Singh, JJ] Preliminary issue of law and fact  Court framing all issues both of law and facts together and also  tried all the issues together, including the issue relating to jurisdiction of Court  Held, Except in situations perceived or warranted under sub-rule (2) of Rule 2 of Order 14 where a  Court in fact frames only issues of law in the first instance and postpones settlement of other issues, clearly and explicitly in situations where the Court has framed all issues together, both of law as well as facts and has also tried all these issues together, it is not open to the Court to adopt the principle of severability and proceed to decide issues of law first, without taking up simultaneously other issues for decision. This course of action is not available to a Court because sub-rule (1) does not permit the  Court to adopt any such principle of severability and to dispose of a suit only on preliminary issues, or what can be termed as issues of law. Sub-rule (1)  clearly mandates that in a situation contemplated under it, where all the issues have been together and have also been taken up for adjudication during the course of the trial, these must be decided together and the judgment in the suit as a whole must be pronounced by the Court covering all the issues framed in the suit.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => 'Ram Narain Arora v. Asha Rani;',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => '',
			'counseldef' => '',
			'court' => 'Himachal Pradesh',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2008-07-31',
			'deposition' => 'Petition allowed',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => ' Deepak Gupta, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">Deepak Gupta, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. This Revision Petition under Section 25(5) of the H.P. Urban Rent Control Act, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) is directed against the order of the learned Appellate Authority, Shimla in CMA No. 60-S/14 of 2001 whereby the appeal filed by the respondent (hereinafter referred to as the tenant) has been allowed, the order of the Rent Controller has been set-aside and the petition for eviction filed by the present petitioner (hereinafter referred to as the Landlord) on the ground of personal bona fide requirement has been set-aside.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The undisputed facts are that the landlord is owner of the demised premises situated in building known as Tunnel View, Sanjauli, Shimla-6 consisting of two bed rooms with attached bath room and latrine, drawing-cum-dining room, kitchen and balcony. These premises were purchased by the landlord in the year 1986. Thereafter, the landlord had rented out the premises to one Sh. B.K. Chauhan. According to the landlord, when he got married he requested Sh. B.K. Chauhan to vacate the said premises. Sh. Chauhan vacated the said premises but admittedly the landlord did not occupy the same but rented out the same to the tenant in the year 1990.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. In the year 1997 the landlord filed a petition for eviction of the tenant on two grounds; firstly that the tenant is in arrears of rent from 1.11.1990 to 31.7.1997 and secondly that the premises are bona fide required by the landlord for the use and occupation of himself and his family.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. This petition was contested by the tenant. After trial, the Rent Controller ordered the eviction of the tenant on two grounds; (i) that the tenant was in arrears of rent from November, 1999 till date of order i.e. 22nd August, 2001 and (ii) that the landlord required the premises for his own use and occupation.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. The tenant deposited the rent within the time prescribed. He also filed an appeal challenging the finding on the issue of bona fide requirement. The learned Appellate Authority came to the conclusion that the landlord had not made a proper and full disclosure of facts as required under the provisions of the Act and had withheld material facts from the Court viz. that the landlord was in occupation of residential premises on 31, Mall Road in the urban area of Shimla and as such rejected this petition on this short ground.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. Aggrieved by the said order, the landlord has filed the present Revision Petition.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. I have heard Sh. Ramakant Sharma, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sh. Bhupinder Gupta, learned senior Counsel for the tenant.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. It has been urged on behalf of the landlord that the building which is alleged to be in possession of the landlord i.e. 31, the Mall Shimla is not a residential building and secondly that the building is not owned by him.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. On the other hand Sh. Bhupinder Gupta, learned Counsel of the tenant has strenuously urged that the landlord in para 18 has not stated anything about any building being owned by him and has only made an averment that he does not own or possess any other such building within the urban area Shimla. It is contended by Sh. Bhupinder Gupta that the landlord of his own volition did not state anything about the ownership of the building and since he has kept silent about the building which he is in occupation he has made a false averment and therefore his petition for eviction has rightly been rejected.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. I am not at all in agreement with the contention of the landlord that the premises known as 31, the Mall Shimla which are admittedly in the occupation of the landlord are commercial premises only and not being used by him for his residence. As pointed out above, the landlord purchased the demised premises in 1986. They fell vacant when he got married despite that he did not occupy the same and rented out the same to the tenant in the year 1990. The question that arises is where was the landlord living for this entire period. According to the landlord after the year 1994 he has been living with his brother-in-law Rajan (wife's brother) PW-2, since the year 1994. Prior to 1994 the landlord will have this Court to believe that he was living off and on with one friend or the other. This story is impossible to believe. The landlord was married in the year 1999. He is an Architect by profession. His wife is a law graduate. It is not believable that such a person would have no permanent abode and would continue to live as a guest with his friends for almost 5 years after his marriage. Even the story that he has been living with his brother-in-law after the year 1994 does not inspire confidence. It stands proved on record that the brother-in-law PW-2 Rajan lives with his own family i.e. wife and children. From the evidence it is also clear that the parents of the brother-in-law also reside with him, His flat consists of only two rooms. The flat in possession of the landlord at 31, the Mall Shimla, also consists of two rooms, kitchen and bath room. Even assuming that he was running an office in the part of the flat it cannot be believed that he would not live on his own flat on the Mall Road and reside with his brother-in-law in cramped premises. Even in the electoral list the landlord is shown to be a resident of 31, The Mall, Shimla. Therefore, I am of the considered view that the building 31, the Mall, Shimla was also being used as a residence by the landlord.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. Having held so, the question that arises is whether the landlord can be non-suited only on the ground that he has not made any disclosure about the residential accommodation available with him which premises were admittedly not owned by him.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. The short question which arises for decision in this petition is whether the landlord was guilty of suppressing and withholding such relevant facts which would disentitle him from seeking eviction of the tenant. To appreciate these contentions it would be necessary to refer to relevant portion of Section 14(3) of the Act:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Section 14:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1 and 2 xxxxxxxxxxx</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(3) A landlord may apply to the Controller for an order directing the tenant to put the landlord in possession-</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(a) in case of residential building, if</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(i) he required it for his own occupation:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Provided that he is not occupying another residential building owned by him, in the urban area concerned:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Provided further that he has not vacated such a building without sufficient cause within five years of the filing of the application, in the said urban area....</p><p style="text-align: justify;">13. A perusal of the bare provisions of the Act makes it clear that there are certain essential ingredients which the landlord must satisfy before seeking eviction of the tenant under the Act. Not only must he prove that the residential building is bona fide required by him for his own use and occupation but he must also plead and prove that he is not occupying any other residential building owned by him in the urban area concerned and further that he has not vacated such a building without sufficient cause within 5 years of the filing of the application.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">14. Reference may now be made to the relevant allegations made in para 18 of the eviction petition:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(ii) That the petitioner bona fide requires the premises for his own use and occupation and also for the use and occupation of his family.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The petitioner does not own or possess any other such building within the urban area of Simla nor the petitioner has vacated any such premises within five years of the filing of this petition.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The family of the petitioner presently consists of himself and his wife. Due to paucity of accommodation the petitioner has not been able to keep his wife with himself at Simla, where he is working as an Engineer and she has been residing at Chandigarh since 1991 but on account of her ill health she has been brought to Simla by the petitioner. The petitioner at present is seeking temporary shelter, from time to time, with his relations.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">15. The learned Appellate Authority came to the conclusion that the landlord had falsely pleaded that he does not own or possess any other such building within the urban area of Shimla and hence rejected the eviction petition on this ground.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">16. On a close analysis of the proviso to Section 14(3)(a)(i) of the Act it is clear that a landlord is not entitled to seek eviction of a tenant from residential building even in case of bona fide requirement if the landlord is occupying another residential building owned by him in the urban area concerned. One can read three essential ingredients in this proviso i.e. (i) that the landlord is in occupation of another residential building; (ii) that the said residential building is owned by him and (iii) that the said residential building is situated in the concerned urban area.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">17. The question that arises is what is the impact of the landlord not making a disclosure in respect of premises which he is occupying but are not owned by him.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">18. The Apex Court in Onkar Nath v. Ved Vyas ILR 1979 HP 1, held as follows:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">It is common ground that there are three requirements to make out a cause of action for eviction under that provision, and indeed this is apparent from a bare reading of the sub-section. In the present case the finding is to the effect that the landlord requires the residential building for his own occupation. But, the legislation has taken care to insist upon two more conditions, namely; (a) that the landlord is not occupying any other residential building in the area concerned; and (b) that he has not vacated such a building without sufficient cause. There is not a scintilla of evidence nor indeed there is any averment in compliance with these latter conditions. The necessary consequence follows that not merely is there inadequacy of pleadings sufficient to make out a cause of action but total absence of proof of two vital requirements....</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The Supreme Court also said that:.The statute benignly designed to protect tenants from unreasonable evictions has taken case to put restrictions which must be rigorously construed to fulfil the purpose of the statute.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">19. Following the aforesaid judgment and other pronouncements of the Apex Court, a learned Single Judge of this Court in Tara Chand Sharma v. Baij Nath and Ors. 1992 (2) R.C.J. 323, held as follows:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">16. What appears as the legislative intent, in bold relief, is that the landlord, while seeking eviction of a tenant on the ground that he needs a residential building for his own occupation, must come out clearly and honestly with facts relating to the requirement that he is not occupying another residential building owned by him, in the urban area concerned and that he had not vacated such a building without sufficient cause within five years of the filing of the application, in the said urban area. The primal burden of making a clear disclosure would lie upon the landlord, for, the true facts would be in his special knowledge. An order in his favour by the Rent Controller would depend upon the satisfaction of the Rent Controller in regard not only to the claim that the landlord requires the accommodation, from which he wishes to evict a tenant, for his own occupation but also that he was not occupying another residential building owned by him nor had he vacated such building without sufficient cause within five years of the filing of the application in the application in the urban area concerned....</p><p style="text-align: justify;">It was further held as under:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">18. That the landlord should make a full disclosure of the relevant facts, pertaining to the requirements of Sub-section (3)(a)(i) and the two provisos, becomes all the more necessary because the satisfaction of the Rent Controller in regard thereto is the condition precedent for the making of an order in favour of the landlord....</p><p style="text-align: justify;">20. The aforesaid judgment has been followed in a number of other cases including Vijay Kapoor v. Maya Ram 1997 (2) RCR 437, wherein another learned single Judge of this Court following the aforesaid judgment held that the landlord must make complete and proper disclosure of all the material facts.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">21. On the other hand Sh. Ramakant Sharma has relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in Ram Narain Arora v. Asha Rani 1998(2) RCR 268. In that case the Rent Controller came to the conclusion that the landlord had suppressed material information and had not disclosed the fact that he was already in occupation of a house in Subji Mandi. Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act reads as follows:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Section 14(1)(e). That the premises let for residential purposes are required bona fide by the landlord for occupation as a residence for himself or for any member of his family dependent on him, if he is the owner thereof, or for any person for whose benefit the premises are held and that the landlord or such person has no other reasonably suitable residential accommodation.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">22. The difference between Delhi Act and the present Act is that under the Delhi Act the only requirement is that the landlord has no other reasonably suitable accommodation whereas under the Himachal Act the residential premises are required to be owned by the landlord. The Apex Court in Rama Narain Arora's case (supra) held that the nondisclosure of the fact that the landlord was in occupation of certain premises in Subji Mandi was.not a ground to non-suit the landlord in view of the facts and circumstances of the case. The Apex Court held as follows:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. In making a claim that the suit premises is required bona fide for his own occupation as a residence for himself and other members of his family dependent on him and that he has no other reasonably suitable accommodation is a requirement of law before the Court can state whether the landlord requires the premises bona fide for his use and occupation. In doing so, the Court must also find out whether the landlord or such other person for whose benefit the premises is required has no other reasonably suitable residential accommodation. It cannot be said that the requirement of the landlord is not intermixed with the question of finding out whether he has any other reasonably suitable accommodation. If he has other reasonably suitable accommodation, ihen necessarily it would mean that he does not require the suit premises and his requirement may not be bona fide. In such circumstances further inquiry would be whether that premises is more suitable than the suit premises. Therefore, the questions raised before the Court would not necessarily depend upon only the pleadings. It could be a good defence that the landlord has other reasonably suitable residential accommodation and thereby defend the claim of the landlord.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. There cannot be a pedantic or a dogmatic approach in the matter of analysis of pleadings or of the evidence adduced thereto. It is no doubt true that if the pleadings are clearly set out, it would be easy for the Court to decide the matters. But if the pleadings are lacking or vague and if both parties have understood what was the case pleaded and put forth with reference to requirement of law and placed such material before the Court, neither party is prejudiced. If we analyse from this angle, we do not think that the High Court was not justified in interfering with the order made by the Rent Controller.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">23. From the perusal of the judgment of the Apex Court it is apparent that the Rent Controller must approach the matter in a practical manner. In case the non-disclosure is such as that it goes to the very root of the case the Rent Controller would be justified in non-suiting the landlord. However, if the non-disclosure is such that it would not prejudice the rights of the respondent then the landlord should not be non-suited only on this ground.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">24. The decisions of this Court cited hereinabove were delivered prior to the judgment delivered by the Apex Court in Ram Nar'ain Arora's case. Further more both in Tara Chand Sharma's case and Vijay Kapoor's case decided by this Court, no averment had been made ixi respect of other residential buildings owned by a landlord. There was complete non-disclosure as to whether any such residential building owned by the landlord was in his possession or not. In the present case, as I have held above, the residential premises at 31, The Mall, Shimla was not owned by the landlord and hence these two earlier judgments of this Court are distinguishable on facts also.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">25. In the present case, the landlord has been non-suited only on the ground that he did not disclose the fact that he was in occupation of certain premises on the Mall Road. Under law he was not required to disclose this fact. He was only required to disclose the factum of occupying another residential building owned by him in the urban area concerned. True it may be, that it would have been better if the landlord had disclosed all the facts but non-disclosure of a fact which he was not under law required to disclose could not in my opinion be a ground to dismiss his eviction petition.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">26. However, what are the premises in his occupation even as a tenant can be taken into consideration while deciding the question whether he bona fide requires the demised premises for his personal use or occupation or not.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">27. Lastly comes the question with regard to the bona fide requirement of the landlord. The landlord has no children. According to the landlord as well as his other witnesses i.e. his brother-in-law PW-2 and his wife PW-3, the wife now wants to come back and settle in Shimla. There is no reason to disbelieve their statements. Even according to the evidence led by the tenant the accommodation in possession of the landlord consists of two rooms, kitchen, bath room etc. Admittedly, the landlord is also having his office as an Architect in this building. The landlord belongs to the middle class of the Society. It cannot be expected of a landlord who owns sufficient property to reside in a two room set wherein he also runs his office.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">28. The law by now is well settled that the landlord is the best judge of the suitability of the accommodation required by him. This suitability has however to be judged in the context of reasonable expectations. The landlord and his wife who are both well educated can reasonably be expected to entertain guests and they will have visitors to their house. They would obviously require a drawing room, a bed room and a spare bed room for guests. Even at his residence the landlord may require another room for his professional work. This is the minimum accommodation which they would require. Even if the accommodation possessed by the landlord, though not owned by him, at 31, the Mall, Shimla is taken into consideration such accommodation is not sufficient to meet his requirements since admittedly the landlord is running his profession of Architect from some portion of his these premises.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">29. Keeping in view the entire facts and circumstances, I am of the considered view that the learned Appellate Authority gravely erred in rejecting the eviction petition of the landlord solely on the ground that he had not disclosed the factum of being in possession of the premises at 31, the Mall Shimla. Even though I have held that the said premises are residential premises, in view of the above discussion I hold that the landlord cannot be non-suited only on the ground of his being in possession of such premises since same were not owned by him.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">30. In view of the above discussion, the Revision Petition is allowed, the order of the learned Appellate Authority dated 6.5.2003 is seaside and the order of the Rent Controller dated 22.8.2001 is restored.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">31. Keeping in view the fact that the tenant has been in possession of the premises for a long period he is granted time up to 31st October, 2008 to vacate the premises.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">32. No order as to costs.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '2008(2)ShimLC491',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'Shri S.L. Srivastava',
			'sub' => 'Tenancy',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'shri-arun-bhanwara-vs-s-l-srivastava',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '891084',
		(int) 1 => 'shri-arun-bhanwara-vs-s-l-srivastava'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Shri Arun Bhanwara Vs Shri S L Srivastava - Citation 891084 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '891084',
		'acts' => '',
		'appealno' => '',
		'appellant' => 'Shri Arun Bhanwara',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Shri Arun Bhanwara Vs. Shri S.L. Srivastava',
		'casenote' => ' - CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908.[C.A. No. 5/1908]. Order 14, Rule 2 [As amended by Amending Act of 1976]: [V.K. Gupta, CJ, Deepak Gupta & Surjit Singh, JJ] Preliminary issue of law and fact  Court framing all issues both of law and facts together and also  tried all the issues together, including the issue relating to jurisdiction of Court  Held, Except in situations perceived or warranted under sub-rule (2) of Rule 2 of Order 14 where a  Court in fact frames only issues of law in the first instance and postpones settlement of other issues, clearly and explicitly in situations where the Court has framed all issues together, both of law as well as facts and has also tried all these issues together, it is not open to the Court to adopt the principle of severability and proceed to decide issues of law first, without taking up simultaneously other issues for decision. This course of action is not available to a Court because sub-rule (1) does not permit the  Court to adopt any such principle of severability and to dispose of a suit only on preliminary issues, or what can be termed as issues of law. Sub-rule (1)  clearly mandates that in a situation contemplated under it, where all the issues have been together and have also been taken up for adjudication during the course of the trial, these must be decided together and the judgment in the suit as a whole must be pronounced by the Court covering all the issues framed in the suit.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => 'Ram Narain Arora v. Asha Rani;',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => '',
		'counseldef' => '',
		'court' => 'Himachal Pradesh',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2008-07-31',
		'deposition' => 'Petition allowed',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => ' Deepak Gupta, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>Deepak Gupta, J.</p><p>1. This Revision Petition under Section 25(5) of the H.P. Urban Rent Control Act, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) is directed against the order of the learned Appellate Authority, Shimla in CMA No. 60-S/14 of 2001 whereby the appeal filed by the respondent (hereinafter referred to as the tenant) has been allowed, the order of the Rent Controller has been set-aside and the petition for eviction filed by the present petitioner (hereinafter referred to as the Landlord) on the ground of personal bona fide requirement has been set-aside.</p><p>2. The undisputed facts are that the landlord is owner of the demised premises situated in building known as Tunnel View, Sanjauli, Shimla-6 consisting of two bed rooms with attached bath room and latrine, drawing-cum-dining room, kitchen and balcony. These premises were purchased by the landlord in the year 1986. Thereafter, the landlord had rented out the premises to one Sh. B.K. Chauhan. According to the landlord, when he got married he requested Sh. B.K. Chauhan to vacate the said premises. Sh. Chauhan vacated the said premises but admittedly the landlord did not occupy the same but rented out the same to the tenant in the year 1990.</p><p>3. In the year 1997 the landlord filed a petition for eviction of the tenant on two grounds; firstly that the tenant is in arrears of rent from 1.11.1990 to 31.7.1997 and secondly that the premises are bona fide required by the landlord for the use and occupation of himself and his family.</p><p>4. This petition was contested by the tenant. After trial, the Rent Controller ordered the eviction of the tenant on two grounds; (i) that the tenant was in arrears of rent from November, 1999 till date of order i.e. 22nd August, 2001 and (ii) that the landlord required the premises for his own use and occupation.</p><p>5. The tenant deposited the rent within the time prescribed. He also filed an appeal challenging the finding on the issue of bona fide requirement. The learned Appellate Authority came to the conclusion that the landlord had not made a proper and full disclosure of facts as required under the provisions of the Act and had withheld material facts from the Court viz. that the landlord was in occupation of residential premises on 31, Mall Road in the urban area of Shimla and as such rejected this petition on this short ground.</p><p>6. Aggrieved by the said order, the landlord has filed the present Revision Petition.</p><p>7. I have heard Sh. Ramakant Sharma, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sh. Bhupinder Gupta, learned senior Counsel for the tenant.</p><p>8. It has been urged on behalf of the landlord that the building which is alleged to be in possession of the landlord i.e. 31, the Mall Shimla is not a residential building and secondly that the building is not owned by him.</p><p>9. On the other hand Sh. Bhupinder Gupta, learned Counsel of the tenant has strenuously urged that the landlord in para 18 has not stated anything about any building being owned by him and has only made an averment that he does not own or possess any other such building within the urban area Shimla. It is contended by Sh. Bhupinder Gupta that the landlord of his own volition did not state anything about the ownership of the building and since he has kept silent about the building which he is in occupation he has made a false averment and therefore his petition for eviction has rightly been rejected.</p><p>10. I am not at all in agreement with the contention of the landlord that the premises known as 31, the Mall Shimla which are admittedly in the occupation of the landlord are commercial premises only and not being used by him for his residence. As pointed out above, the landlord purchased the demised premises in 1986. They fell vacant when he got married despite that he did not occupy the same and rented out the same to the tenant in the year 1990. The question that arises is where was the landlord living for this entire period. According to the landlord after the year 1994 he has been living with his brother-in-law Rajan (wife's brother) PW-2, since the year 1994. Prior to 1994 the landlord will have this Court to believe that he was living off and on with one friend or the other. This story is impossible to believe. The landlord was married in the year 1999. He is an Architect by profession. His wife is a law graduate. It is not believable that such a person would have no permanent abode and would continue to live as a guest with his friends for almost 5 years after his marriage. Even the story that he has been living with his brother-in-law after the year 1994 does not inspire confidence. It stands proved on record that the brother-in-law PW-2 Rajan lives with his own family i.e. wife and children. From the evidence it is also clear that the parents of the brother-in-law also reside with him, His flat consists of only two rooms. The flat in possession of the landlord at 31, the Mall Shimla, also consists of two rooms, kitchen and bath room. Even assuming that he was running an office in the part of the flat it cannot be believed that he would not live on his own flat on the Mall Road and reside with his brother-in-law in cramped premises. Even in the electoral list the landlord is shown to be a resident of 31, The Mall, Shimla. Therefore, I am of the considered view that the building 31, the Mall, Shimla was also being used as a residence by the landlord.</p><p>11. Having held so, the question that arises is whether the landlord can be non-suited only on the ground that he has not made any disclosure about the residential accommodation available with him which premises were admittedly not owned by him.</p><p>12. The short question which arises for decision in this petition is whether the landlord was guilty of suppressing and withholding such relevant facts which would disentitle him from seeking eviction of the tenant. To appreciate these contentions it would be necessary to refer to relevant portion of Section 14(3) of the Act:</p><p>Section 14:</p><p>1 and 2 xxxxxxxxxxx</p><p>(3) A landlord may apply to the Controller for an order directing the tenant to put the landlord in possession-</p><p>(a) in case of residential building, if</p><p>(i) he required it for his own occupation:</p><p>Provided that he is not occupying another residential building owned by him, in the urban area concerned:</p><p>Provided further that he has not vacated such a building without sufficient cause within five years of the filing of the application, in the said urban area....</p><p>13. A perusal of the bare provisions of the Act makes it clear that there are certain essential ingredients which the landlord must satisfy before seeking eviction of the tenant under the Act. Not only must he prove that the residential building is bona fide required by him for his own use and occupation but he must also plead and prove that he is not occupying any other residential building owned by him in the urban area concerned and further that he has not vacated such a building without sufficient cause within 5 years of the filing of the application.</p><p>14. Reference may now be made to the relevant allegations made in para 18 of the eviction petition:</p><p>(ii) That the petitioner bona fide requires the premises for his own use and occupation and also for the use and occupation of his family.</p><p>The petitioner does not own or possess any other such building within the urban area of Simla nor the petitioner has vacated any such premises within five years of the filing of this petition.</p><p>The family of the petitioner presently consists of himself and his wife. Due to paucity of accommodation the petitioner has not been able to keep his wife with himself at Simla, where he is working as an Engineer and she has been residing at Chandigarh since 1991 but on account of her ill health she has been brought to Simla by the petitioner. The petitioner at present is seeking temporary shelter, from time to time, with his relations.</p><p>15. The learned Appellate Authority came to the conclusion that the landlord had falsely pleaded that he does not own or possess any other such building within the urban area of Shimla and hence rejected the eviction petition on this ground.</p><p>16. On a close analysis of the proviso to Section 14(3)(a)(i) of the Act it is clear that a landlord is not entitled to seek eviction of a tenant from residential building even in case of bona fide requirement if the landlord is occupying another residential building owned by him in the urban area concerned. One can read three essential ingredients in this proviso i.e. (i) that the landlord is in occupation of another residential building; (ii) that the said residential building is owned by him and (iii) that the said residential building is situated in the concerned urban area.</p><p>17. The question that arises is what is the impact of the landlord not making a disclosure in respect of premises which he is occupying but are not owned by him.</p><p>18. The Apex Court in Onkar Nath v. Ved Vyas ILR 1979 HP 1, held as follows:</p><p>It is common ground that there are three requirements to make out a cause of action for eviction under that provision, and indeed this is apparent from a bare reading of the sub-section. In the present case the finding is to the effect that the landlord requires the residential building for his own occupation. But, the legislation has taken care to insist upon two more conditions, namely; (a) that the landlord is not occupying any other residential building in the area concerned; and (b) that he has not vacated such a building without sufficient cause. There is not a scintilla of evidence nor indeed there is any averment in compliance with these latter conditions. The necessary consequence follows that not merely is there inadequacy of pleadings sufficient to make out a cause of action but total absence of proof of two vital requirements....</p><p>The Supreme Court also said that:.The statute benignly designed to protect tenants from unreasonable evictions has taken case to put restrictions which must be rigorously construed to fulfil the purpose of the statute.</p><p>19. Following the aforesaid judgment and other pronouncements of the Apex Court, a learned Single Judge of this Court in Tara Chand Sharma v. Baij Nath and Ors. 1992 (2) R.C.J. 323, held as follows:</p><p>16. What appears as the legislative intent, in bold relief, is that the landlord, while seeking eviction of a tenant on the ground that he needs a residential building for his own occupation, must come out clearly and honestly with facts relating to the requirement that he is not occupying another residential building owned by him, in the urban area concerned and that he had not vacated such a building without sufficient cause within five years of the filing of the application, in the said urban area. The primal burden of making a clear disclosure would lie upon the landlord, for, the true facts would be in his special knowledge. An order in his favour by the Rent Controller would depend upon the satisfaction of the Rent Controller in regard not only to the claim that the landlord requires the accommodation, from which he wishes to evict a tenant, for his own occupation but also that he was not occupying another residential building owned by him nor had he vacated such building without sufficient cause within five years of the filing of the application in the application in the urban area concerned....</p><p>It was further held as under:</p><p>18. That the landlord should make a full disclosure of the relevant facts, pertaining to the requirements of Sub-section (3)(a)(i) and the two provisos, becomes all the more necessary because the satisfaction of the Rent Controller in regard thereto is the condition precedent for the making of an order in favour of the landlord....</p><p>20. The aforesaid judgment has been followed in a number of other cases including Vijay Kapoor v. Maya Ram 1997 (2) RCR 437, wherein another learned single Judge of this Court following the aforesaid judgment held that the landlord must make complete and proper disclosure of all the material facts.</p><p>21. On the other hand Sh. Ramakant Sharma has relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in Ram Narain Arora v. Asha Rani 1998(2) RCR 268. In that case the Rent Controller came to the conclusion that the landlord had suppressed material information and had not disclosed the fact that he was already in occupation of a house in Subji Mandi. Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act reads as follows:</p><p>Section 14(1)(e). That the premises let for residential purposes are required bona fide by the landlord for occupation as a residence for himself or for any member of his family dependent on him, if he is the owner thereof, or for any person for whose benefit the premises are held and that the landlord or such person has no other reasonably suitable residential accommodation.</p><p>22. The difference between Delhi Act and the present Act is that under the Delhi Act the only requirement is that the landlord has no other reasonably suitable accommodation whereas under the Himachal Act the residential premises are required to be owned by the landlord. The Apex Court in Rama Narain Arora's case (supra) held that the nondisclosure of the fact that the landlord was in occupation of certain premises in Subji Mandi was.not a ground to non-suit the landlord in view of the facts and circumstances of the case. The Apex Court held as follows:</p><p>9. In making a claim that the suit premises is required bona fide for his own occupation as a residence for himself and other members of his family dependent on him and that he has no other reasonably suitable accommodation is a requirement of law before the Court can state whether the landlord requires the premises bona fide for his use and occupation. In doing so, the Court must also find out whether the landlord or such other person for whose benefit the premises is required has no other reasonably suitable residential accommodation. It cannot be said that the requirement of the landlord is not intermixed with the question of finding out whether he has any other reasonably suitable accommodation. If he has other reasonably suitable accommodation, ihen necessarily it would mean that he does not require the suit premises and his requirement may not be bona fide. In such circumstances further inquiry would be whether that premises is more suitable than the suit premises. Therefore, the questions raised before the Court would not necessarily depend upon only the pleadings. It could be a good defence that the landlord has other reasonably suitable residential accommodation and thereby defend the claim of the landlord.</p><p>10. There cannot be a pedantic or a dogmatic approach in the matter of analysis of pleadings or of the evidence adduced thereto. It is no doubt true that if the pleadings are clearly set out, it would be easy for the Court to decide the matters. But if the pleadings are lacking or vague and if both parties have understood what was the case pleaded and put forth with reference to requirement of law and placed such material before the Court, neither party is prejudiced. If we analyse from this angle, we do not think that the High Court was not justified in interfering with the order made by the Rent Controller.</p><p>23. From the perusal of the judgment of the Apex Court it is apparent that the Rent Controller must approach the matter in a practical manner. In case the non-disclosure is such as that it goes to the very root of the case the Rent Controller would be justified in non-suiting the landlord. However, if the non-disclosure is such that it would not prejudice the rights of the respondent then the landlord should not be non-suited only on this ground.</p><p>24. The decisions of this Court cited hereinabove were delivered prior to the judgment delivered by the Apex Court in Ram Nar'ain Arora's case. Further more both in Tara Chand Sharma's case and Vijay Kapoor's case decided by this Court, no averment had been made ixi respect of other residential buildings owned by a landlord. There was complete non-disclosure as to whether any such residential building owned by the landlord was in his possession or not. In the present case, as I have held above, the residential premises at 31, The Mall, Shimla was not owned by the landlord and hence these two earlier judgments of this Court are distinguishable on facts also.</p><p>25. In the present case, the landlord has been non-suited only on the ground that he did not disclose the fact that he was in occupation of certain premises on the Mall Road. Under law he was not required to disclose this fact. He was only required to disclose the factum of occupying another residential building owned by him in the urban area concerned. True it may be, that it would have been better if the landlord had disclosed all the facts but non-disclosure of a fact which he was not under law required to disclose could not in my opinion be a ground to dismiss his eviction petition.</p><p>26. However, what are the premises in his occupation even as a tenant can be taken into consideration while deciding the question whether he bona fide requires the demised premises for his personal use or occupation or not.</p><p>27. Lastly comes the question with regard to the bona fide requirement of the landlord. The landlord has no children. According to the landlord as well as his other witnesses i.e. his brother-in-law PW-2 and his wife PW-3, the wife now wants to come back and settle in Shimla. There is no reason to disbelieve their statements. Even according to the evidence led by the tenant the accommodation in possession of the landlord consists of two rooms, kitchen, bath room etc. Admittedly, the landlord is also having his office as an Architect in this building. The landlord belongs to the middle class of the Society. It cannot be expected of a landlord who owns sufficient property to reside in a two room set wherein he also runs his office.</p><p>28. The law by now is well settled that the landlord is the best judge of the suitability of the accommodation required by him. This suitability has however to be judged in the context of reasonable expectations. The landlord and his wife who are both well educated can reasonably be expected to entertain guests and they will have visitors to their house. They would obviously require a drawing room, a bed room and a spare bed room for guests. Even at his residence the landlord may require another room for his professional work. This is the minimum accommodation which they would require. Even if the accommodation possessed by the landlord, though not owned by him, at 31, the Mall, Shimla is taken into consideration such accommodation is not sufficient to meet his requirements since admittedly the landlord is running his profession of Architect from some portion of his these premises.</p><p>29. Keeping in view the entire facts and circumstances, I am of the considered view that the learned Appellate Authority gravely erred in rejecting the eviction petition of the landlord solely on the ground that he had not disclosed the factum of being in possession of the premises at 31, the Mall Shimla. Even though I have held that the said premises are residential premises, in view of the above discussion I hold that the landlord cannot be non-suited only on the ground of his being in possession of such premises since same were not owned by him.</p><p>30. In view of the above discussion, the Revision Petition is allowed, the order of the learned Appellate Authority dated 6.5.2003 is seaside and the order of the Rent Controller dated 22.8.2001 is restored.</p><p>31. Keeping in view the fact that the tenant has been in possession of the premises for a long period he is granted time up to 31st October, 2008 to vacate the premises.</p><p>32. No order as to costs.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '2008(2)ShimLC491',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'Shri S.L. Srivastava',
		'sub' => 'Tenancy',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'shri-arun-bhanwara-vs-s-l-srivastava'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '891084',
	(int) 1 => 'shri-arun-bhanwara-vs-s-l-srivastava'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/891084/shri-arun-bhanwara-vs-s-l-srivastava'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$caseref = 'Ram Narain Arora v. Asha Rani<br>'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>Deepak Gupta, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. This Revision Petition under Section 25(5) of the H.P. Urban Rent Control Act, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) is directed against the order of the learned Appellate Authority, Shimla in CMA No. 60-S/14 of 2001 whereby the appeal filed by the respondent (hereinafter referred to as the tenant) has been allowed, the order of the Rent Controller has been set-aside and the petition for eviction filed by the present petitioner (hereinafter referred to as the Landlord) on the ground of personal bona fide requirement has been set-aside.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. The undisputed facts are that the landlord is owner of the demised premises situated in building known as Tunnel View, Sanjauli, Shimla-6 consisting of two bed rooms with attached bath room and latrine, drawing-cum-dining room, kitchen and balcony. These premises were purchased by the landlord in the year 1986. Thereafter, the landlord had rented out the premises to one Sh. B.K. Chauhan. According to the landlord, when he got married he requested Sh. B.K. Chauhan to vacate the said premises. Sh. Chauhan vacated the said premises but admittedly the landlord did not occupy the same but rented out the same to the tenant in the year 1990.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. In the year 1997 the landlord filed a petition for eviction of the tenant on two grounds; firstly that the tenant is in arrears of rent from 1.11.1990 to 31.7.1997 and secondly that the premises are bona fide required by the landlord for the use and occupation of himself and his family.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>4. This petition was contested by the tenant. After trial, the Rent Controller ordered the eviction of the tenant on two grounds; (i) that the tenant was in arrears of rent from November, 1999 till date of order i.e. 22nd August, 2001 and (ii) that the landlord required the premises for his own use and occupation.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>5. The tenant deposited the rent within the time prescribed. He also filed an appeal challenging the finding on the issue of bona fide requirement. The learned Appellate Authority came to the conclusion that the landlord had not made a proper and full disclosure of facts as required under the provisions of the Act and had withheld material facts from the Court viz. that the landlord was in occupation of residential premises on 31, Mall Road in the urban area of Shimla and as such rejected this petition on this short ground.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>6. Aggrieved by the said order, the landlord has filed the present Revision Petition.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>7. I have heard Sh. Ramakant Sharma, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sh. Bhupinder Gupta, learned senior Counsel for the tenant.',
	(int) 8 => '<p>8. It has been urged on behalf of the landlord that the building which is alleged to be in possession of the landlord i.e. 31, the Mall Shimla is not a residential building and secondly that the building is not owned by him.',
	(int) 9 => '<p>9. On the other hand Sh. Bhupinder Gupta, learned Counsel of the tenant has strenuously urged that the landlord in para 18 has not stated anything about any building being owned by him and has only made an averment that he does not own or possess any other such building within the urban area Shimla. It is contended by Sh. Bhupinder Gupta that the landlord of his own volition did not state anything about the ownership of the building and since he has kept silent about the building which he is in occupation he has made a false averment and therefore his petition for eviction has rightly been rejected.',
	(int) 10 => '<p>10. I am not at all in agreement with the contention of the landlord that the premises known as 31, the Mall Shimla which are admittedly in the occupation of the landlord are commercial premises only and not being used by him for his residence. As pointed out above, the landlord purchased the demised premises in 1986. They fell vacant when he got married despite that he did not occupy the same and rented out the same to the tenant in the year 1990. The question that arises is where was the landlord living for this entire period. According to the landlord after the year 1994 he has been living with his brother-in-law Rajan (wife's brother) PW-2, since the year 1994. Prior to 1994 the landlord will have this Court to believe that he was living off and on with one friend or the other. This story is impossible to believe. The landlord was married in the year 1999. He is an Architect by profession. His wife is a law graduate. It is not believable that such a person would have no permanent abode and would continue to live as a guest with his friends for almost 5 years after his marriage. Even the story that he has been living with his brother-in-law after the year 1994 does not inspire confidence. It stands proved on record that the brother-in-law PW-2 Rajan lives with his own family i.e. wife and children. From the evidence it is also clear that the parents of the brother-in-law also reside with him, His flat consists of only two rooms. The flat in possession of the landlord at 31, the Mall Shimla, also consists of two rooms, kitchen and bath room. Even assuming that he was running an office in the part of the flat it cannot be believed that he would not live on his own flat on the Mall Road and reside with his brother-in-law in cramped premises. Even in the electoral list the landlord is shown to be a resident of 31, The Mall, Shimla. Therefore, I am of the considered view that the building 31, the Mall, Shimla was also being used as a residence by the landlord.',
	(int) 11 => '<p>11. Having held so, the question that arises is whether the landlord can be non-suited only on the ground that he has not made any disclosure about the residential accommodation available with him which premises were admittedly not owned by him.',
	(int) 12 => '<p>12. The short question which arises for decision in this petition is whether the landlord was guilty of suppressing and withholding such relevant facts which would disentitle him from seeking eviction of the tenant. To appreciate these contentions it would be necessary to refer to relevant portion of Section 14(3) of the Act:',
	(int) 13 => '<p>Section 14:',
	(int) 14 => '<p>1 and 2 xxxxxxxxxxx',
	(int) 15 => '<p>(3) A landlord may apply to the Controller for an order directing the tenant to put the landlord in possession-',
	(int) 16 => '<p>(a) in case of residential building, if',
	(int) 17 => '<p>(i) he required it for his own occupation:',
	(int) 18 => '<p>Provided that he is not occupying another residential building owned by him, in the urban area concerned:',
	(int) 19 => '<p>Provided further that he has not vacated such a building without sufficient cause within five years of the filing of the application, in the said urban area....',
	(int) 20 => '<p>13. A perusal of the bare provisions of the Act makes it clear that there are certain essential ingredients which the landlord must satisfy before seeking eviction of the tenant under the Act. Not only must he prove that the residential building is bona fide required by him for his own use and occupation but he must also plead and prove that he is not occupying any other residential building owned by him in the urban area concerned and further that he has not vacated such a building without sufficient cause within 5 years of the filing of the application.',
	(int) 21 => '<p>14. Reference may now be made to the relevant allegations made in para 18 of the eviction petition:',
	(int) 22 => '<p>(ii) That the petitioner bona fide requires the premises for his own use and occupation and also for the use and occupation of his family.',
	(int) 23 => '<p>The petitioner does not own or possess any other such building within the urban area of Simla nor the petitioner has vacated any such premises within five years of the filing of this petition.',
	(int) 24 => '<p>The family of the petitioner presently consists of himself and his wife. Due to paucity of accommodation the petitioner has not been able to keep his wife with himself at Simla, where he is working as an Engineer and she has been residing at Chandigarh since 1991 but on account of her ill health she has been brought to Simla by the petitioner. The petitioner at present is seeking temporary shelter, from time to time, with his relations.',
	(int) 25 => '<p>15. The learned Appellate Authority came to the conclusion that the landlord had falsely pleaded that he does not own or possess any other such building within the urban area of Shimla and hence rejected the eviction petition on this ground.',
	(int) 26 => '<p>16. On a close analysis of the proviso to Section 14(3)(a)(i) of the Act it is clear that a landlord is not entitled to seek eviction of a tenant from residential building even in case of bona fide requirement if the landlord is occupying another residential building owned by him in the urban area concerned. One can read three essential ingredients in this proviso i.e. (i) that the landlord is in occupation of another residential building; (ii) that the said residential building is owned by him and (iii) that the said residential building is situated in the concerned urban area.',
	(int) 27 => '<p>17. The question that arises is what is the impact of the landlord not making a disclosure in respect of premises which he is occupying but are not owned by him.',
	(int) 28 => '<p>18. The Apex Court in Onkar Nath v. Ved Vyas ILR 1979 HP 1, held as follows:',
	(int) 29 => '<p>It is common ground that there are three requirements to make out a cause of action for eviction under that provision, and indeed this is apparent from a bare reading of the sub-section. In the present case the finding is to the effect that the landlord requires the residential building for his own occupation. But, the legislation has taken care to insist upon two more conditions, namely; (a) that the landlord is not occupying any other residential building in the area concerned; and (b) that he has not vacated such a building without sufficient cause. There is not a scintilla of evidence nor indeed there is any averment in compliance with these latter conditions. The necessary consequence follows that not merely is there inadequacy of pleadings sufficient to make out a cause of action but total absence of proof of two vital requirements....',
	(int) 30 => '<p>The Supreme Court also said that:.The statute benignly designed to protect tenants from unreasonable evictions has taken case to put restrictions which must be rigorously construed to fulfil the purpose of the statute.',
	(int) 31 => '<p>19. Following the aforesaid judgment and other pronouncements of the Apex Court, a learned Single Judge of this Court in Tara Chand Sharma v. Baij Nath and Ors. 1992 (2) R.C.J. 323, held as follows:',
	(int) 32 => '<p>16. What appears as the legislative intent, in bold relief, is that the landlord, while seeking eviction of a tenant on the ground that he needs a residential building for his own occupation, must come out clearly and honestly with facts relating to the requirement that he is not occupying another residential building owned by him, in the urban area concerned and that he had not vacated such a building without sufficient cause within five years of the filing of the application, in the said urban area. The primal burden of making a clear disclosure would lie upon the landlord, for, the true facts would be in his special knowledge. An order in his favour by the Rent Controller would depend upon the satisfaction of the Rent Controller in regard not only to the claim that the landlord requires the accommodation, from which he wishes to evict a tenant, for his own occupation but also that he was not occupying another residential building owned by him nor had he vacated such building without sufficient cause within five years of the filing of the application in the application in the urban area concerned....',
	(int) 33 => '<p>It was further held as under:',
	(int) 34 => '<p>18. That the landlord should make a full disclosure of the relevant facts, pertaining to the requirements of Sub-section (3)(a)(i) and the two provisos, becomes all the more necessary because the satisfaction of the Rent Controller in regard thereto is the condition precedent for the making of an order in favour of the landlord....',
	(int) 35 => '<p>20. The aforesaid judgment has been followed in a number of other cases including Vijay Kapoor v. Maya Ram 1997 (2) RCR 437, wherein another learned single Judge of this Court following the aforesaid judgment held that the landlord must make complete and proper disclosure of all the material facts.',
	(int) 36 => '<p>21. On the other hand Sh. Ramakant Sharma has relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in Ram Narain Arora v. Asha Rani 1998(2) RCR 268. In that case the Rent Controller came to the conclusion that the landlord had suppressed material information and had not disclosed the fact that he was already in occupation of a house in Subji Mandi. Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act reads as follows:',
	(int) 37 => '<p>Section 14(1)(e). That the premises let for residential purposes are required bona fide by the landlord for occupation as a residence for himself or for any member of his family dependent on him, if he is the owner thereof, or for any person for whose benefit the premises are held and that the landlord or such person has no other reasonably suitable residential accommodation.',
	(int) 38 => '<p>22. The difference between Delhi Act and the present Act is that under the Delhi Act the only requirement is that the landlord has no other reasonably suitable accommodation whereas under the Himachal Act the residential premises are required to be owned by the landlord. The Apex Court in Rama Narain Arora's case (supra) held that the nondisclosure of the fact that the landlord was in occupation of certain premises in Subji Mandi was.not a ground to non-suit the landlord in view of the facts and circumstances of the case. The Apex Court held as follows:',
	(int) 39 => '<p>9. In making a claim that the suit premises is required bona fide for his own occupation as a residence for himself and other members of his family dependent on him and that he has no other reasonably suitable accommodation is a requirement of law before the Court can state whether the landlord requires the premises bona fide for his use and occupation. In doing so, the Court must also find out whether the landlord or such other person for whose benefit the premises is required has no other reasonably suitable residential accommodation. It cannot be said that the requirement of the landlord is not intermixed with the question of finding out whether he has any other reasonably suitable accommodation. If he has other reasonably suitable accommodation, ihen necessarily it would mean that he does not require the suit premises and his requirement may not be bona fide. In such circumstances further inquiry would be whether that premises is more suitable than the suit premises. Therefore, the questions raised before the Court would not necessarily depend upon only the pleadings. It could be a good defence that the landlord has other reasonably suitable residential accommodation and thereby defend the claim of the landlord.',
	(int) 40 => '<p>10. There cannot be a pedantic or a dogmatic approach in the matter of analysis of pleadings or of the evidence adduced thereto. It is no doubt true that if the pleadings are clearly set out, it would be easy for the Court to decide the matters. But if the pleadings are lacking or vague and if both parties have understood what was the case pleaded and put forth with reference to requirement of law and placed such material before the Court, neither party is prejudiced. If we analyse from this angle, we do not think that the High Court was not justified in interfering with the order made by the Rent Controller.',
	(int) 41 => '<p>23. From the perusal of the judgment of the Apex Court it is apparent that the Rent Controller must approach the matter in a practical manner. In case the non-disclosure is such as that it goes to the very root of the case the Rent Controller would be justified in non-suiting the landlord. However, if the non-disclosure is such that it would not prejudice the rights of the respondent then the landlord should not be non-suited only on this ground.',
	(int) 42 => '<p>24. The decisions of this Court cited hereinabove were delivered prior to the judgment delivered by the Apex Court in Ram Nar'ain Arora's case. Further more both in Tara Chand Sharma's case and Vijay Kapoor's case decided by this Court, no averment had been made ixi respect of other residential buildings owned by a landlord. There was complete non-disclosure as to whether any such residential building owned by the landlord was in his possession or not. In the present case, as I have held above, the residential premises at 31, The Mall, Shimla was not owned by the landlord and hence these two earlier judgments of this Court are distinguishable on facts also.',
	(int) 43 => '<p>25. In the present case, the landlord has been non-suited only on the ground that he did not disclose the fact that he was in occupation of certain premises on the Mall Road. Under law he was not required to disclose this fact. He was only required to disclose the factum of occupying another residential building owned by him in the urban area concerned. True it may be, that it would have been better if the landlord had disclosed all the facts but non-disclosure of a fact which he was not under law required to disclose could not in my opinion be a ground to dismiss his eviction petition.',
	(int) 44 => '<p>26. However, what are the premises in his occupation even as a tenant can be taken into consideration while deciding the question whether he bona fide requires the demised premises for his personal use or occupation or not.',
	(int) 45 => '<p>27. Lastly comes the question with regard to the bona fide requirement of the landlord. The landlord has no children. According to the landlord as well as his other witnesses i.e. his brother-in-law PW-2 and his wife PW-3, the wife now wants to come back and settle in Shimla. There is no reason to disbelieve their statements. Even according to the evidence led by the tenant the accommodation in possession of the landlord consists of two rooms, kitchen, bath room etc. Admittedly, the landlord is also having his office as an Architect in this building. The landlord belongs to the middle class of the Society. It cannot be expected of a landlord who owns sufficient property to reside in a two room set wherein he also runs his office.',
	(int) 46 => '<p>28. The law by now is well settled that the landlord is the best judge of the suitability of the accommodation required by him. This suitability has however to be judged in the context of reasonable expectations. The landlord and his wife who are both well educated can reasonably be expected to entertain guests and they will have visitors to their house. They would obviously require a drawing room, a bed room and a spare bed room for guests. Even at his residence the landlord may require another room for his professional work. This is the minimum accommodation which they would require. Even if the accommodation possessed by the landlord, though not owned by him, at 31, the Mall, Shimla is taken into consideration such accommodation is not sufficient to meet his requirements since admittedly the landlord is running his profession of Architect from some portion of his these premises.',
	(int) 47 => '<p>29. Keeping in view the entire facts and circumstances, I am of the considered view that the learned Appellate Authority gravely erred in rejecting the eviction petition of the landlord solely on the ground that he had not disclosed the factum of being in possession of the premises at 31, the Mall Shimla. Even though I have held that the said premises are residential premises, in view of the above discussion I hold that the landlord cannot be non-suited only on the ground of his being in possession of such premises since same were not owned by him.',
	(int) 48 => '<p>30. In view of the above discussion, the Revision Petition is allowed, the order of the learned Appellate Authority dated 6.5.2003 is seaside and the order of the Rent Controller dated 22.8.2001 is restored.',
	(int) 49 => '<p>31. Keeping in view the fact that the tenant has been in possession of the premises for a long period he is granted time up to 31st October, 2008 to vacate the premises.',
	(int) 50 => '<p>32. No order as to costs.<p>',
	(int) 51 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 52
$i = (int) 27
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

17. The question that arises is what is the impact of the landlord not making a disclosure in respect of premises which he is occupying but are not owned by him.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Shri Arun Bhanwara Vs Shri S L Srivastava - Citation 891084 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '891084',
			'acts' => '',
			'appealno' => '',
			'appellant' => 'Shri Arun Bhanwara',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Shri Arun Bhanwara Vs. Shri S.L. Srivastava',
			'casenote' => ' - CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908.[C.A. No. 5/1908]. Order 14, Rule 2 [As amended by Amending Act of 1976]: [V.K. Gupta, CJ, Deepak Gupta & Surjit Singh, JJ] Preliminary issue of law and fact  Court framing all issues both of law and facts together and also  tried all the issues together, including the issue relating to jurisdiction of Court  Held, Except in situations perceived or warranted under sub-rule (2) of Rule 2 of Order 14 where a  Court in fact frames only issues of law in the first instance and postpones settlement of other issues, clearly and explicitly in situations where the Court has framed all issues together, both of law as well as facts and has also tried all these issues together, it is not open to the Court to adopt the principle of severability and proceed to decide issues of law first, without taking up simultaneously other issues for decision. This course of action is not available to a Court because sub-rule (1) does not permit the  Court to adopt any such principle of severability and to dispose of a suit only on preliminary issues, or what can be termed as issues of law. Sub-rule (1)  clearly mandates that in a situation contemplated under it, where all the issues have been together and have also been taken up for adjudication during the course of the trial, these must be decided together and the judgment in the suit as a whole must be pronounced by the Court covering all the issues framed in the suit.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => 'Ram Narain Arora v. Asha Rani;',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => '',
			'counseldef' => '',
			'court' => 'Himachal Pradesh',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2008-07-31',
			'deposition' => 'Petition allowed',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => ' Deepak Gupta, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">Deepak Gupta, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. This Revision Petition under Section 25(5) of the H.P. Urban Rent Control Act, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) is directed against the order of the learned Appellate Authority, Shimla in CMA No. 60-S/14 of 2001 whereby the appeal filed by the respondent (hereinafter referred to as the tenant) has been allowed, the order of the Rent Controller has been set-aside and the petition for eviction filed by the present petitioner (hereinafter referred to as the Landlord) on the ground of personal bona fide requirement has been set-aside.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The undisputed facts are that the landlord is owner of the demised premises situated in building known as Tunnel View, Sanjauli, Shimla-6 consisting of two bed rooms with attached bath room and latrine, drawing-cum-dining room, kitchen and balcony. These premises were purchased by the landlord in the year 1986. Thereafter, the landlord had rented out the premises to one Sh. B.K. Chauhan. According to the landlord, when he got married he requested Sh. B.K. Chauhan to vacate the said premises. Sh. Chauhan vacated the said premises but admittedly the landlord did not occupy the same but rented out the same to the tenant in the year 1990.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. In the year 1997 the landlord filed a petition for eviction of the tenant on two grounds; firstly that the tenant is in arrears of rent from 1.11.1990 to 31.7.1997 and secondly that the premises are bona fide required by the landlord for the use and occupation of himself and his family.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. This petition was contested by the tenant. After trial, the Rent Controller ordered the eviction of the tenant on two grounds; (i) that the tenant was in arrears of rent from November, 1999 till date of order i.e. 22nd August, 2001 and (ii) that the landlord required the premises for his own use and occupation.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. The tenant deposited the rent within the time prescribed. He also filed an appeal challenging the finding on the issue of bona fide requirement. The learned Appellate Authority came to the conclusion that the landlord had not made a proper and full disclosure of facts as required under the provisions of the Act and had withheld material facts from the Court viz. that the landlord was in occupation of residential premises on 31, Mall Road in the urban area of Shimla and as such rejected this petition on this short ground.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. Aggrieved by the said order, the landlord has filed the present Revision Petition.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. I have heard Sh. Ramakant Sharma, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sh. Bhupinder Gupta, learned senior Counsel for the tenant.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. It has been urged on behalf of the landlord that the building which is alleged to be in possession of the landlord i.e. 31, the Mall Shimla is not a residential building and secondly that the building is not owned by him.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. On the other hand Sh. Bhupinder Gupta, learned Counsel of the tenant has strenuously urged that the landlord in para 18 has not stated anything about any building being owned by him and has only made an averment that he does not own or possess any other such building within the urban area Shimla. It is contended by Sh. Bhupinder Gupta that the landlord of his own volition did not state anything about the ownership of the building and since he has kept silent about the building which he is in occupation he has made a false averment and therefore his petition for eviction has rightly been rejected.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. I am not at all in agreement with the contention of the landlord that the premises known as 31, the Mall Shimla which are admittedly in the occupation of the landlord are commercial premises only and not being used by him for his residence. As pointed out above, the landlord purchased the demised premises in 1986. They fell vacant when he got married despite that he did not occupy the same and rented out the same to the tenant in the year 1990. The question that arises is where was the landlord living for this entire period. According to the landlord after the year 1994 he has been living with his brother-in-law Rajan (wife's brother) PW-2, since the year 1994. Prior to 1994 the landlord will have this Court to believe that he was living off and on with one friend or the other. This story is impossible to believe. The landlord was married in the year 1999. He is an Architect by profession. His wife is a law graduate. It is not believable that such a person would have no permanent abode and would continue to live as a guest with his friends for almost 5 years after his marriage. Even the story that he has been living with his brother-in-law after the year 1994 does not inspire confidence. It stands proved on record that the brother-in-law PW-2 Rajan lives with his own family i.e. wife and children. From the evidence it is also clear that the parents of the brother-in-law also reside with him, His flat consists of only two rooms. The flat in possession of the landlord at 31, the Mall Shimla, also consists of two rooms, kitchen and bath room. Even assuming that he was running an office in the part of the flat it cannot be believed that he would not live on his own flat on the Mall Road and reside with his brother-in-law in cramped premises. Even in the electoral list the landlord is shown to be a resident of 31, The Mall, Shimla. Therefore, I am of the considered view that the building 31, the Mall, Shimla was also being used as a residence by the landlord.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. Having held so, the question that arises is whether the landlord can be non-suited only on the ground that he has not made any disclosure about the residential accommodation available with him which premises were admittedly not owned by him.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. The short question which arises for decision in this petition is whether the landlord was guilty of suppressing and withholding such relevant facts which would disentitle him from seeking eviction of the tenant. To appreciate these contentions it would be necessary to refer to relevant portion of Section 14(3) of the Act:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Section 14:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1 and 2 xxxxxxxxxxx</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(3) A landlord may apply to the Controller for an order directing the tenant to put the landlord in possession-</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(a) in case of residential building, if</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(i) he required it for his own occupation:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Provided that he is not occupying another residential building owned by him, in the urban area concerned:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Provided further that he has not vacated such a building without sufficient cause within five years of the filing of the application, in the said urban area....</p><p style="text-align: justify;">13. A perusal of the bare provisions of the Act makes it clear that there are certain essential ingredients which the landlord must satisfy before seeking eviction of the tenant under the Act. Not only must he prove that the residential building is bona fide required by him for his own use and occupation but he must also plead and prove that he is not occupying any other residential building owned by him in the urban area concerned and further that he has not vacated such a building without sufficient cause within 5 years of the filing of the application.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">14. Reference may now be made to the relevant allegations made in para 18 of the eviction petition:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(ii) That the petitioner bona fide requires the premises for his own use and occupation and also for the use and occupation of his family.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The petitioner does not own or possess any other such building within the urban area of Simla nor the petitioner has vacated any such premises within five years of the filing of this petition.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The family of the petitioner presently consists of himself and his wife. Due to paucity of accommodation the petitioner has not been able to keep his wife with himself at Simla, where he is working as an Engineer and she has been residing at Chandigarh since 1991 but on account of her ill health she has been brought to Simla by the petitioner. The petitioner at present is seeking temporary shelter, from time to time, with his relations.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">15. The learned Appellate Authority came to the conclusion that the landlord had falsely pleaded that he does not own or possess any other such building within the urban area of Shimla and hence rejected the eviction petition on this ground.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">16. On a close analysis of the proviso to Section 14(3)(a)(i) of the Act it is clear that a landlord is not entitled to seek eviction of a tenant from residential building even in case of bona fide requirement if the landlord is occupying another residential building owned by him in the urban area concerned. One can read three essential ingredients in this proviso i.e. (i) that the landlord is in occupation of another residential building; (ii) that the said residential building is owned by him and (iii) that the said residential building is situated in the concerned urban area.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">17. The question that arises is what is the impact of the landlord not making a disclosure in respect of premises which he is occupying but are not owned by him.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">18. The Apex Court in Onkar Nath v. Ved Vyas ILR 1979 HP 1, held as follows:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">It is common ground that there are three requirements to make out a cause of action for eviction under that provision, and indeed this is apparent from a bare reading of the sub-section. In the present case the finding is to the effect that the landlord requires the residential building for his own occupation. But, the legislation has taken care to insist upon two more conditions, namely; (a) that the landlord is not occupying any other residential building in the area concerned; and (b) that he has not vacated such a building without sufficient cause. There is not a scintilla of evidence nor indeed there is any averment in compliance with these latter conditions. The necessary consequence follows that not merely is there inadequacy of pleadings sufficient to make out a cause of action but total absence of proof of two vital requirements....</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The Supreme Court also said that:.The statute benignly designed to protect tenants from unreasonable evictions has taken case to put restrictions which must be rigorously construed to fulfil the purpose of the statute.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">19. Following the aforesaid judgment and other pronouncements of the Apex Court, a learned Single Judge of this Court in Tara Chand Sharma v. Baij Nath and Ors. 1992 (2) R.C.J. 323, held as follows:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">16. What appears as the legislative intent, in bold relief, is that the landlord, while seeking eviction of a tenant on the ground that he needs a residential building for his own occupation, must come out clearly and honestly with facts relating to the requirement that he is not occupying another residential building owned by him, in the urban area concerned and that he had not vacated such a building without sufficient cause within five years of the filing of the application, in the said urban area. The primal burden of making a clear disclosure would lie upon the landlord, for, the true facts would be in his special knowledge. An order in his favour by the Rent Controller would depend upon the satisfaction of the Rent Controller in regard not only to the claim that the landlord requires the accommodation, from which he wishes to evict a tenant, for his own occupation but also that he was not occupying another residential building owned by him nor had he vacated such building without sufficient cause within five years of the filing of the application in the application in the urban area concerned....</p><p style="text-align: justify;">It was further held as under:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">18. That the landlord should make a full disclosure of the relevant facts, pertaining to the requirements of Sub-section (3)(a)(i) and the two provisos, becomes all the more necessary because the satisfaction of the Rent Controller in regard thereto is the condition precedent for the making of an order in favour of the landlord....</p><p style="text-align: justify;">20. The aforesaid judgment has been followed in a number of other cases including Vijay Kapoor v. Maya Ram 1997 (2) RCR 437, wherein another learned single Judge of this Court following the aforesaid judgment held that the landlord must make complete and proper disclosure of all the material facts.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">21. On the other hand Sh. Ramakant Sharma has relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in Ram Narain Arora v. Asha Rani 1998(2) RCR 268. In that case the Rent Controller came to the conclusion that the landlord had suppressed material information and had not disclosed the fact that he was already in occupation of a house in Subji Mandi. Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act reads as follows:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Section 14(1)(e). That the premises let for residential purposes are required bona fide by the landlord for occupation as a residence for himself or for any member of his family dependent on him, if he is the owner thereof, or for any person for whose benefit the premises are held and that the landlord or such person has no other reasonably suitable residential accommodation.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">22. The difference between Delhi Act and the present Act is that under the Delhi Act the only requirement is that the landlord has no other reasonably suitable accommodation whereas under the Himachal Act the residential premises are required to be owned by the landlord. The Apex Court in Rama Narain Arora's case (supra) held that the nondisclosure of the fact that the landlord was in occupation of certain premises in Subji Mandi was.not a ground to non-suit the landlord in view of the facts and circumstances of the case. The Apex Court held as follows:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. In making a claim that the suit premises is required bona fide for his own occupation as a residence for himself and other members of his family dependent on him and that he has no other reasonably suitable accommodation is a requirement of law before the Court can state whether the landlord requires the premises bona fide for his use and occupation. In doing so, the Court must also find out whether the landlord or such other person for whose benefit the premises is required has no other reasonably suitable residential accommodation. It cannot be said that the requirement of the landlord is not intermixed with the question of finding out whether he has any other reasonably suitable accommodation. If he has other reasonably suitable accommodation, ihen necessarily it would mean that he does not require the suit premises and his requirement may not be bona fide. In such circumstances further inquiry would be whether that premises is more suitable than the suit premises. Therefore, the questions raised before the Court would not necessarily depend upon only the pleadings. It could be a good defence that the landlord has other reasonably suitable residential accommodation and thereby defend the claim of the landlord.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. There cannot be a pedantic or a dogmatic approach in the matter of analysis of pleadings or of the evidence adduced thereto. It is no doubt true that if the pleadings are clearly set out, it would be easy for the Court to decide the matters. But if the pleadings are lacking or vague and if both parties have understood what was the case pleaded and put forth with reference to requirement of law and placed such material before the Court, neither party is prejudiced. If we analyse from this angle, we do not think that the High Court was not justified in interfering with the order made by the Rent Controller.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">23. From the perusal of the judgment of the Apex Court it is apparent that the Rent Controller must approach the matter in a practical manner. In case the non-disclosure is such as that it goes to the very root of the case the Rent Controller would be justified in non-suiting the landlord. However, if the non-disclosure is such that it would not prejudice the rights of the respondent then the landlord should not be non-suited only on this ground.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">24. The decisions of this Court cited hereinabove were delivered prior to the judgment delivered by the Apex Court in Ram Nar'ain Arora's case. Further more both in Tara Chand Sharma's case and Vijay Kapoor's case decided by this Court, no averment had been made ixi respect of other residential buildings owned by a landlord. There was complete non-disclosure as to whether any such residential building owned by the landlord was in his possession or not. In the present case, as I have held above, the residential premises at 31, The Mall, Shimla was not owned by the landlord and hence these two earlier judgments of this Court are distinguishable on facts also.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">25. In the present case, the landlord has been non-suited only on the ground that he did not disclose the fact that he was in occupation of certain premises on the Mall Road. Under law he was not required to disclose this fact. He was only required to disclose the factum of occupying another residential building owned by him in the urban area concerned. True it may be, that it would have been better if the landlord had disclosed all the facts but non-disclosure of a fact which he was not under law required to disclose could not in my opinion be a ground to dismiss his eviction petition.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">26. However, what are the premises in his occupation even as a tenant can be taken into consideration while deciding the question whether he bona fide requires the demised premises for his personal use or occupation or not.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">27. Lastly comes the question with regard to the bona fide requirement of the landlord. The landlord has no children. According to the landlord as well as his other witnesses i.e. his brother-in-law PW-2 and his wife PW-3, the wife now wants to come back and settle in Shimla. There is no reason to disbelieve their statements. Even according to the evidence led by the tenant the accommodation in possession of the landlord consists of two rooms, kitchen, bath room etc. Admittedly, the landlord is also having his office as an Architect in this building. The landlord belongs to the middle class of the Society. It cannot be expected of a landlord who owns sufficient property to reside in a two room set wherein he also runs his office.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">28. The law by now is well settled that the landlord is the best judge of the suitability of the accommodation required by him. This suitability has however to be judged in the context of reasonable expectations. The landlord and his wife who are both well educated can reasonably be expected to entertain guests and they will have visitors to their house. They would obviously require a drawing room, a bed room and a spare bed room for guests. Even at his residence the landlord may require another room for his professional work. This is the minimum accommodation which they would require. Even if the accommodation possessed by the landlord, though not owned by him, at 31, the Mall, Shimla is taken into consideration such accommodation is not sufficient to meet his requirements since admittedly the landlord is running his profession of Architect from some portion of his these premises.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">29. Keeping in view the entire facts and circumstances, I am of the considered view that the learned Appellate Authority gravely erred in rejecting the eviction petition of the landlord solely on the ground that he had not disclosed the factum of being in possession of the premises at 31, the Mall Shimla. Even though I have held that the said premises are residential premises, in view of the above discussion I hold that the landlord cannot be non-suited only on the ground of his being in possession of such premises since same were not owned by him.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">30. In view of the above discussion, the Revision Petition is allowed, the order of the learned Appellate Authority dated 6.5.2003 is seaside and the order of the Rent Controller dated 22.8.2001 is restored.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">31. Keeping in view the fact that the tenant has been in possession of the premises for a long period he is granted time up to 31st October, 2008 to vacate the premises.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">32. No order as to costs.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '2008(2)ShimLC491',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'Shri S.L. Srivastava',
			'sub' => 'Tenancy',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'shri-arun-bhanwara-vs-s-l-srivastava',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '891084',
		(int) 1 => 'shri-arun-bhanwara-vs-s-l-srivastava'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Shri Arun Bhanwara Vs Shri S L Srivastava - Citation 891084 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '891084',
		'acts' => '',
		'appealno' => '',
		'appellant' => 'Shri Arun Bhanwara',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Shri Arun Bhanwara Vs. Shri S.L. Srivastava',
		'casenote' => ' - CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908.[C.A. No. 5/1908]. Order 14, Rule 2 [As amended by Amending Act of 1976]: [V.K. Gupta, CJ, Deepak Gupta & Surjit Singh, JJ] Preliminary issue of law and fact  Court framing all issues both of law and facts together and also  tried all the issues together, including the issue relating to jurisdiction of Court  Held, Except in situations perceived or warranted under sub-rule (2) of Rule 2 of Order 14 where a  Court in fact frames only issues of law in the first instance and postpones settlement of other issues, clearly and explicitly in situations where the Court has framed all issues together, both of law as well as facts and has also tried all these issues together, it is not open to the Court to adopt the principle of severability and proceed to decide issues of law first, without taking up simultaneously other issues for decision. This course of action is not available to a Court because sub-rule (1) does not permit the  Court to adopt any such principle of severability and to dispose of a suit only on preliminary issues, or what can be termed as issues of law. Sub-rule (1)  clearly mandates that in a situation contemplated under it, where all the issues have been together and have also been taken up for adjudication during the course of the trial, these must be decided together and the judgment in the suit as a whole must be pronounced by the Court covering all the issues framed in the suit.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => 'Ram Narain Arora v. Asha Rani;',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => '',
		'counseldef' => '',
		'court' => 'Himachal Pradesh',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2008-07-31',
		'deposition' => 'Petition allowed',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => ' Deepak Gupta, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>Deepak Gupta, J.</p><p>1. This Revision Petition under Section 25(5) of the H.P. Urban Rent Control Act, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) is directed against the order of the learned Appellate Authority, Shimla in CMA No. 60-S/14 of 2001 whereby the appeal filed by the respondent (hereinafter referred to as the tenant) has been allowed, the order of the Rent Controller has been set-aside and the petition for eviction filed by the present petitioner (hereinafter referred to as the Landlord) on the ground of personal bona fide requirement has been set-aside.</p><p>2. The undisputed facts are that the landlord is owner of the demised premises situated in building known as Tunnel View, Sanjauli, Shimla-6 consisting of two bed rooms with attached bath room and latrine, drawing-cum-dining room, kitchen and balcony. These premises were purchased by the landlord in the year 1986. Thereafter, the landlord had rented out the premises to one Sh. B.K. Chauhan. According to the landlord, when he got married he requested Sh. B.K. Chauhan to vacate the said premises. Sh. Chauhan vacated the said premises but admittedly the landlord did not occupy the same but rented out the same to the tenant in the year 1990.</p><p>3. In the year 1997 the landlord filed a petition for eviction of the tenant on two grounds; firstly that the tenant is in arrears of rent from 1.11.1990 to 31.7.1997 and secondly that the premises are bona fide required by the landlord for the use and occupation of himself and his family.</p><p>4. This petition was contested by the tenant. After trial, the Rent Controller ordered the eviction of the tenant on two grounds; (i) that the tenant was in arrears of rent from November, 1999 till date of order i.e. 22nd August, 2001 and (ii) that the landlord required the premises for his own use and occupation.</p><p>5. The tenant deposited the rent within the time prescribed. He also filed an appeal challenging the finding on the issue of bona fide requirement. The learned Appellate Authority came to the conclusion that the landlord had not made a proper and full disclosure of facts as required under the provisions of the Act and had withheld material facts from the Court viz. that the landlord was in occupation of residential premises on 31, Mall Road in the urban area of Shimla and as such rejected this petition on this short ground.</p><p>6. Aggrieved by the said order, the landlord has filed the present Revision Petition.</p><p>7. I have heard Sh. Ramakant Sharma, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sh. Bhupinder Gupta, learned senior Counsel for the tenant.</p><p>8. It has been urged on behalf of the landlord that the building which is alleged to be in possession of the landlord i.e. 31, the Mall Shimla is not a residential building and secondly that the building is not owned by him.</p><p>9. On the other hand Sh. Bhupinder Gupta, learned Counsel of the tenant has strenuously urged that the landlord in para 18 has not stated anything about any building being owned by him and has only made an averment that he does not own or possess any other such building within the urban area Shimla. It is contended by Sh. Bhupinder Gupta that the landlord of his own volition did not state anything about the ownership of the building and since he has kept silent about the building which he is in occupation he has made a false averment and therefore his petition for eviction has rightly been rejected.</p><p>10. I am not at all in agreement with the contention of the landlord that the premises known as 31, the Mall Shimla which are admittedly in the occupation of the landlord are commercial premises only and not being used by him for his residence. As pointed out above, the landlord purchased the demised premises in 1986. They fell vacant when he got married despite that he did not occupy the same and rented out the same to the tenant in the year 1990. The question that arises is where was the landlord living for this entire period. According to the landlord after the year 1994 he has been living with his brother-in-law Rajan (wife's brother) PW-2, since the year 1994. Prior to 1994 the landlord will have this Court to believe that he was living off and on with one friend or the other. This story is impossible to believe. The landlord was married in the year 1999. He is an Architect by profession. His wife is a law graduate. It is not believable that such a person would have no permanent abode and would continue to live as a guest with his friends for almost 5 years after his marriage. Even the story that he has been living with his brother-in-law after the year 1994 does not inspire confidence. It stands proved on record that the brother-in-law PW-2 Rajan lives with his own family i.e. wife and children. From the evidence it is also clear that the parents of the brother-in-law also reside with him, His flat consists of only two rooms. The flat in possession of the landlord at 31, the Mall Shimla, also consists of two rooms, kitchen and bath room. Even assuming that he was running an office in the part of the flat it cannot be believed that he would not live on his own flat on the Mall Road and reside with his brother-in-law in cramped premises. Even in the electoral list the landlord is shown to be a resident of 31, The Mall, Shimla. Therefore, I am of the considered view that the building 31, the Mall, Shimla was also being used as a residence by the landlord.</p><p>11. Having held so, the question that arises is whether the landlord can be non-suited only on the ground that he has not made any disclosure about the residential accommodation available with him which premises were admittedly not owned by him.</p><p>12. The short question which arises for decision in this petition is whether the landlord was guilty of suppressing and withholding such relevant facts which would disentitle him from seeking eviction of the tenant. To appreciate these contentions it would be necessary to refer to relevant portion of Section 14(3) of the Act:</p><p>Section 14:</p><p>1 and 2 xxxxxxxxxxx</p><p>(3) A landlord may apply to the Controller for an order directing the tenant to put the landlord in possession-</p><p>(a) in case of residential building, if</p><p>(i) he required it for his own occupation:</p><p>Provided that he is not occupying another residential building owned by him, in the urban area concerned:</p><p>Provided further that he has not vacated such a building without sufficient cause within five years of the filing of the application, in the said urban area....</p><p>13. A perusal of the bare provisions of the Act makes it clear that there are certain essential ingredients which the landlord must satisfy before seeking eviction of the tenant under the Act. Not only must he prove that the residential building is bona fide required by him for his own use and occupation but he must also plead and prove that he is not occupying any other residential building owned by him in the urban area concerned and further that he has not vacated such a building without sufficient cause within 5 years of the filing of the application.</p><p>14. Reference may now be made to the relevant allegations made in para 18 of the eviction petition:</p><p>(ii) That the petitioner bona fide requires the premises for his own use and occupation and also for the use and occupation of his family.</p><p>The petitioner does not own or possess any other such building within the urban area of Simla nor the petitioner has vacated any such premises within five years of the filing of this petition.</p><p>The family of the petitioner presently consists of himself and his wife. Due to paucity of accommodation the petitioner has not been able to keep his wife with himself at Simla, where he is working as an Engineer and she has been residing at Chandigarh since 1991 but on account of her ill health she has been brought to Simla by the petitioner. The petitioner at present is seeking temporary shelter, from time to time, with his relations.</p><p>15. The learned Appellate Authority came to the conclusion that the landlord had falsely pleaded that he does not own or possess any other such building within the urban area of Shimla and hence rejected the eviction petition on this ground.</p><p>16. On a close analysis of the proviso to Section 14(3)(a)(i) of the Act it is clear that a landlord is not entitled to seek eviction of a tenant from residential building even in case of bona fide requirement if the landlord is occupying another residential building owned by him in the urban area concerned. One can read three essential ingredients in this proviso i.e. (i) that the landlord is in occupation of another residential building; (ii) that the said residential building is owned by him and (iii) that the said residential building is situated in the concerned urban area.</p><p>17. The question that arises is what is the impact of the landlord not making a disclosure in respect of premises which he is occupying but are not owned by him.</p><p>18. The Apex Court in Onkar Nath v. Ved Vyas ILR 1979 HP 1, held as follows:</p><p>It is common ground that there are three requirements to make out a cause of action for eviction under that provision, and indeed this is apparent from a bare reading of the sub-section. In the present case the finding is to the effect that the landlord requires the residential building for his own occupation. But, the legislation has taken care to insist upon two more conditions, namely; (a) that the landlord is not occupying any other residential building in the area concerned; and (b) that he has not vacated such a building without sufficient cause. There is not a scintilla of evidence nor indeed there is any averment in compliance with these latter conditions. The necessary consequence follows that not merely is there inadequacy of pleadings sufficient to make out a cause of action but total absence of proof of two vital requirements....</p><p>The Supreme Court also said that:.The statute benignly designed to protect tenants from unreasonable evictions has taken case to put restrictions which must be rigorously construed to fulfil the purpose of the statute.</p><p>19. Following the aforesaid judgment and other pronouncements of the Apex Court, a learned Single Judge of this Court in Tara Chand Sharma v. Baij Nath and Ors. 1992 (2) R.C.J. 323, held as follows:</p><p>16. What appears as the legislative intent, in bold relief, is that the landlord, while seeking eviction of a tenant on the ground that he needs a residential building for his own occupation, must come out clearly and honestly with facts relating to the requirement that he is not occupying another residential building owned by him, in the urban area concerned and that he had not vacated such a building without sufficient cause within five years of the filing of the application, in the said urban area. The primal burden of making a clear disclosure would lie upon the landlord, for, the true facts would be in his special knowledge. An order in his favour by the Rent Controller would depend upon the satisfaction of the Rent Controller in regard not only to the claim that the landlord requires the accommodation, from which he wishes to evict a tenant, for his own occupation but also that he was not occupying another residential building owned by him nor had he vacated such building without sufficient cause within five years of the filing of the application in the application in the urban area concerned....</p><p>It was further held as under:</p><p>18. That the landlord should make a full disclosure of the relevant facts, pertaining to the requirements of Sub-section (3)(a)(i) and the two provisos, becomes all the more necessary because the satisfaction of the Rent Controller in regard thereto is the condition precedent for the making of an order in favour of the landlord....</p><p>20. The aforesaid judgment has been followed in a number of other cases including Vijay Kapoor v. Maya Ram 1997 (2) RCR 437, wherein another learned single Judge of this Court following the aforesaid judgment held that the landlord must make complete and proper disclosure of all the material facts.</p><p>21. On the other hand Sh. Ramakant Sharma has relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in Ram Narain Arora v. Asha Rani 1998(2) RCR 268. In that case the Rent Controller came to the conclusion that the landlord had suppressed material information and had not disclosed the fact that he was already in occupation of a house in Subji Mandi. Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act reads as follows:</p><p>Section 14(1)(e). That the premises let for residential purposes are required bona fide by the landlord for occupation as a residence for himself or for any member of his family dependent on him, if he is the owner thereof, or for any person for whose benefit the premises are held and that the landlord or such person has no other reasonably suitable residential accommodation.</p><p>22. The difference between Delhi Act and the present Act is that under the Delhi Act the only requirement is that the landlord has no other reasonably suitable accommodation whereas under the Himachal Act the residential premises are required to be owned by the landlord. The Apex Court in Rama Narain Arora's case (supra) held that the nondisclosure of the fact that the landlord was in occupation of certain premises in Subji Mandi was.not a ground to non-suit the landlord in view of the facts and circumstances of the case. The Apex Court held as follows:</p><p>9. In making a claim that the suit premises is required bona fide for his own occupation as a residence for himself and other members of his family dependent on him and that he has no other reasonably suitable accommodation is a requirement of law before the Court can state whether the landlord requires the premises bona fide for his use and occupation. In doing so, the Court must also find out whether the landlord or such other person for whose benefit the premises is required has no other reasonably suitable residential accommodation. It cannot be said that the requirement of the landlord is not intermixed with the question of finding out whether he has any other reasonably suitable accommodation. If he has other reasonably suitable accommodation, ihen necessarily it would mean that he does not require the suit premises and his requirement may not be bona fide. In such circumstances further inquiry would be whether that premises is more suitable than the suit premises. Therefore, the questions raised before the Court would not necessarily depend upon only the pleadings. It could be a good defence that the landlord has other reasonably suitable residential accommodation and thereby defend the claim of the landlord.</p><p>10. There cannot be a pedantic or a dogmatic approach in the matter of analysis of pleadings or of the evidence adduced thereto. It is no doubt true that if the pleadings are clearly set out, it would be easy for the Court to decide the matters. But if the pleadings are lacking or vague and if both parties have understood what was the case pleaded and put forth with reference to requirement of law and placed such material before the Court, neither party is prejudiced. If we analyse from this angle, we do not think that the High Court was not justified in interfering with the order made by the Rent Controller.</p><p>23. From the perusal of the judgment of the Apex Court it is apparent that the Rent Controller must approach the matter in a practical manner. In case the non-disclosure is such as that it goes to the very root of the case the Rent Controller would be justified in non-suiting the landlord. However, if the non-disclosure is such that it would not prejudice the rights of the respondent then the landlord should not be non-suited only on this ground.</p><p>24. The decisions of this Court cited hereinabove were delivered prior to the judgment delivered by the Apex Court in Ram Nar'ain Arora's case. Further more both in Tara Chand Sharma's case and Vijay Kapoor's case decided by this Court, no averment had been made ixi respect of other residential buildings owned by a landlord. There was complete non-disclosure as to whether any such residential building owned by the landlord was in his possession or not. In the present case, as I have held above, the residential premises at 31, The Mall, Shimla was not owned by the landlord and hence these two earlier judgments of this Court are distinguishable on facts also.</p><p>25. In the present case, the landlord has been non-suited only on the ground that he did not disclose the fact that he was in occupation of certain premises on the Mall Road. Under law he was not required to disclose this fact. He was only required to disclose the factum of occupying another residential building owned by him in the urban area concerned. True it may be, that it would have been better if the landlord had disclosed all the facts but non-disclosure of a fact which he was not under law required to disclose could not in my opinion be a ground to dismiss his eviction petition.</p><p>26. However, what are the premises in his occupation even as a tenant can be taken into consideration while deciding the question whether he bona fide requires the demised premises for his personal use or occupation or not.</p><p>27. Lastly comes the question with regard to the bona fide requirement of the landlord. The landlord has no children. According to the landlord as well as his other witnesses i.e. his brother-in-law PW-2 and his wife PW-3, the wife now wants to come back and settle in Shimla. There is no reason to disbelieve their statements. Even according to the evidence led by the tenant the accommodation in possession of the landlord consists of two rooms, kitchen, bath room etc. Admittedly, the landlord is also having his office as an Architect in this building. The landlord belongs to the middle class of the Society. It cannot be expected of a landlord who owns sufficient property to reside in a two room set wherein he also runs his office.</p><p>28. The law by now is well settled that the landlord is the best judge of the suitability of the accommodation required by him. This suitability has however to be judged in the context of reasonable expectations. The landlord and his wife who are both well educated can reasonably be expected to entertain guests and they will have visitors to their house. They would obviously require a drawing room, a bed room and a spare bed room for guests. Even at his residence the landlord may require another room for his professional work. This is the minimum accommodation which they would require. Even if the accommodation possessed by the landlord, though not owned by him, at 31, the Mall, Shimla is taken into consideration such accommodation is not sufficient to meet his requirements since admittedly the landlord is running his profession of Architect from some portion of his these premises.</p><p>29. Keeping in view the entire facts and circumstances, I am of the considered view that the learned Appellate Authority gravely erred in rejecting the eviction petition of the landlord solely on the ground that he had not disclosed the factum of being in possession of the premises at 31, the Mall Shimla. Even though I have held that the said premises are residential premises, in view of the above discussion I hold that the landlord cannot be non-suited only on the ground of his being in possession of such premises since same were not owned by him.</p><p>30. In view of the above discussion, the Revision Petition is allowed, the order of the learned Appellate Authority dated 6.5.2003 is seaside and the order of the Rent Controller dated 22.8.2001 is restored.</p><p>31. Keeping in view the fact that the tenant has been in possession of the premises for a long period he is granted time up to 31st October, 2008 to vacate the premises.</p><p>32. No order as to costs.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '2008(2)ShimLC491',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'Shri S.L. Srivastava',
		'sub' => 'Tenancy',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'shri-arun-bhanwara-vs-s-l-srivastava'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '891084',
	(int) 1 => 'shri-arun-bhanwara-vs-s-l-srivastava'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/891084/shri-arun-bhanwara-vs-s-l-srivastava'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$caseref = 'Ram Narain Arora v. Asha Rani<br>'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>Deepak Gupta, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. This Revision Petition under Section 25(5) of the H.P. Urban Rent Control Act, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) is directed against the order of the learned Appellate Authority, Shimla in CMA No. 60-S/14 of 2001 whereby the appeal filed by the respondent (hereinafter referred to as the tenant) has been allowed, the order of the Rent Controller has been set-aside and the petition for eviction filed by the present petitioner (hereinafter referred to as the Landlord) on the ground of personal bona fide requirement has been set-aside.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. The undisputed facts are that the landlord is owner of the demised premises situated in building known as Tunnel View, Sanjauli, Shimla-6 consisting of two bed rooms with attached bath room and latrine, drawing-cum-dining room, kitchen and balcony. These premises were purchased by the landlord in the year 1986. Thereafter, the landlord had rented out the premises to one Sh. B.K. Chauhan. According to the landlord, when he got married he requested Sh. B.K. Chauhan to vacate the said premises. Sh. Chauhan vacated the said premises but admittedly the landlord did not occupy the same but rented out the same to the tenant in the year 1990.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. In the year 1997 the landlord filed a petition for eviction of the tenant on two grounds; firstly that the tenant is in arrears of rent from 1.11.1990 to 31.7.1997 and secondly that the premises are bona fide required by the landlord for the use and occupation of himself and his family.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>4. This petition was contested by the tenant. After trial, the Rent Controller ordered the eviction of the tenant on two grounds; (i) that the tenant was in arrears of rent from November, 1999 till date of order i.e. 22nd August, 2001 and (ii) that the landlord required the premises for his own use and occupation.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>5. The tenant deposited the rent within the time prescribed. He also filed an appeal challenging the finding on the issue of bona fide requirement. The learned Appellate Authority came to the conclusion that the landlord had not made a proper and full disclosure of facts as required under the provisions of the Act and had withheld material facts from the Court viz. that the landlord was in occupation of residential premises on 31, Mall Road in the urban area of Shimla and as such rejected this petition on this short ground.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>6. Aggrieved by the said order, the landlord has filed the present Revision Petition.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>7. I have heard Sh. Ramakant Sharma, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sh. Bhupinder Gupta, learned senior Counsel for the tenant.',
	(int) 8 => '<p>8. It has been urged on behalf of the landlord that the building which is alleged to be in possession of the landlord i.e. 31, the Mall Shimla is not a residential building and secondly that the building is not owned by him.',
	(int) 9 => '<p>9. On the other hand Sh. Bhupinder Gupta, learned Counsel of the tenant has strenuously urged that the landlord in para 18 has not stated anything about any building being owned by him and has only made an averment that he does not own or possess any other such building within the urban area Shimla. It is contended by Sh. Bhupinder Gupta that the landlord of his own volition did not state anything about the ownership of the building and since he has kept silent about the building which he is in occupation he has made a false averment and therefore his petition for eviction has rightly been rejected.',
	(int) 10 => '<p>10. I am not at all in agreement with the contention of the landlord that the premises known as 31, the Mall Shimla which are admittedly in the occupation of the landlord are commercial premises only and not being used by him for his residence. As pointed out above, the landlord purchased the demised premises in 1986. They fell vacant when he got married despite that he did not occupy the same and rented out the same to the tenant in the year 1990. The question that arises is where was the landlord living for this entire period. According to the landlord after the year 1994 he has been living with his brother-in-law Rajan (wife's brother) PW-2, since the year 1994. Prior to 1994 the landlord will have this Court to believe that he was living off and on with one friend or the other. This story is impossible to believe. The landlord was married in the year 1999. He is an Architect by profession. His wife is a law graduate. It is not believable that such a person would have no permanent abode and would continue to live as a guest with his friends for almost 5 years after his marriage. Even the story that he has been living with his brother-in-law after the year 1994 does not inspire confidence. It stands proved on record that the brother-in-law PW-2 Rajan lives with his own family i.e. wife and children. From the evidence it is also clear that the parents of the brother-in-law also reside with him, His flat consists of only two rooms. The flat in possession of the landlord at 31, the Mall Shimla, also consists of two rooms, kitchen and bath room. Even assuming that he was running an office in the part of the flat it cannot be believed that he would not live on his own flat on the Mall Road and reside with his brother-in-law in cramped premises. Even in the electoral list the landlord is shown to be a resident of 31, The Mall, Shimla. Therefore, I am of the considered view that the building 31, the Mall, Shimla was also being used as a residence by the landlord.',
	(int) 11 => '<p>11. Having held so, the question that arises is whether the landlord can be non-suited only on the ground that he has not made any disclosure about the residential accommodation available with him which premises were admittedly not owned by him.',
	(int) 12 => '<p>12. The short question which arises for decision in this petition is whether the landlord was guilty of suppressing and withholding such relevant facts which would disentitle him from seeking eviction of the tenant. To appreciate these contentions it would be necessary to refer to relevant portion of Section 14(3) of the Act:',
	(int) 13 => '<p>Section 14:',
	(int) 14 => '<p>1 and 2 xxxxxxxxxxx',
	(int) 15 => '<p>(3) A landlord may apply to the Controller for an order directing the tenant to put the landlord in possession-',
	(int) 16 => '<p>(a) in case of residential building, if',
	(int) 17 => '<p>(i) he required it for his own occupation:',
	(int) 18 => '<p>Provided that he is not occupying another residential building owned by him, in the urban area concerned:',
	(int) 19 => '<p>Provided further that he has not vacated such a building without sufficient cause within five years of the filing of the application, in the said urban area....',
	(int) 20 => '<p>13. A perusal of the bare provisions of the Act makes it clear that there are certain essential ingredients which the landlord must satisfy before seeking eviction of the tenant under the Act. Not only must he prove that the residential building is bona fide required by him for his own use and occupation but he must also plead and prove that he is not occupying any other residential building owned by him in the urban area concerned and further that he has not vacated such a building without sufficient cause within 5 years of the filing of the application.',
	(int) 21 => '<p>14. Reference may now be made to the relevant allegations made in para 18 of the eviction petition:',
	(int) 22 => '<p>(ii) That the petitioner bona fide requires the premises for his own use and occupation and also for the use and occupation of his family.',
	(int) 23 => '<p>The petitioner does not own or possess any other such building within the urban area of Simla nor the petitioner has vacated any such premises within five years of the filing of this petition.',
	(int) 24 => '<p>The family of the petitioner presently consists of himself and his wife. Due to paucity of accommodation the petitioner has not been able to keep his wife with himself at Simla, where he is working as an Engineer and she has been residing at Chandigarh since 1991 but on account of her ill health she has been brought to Simla by the petitioner. The petitioner at present is seeking temporary shelter, from time to time, with his relations.',
	(int) 25 => '<p>15. The learned Appellate Authority came to the conclusion that the landlord had falsely pleaded that he does not own or possess any other such building within the urban area of Shimla and hence rejected the eviction petition on this ground.',
	(int) 26 => '<p>16. On a close analysis of the proviso to Section 14(3)(a)(i) of the Act it is clear that a landlord is not entitled to seek eviction of a tenant from residential building even in case of bona fide requirement if the landlord is occupying another residential building owned by him in the urban area concerned. One can read three essential ingredients in this proviso i.e. (i) that the landlord is in occupation of another residential building; (ii) that the said residential building is owned by him and (iii) that the said residential building is situated in the concerned urban area.',
	(int) 27 => '<p>17. The question that arises is what is the impact of the landlord not making a disclosure in respect of premises which he is occupying but are not owned by him.',
	(int) 28 => '<p>18. The Apex Court in Onkar Nath v. Ved Vyas ILR 1979 HP 1, held as follows:',
	(int) 29 => '<p>It is common ground that there are three requirements to make out a cause of action for eviction under that provision, and indeed this is apparent from a bare reading of the sub-section. In the present case the finding is to the effect that the landlord requires the residential building for his own occupation. But, the legislation has taken care to insist upon two more conditions, namely; (a) that the landlord is not occupying any other residential building in the area concerned; and (b) that he has not vacated such a building without sufficient cause. There is not a scintilla of evidence nor indeed there is any averment in compliance with these latter conditions. The necessary consequence follows that not merely is there inadequacy of pleadings sufficient to make out a cause of action but total absence of proof of two vital requirements....',
	(int) 30 => '<p>The Supreme Court also said that:.The statute benignly designed to protect tenants from unreasonable evictions has taken case to put restrictions which must be rigorously construed to fulfil the purpose of the statute.',
	(int) 31 => '<p>19. Following the aforesaid judgment and other pronouncements of the Apex Court, a learned Single Judge of this Court in Tara Chand Sharma v. Baij Nath and Ors. 1992 (2) R.C.J. 323, held as follows:',
	(int) 32 => '<p>16. What appears as the legislative intent, in bold relief, is that the landlord, while seeking eviction of a tenant on the ground that he needs a residential building for his own occupation, must come out clearly and honestly with facts relating to the requirement that he is not occupying another residential building owned by him, in the urban area concerned and that he had not vacated such a building without sufficient cause within five years of the filing of the application, in the said urban area. The primal burden of making a clear disclosure would lie upon the landlord, for, the true facts would be in his special knowledge. An order in his favour by the Rent Controller would depend upon the satisfaction of the Rent Controller in regard not only to the claim that the landlord requires the accommodation, from which he wishes to evict a tenant, for his own occupation but also that he was not occupying another residential building owned by him nor had he vacated such building without sufficient cause within five years of the filing of the application in the application in the urban area concerned....',
	(int) 33 => '<p>It was further held as under:',
	(int) 34 => '<p>18. That the landlord should make a full disclosure of the relevant facts, pertaining to the requirements of Sub-section (3)(a)(i) and the two provisos, becomes all the more necessary because the satisfaction of the Rent Controller in regard thereto is the condition precedent for the making of an order in favour of the landlord....',
	(int) 35 => '<p>20. The aforesaid judgment has been followed in a number of other cases including Vijay Kapoor v. Maya Ram 1997 (2) RCR 437, wherein another learned single Judge of this Court following the aforesaid judgment held that the landlord must make complete and proper disclosure of all the material facts.',
	(int) 36 => '<p>21. On the other hand Sh. Ramakant Sharma has relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in Ram Narain Arora v. Asha Rani 1998(2) RCR 268. In that case the Rent Controller came to the conclusion that the landlord had suppressed material information and had not disclosed the fact that he was already in occupation of a house in Subji Mandi. Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act reads as follows:',
	(int) 37 => '<p>Section 14(1)(e). That the premises let for residential purposes are required bona fide by the landlord for occupation as a residence for himself or for any member of his family dependent on him, if he is the owner thereof, or for any person for whose benefit the premises are held and that the landlord or such person has no other reasonably suitable residential accommodation.',
	(int) 38 => '<p>22. The difference between Delhi Act and the present Act is that under the Delhi Act the only requirement is that the landlord has no other reasonably suitable accommodation whereas under the Himachal Act the residential premises are required to be owned by the landlord. The Apex Court in Rama Narain Arora's case (supra) held that the nondisclosure of the fact that the landlord was in occupation of certain premises in Subji Mandi was.not a ground to non-suit the landlord in view of the facts and circumstances of the case. The Apex Court held as follows:',
	(int) 39 => '<p>9. In making a claim that the suit premises is required bona fide for his own occupation as a residence for himself and other members of his family dependent on him and that he has no other reasonably suitable accommodation is a requirement of law before the Court can state whether the landlord requires the premises bona fide for his use and occupation. In doing so, the Court must also find out whether the landlord or such other person for whose benefit the premises is required has no other reasonably suitable residential accommodation. It cannot be said that the requirement of the landlord is not intermixed with the question of finding out whether he has any other reasonably suitable accommodation. If he has other reasonably suitable accommodation, ihen necessarily it would mean that he does not require the suit premises and his requirement may not be bona fide. In such circumstances further inquiry would be whether that premises is more suitable than the suit premises. Therefore, the questions raised before the Court would not necessarily depend upon only the pleadings. It could be a good defence that the landlord has other reasonably suitable residential accommodation and thereby defend the claim of the landlord.',
	(int) 40 => '<p>10. There cannot be a pedantic or a dogmatic approach in the matter of analysis of pleadings or of the evidence adduced thereto. It is no doubt true that if the pleadings are clearly set out, it would be easy for the Court to decide the matters. But if the pleadings are lacking or vague and if both parties have understood what was the case pleaded and put forth with reference to requirement of law and placed such material before the Court, neither party is prejudiced. If we analyse from this angle, we do not think that the High Court was not justified in interfering with the order made by the Rent Controller.',
	(int) 41 => '<p>23. From the perusal of the judgment of the Apex Court it is apparent that the Rent Controller must approach the matter in a practical manner. In case the non-disclosure is such as that it goes to the very root of the case the Rent Controller would be justified in non-suiting the landlord. However, if the non-disclosure is such that it would not prejudice the rights of the respondent then the landlord should not be non-suited only on this ground.',
	(int) 42 => '<p>24. The decisions of this Court cited hereinabove were delivered prior to the judgment delivered by the Apex Court in Ram Nar'ain Arora's case. Further more both in Tara Chand Sharma's case and Vijay Kapoor's case decided by this Court, no averment had been made ixi respect of other residential buildings owned by a landlord. There was complete non-disclosure as to whether any such residential building owned by the landlord was in his possession or not. In the present case, as I have held above, the residential premises at 31, The Mall, Shimla was not owned by the landlord and hence these two earlier judgments of this Court are distinguishable on facts also.',
	(int) 43 => '<p>25. In the present case, the landlord has been non-suited only on the ground that he did not disclose the fact that he was in occupation of certain premises on the Mall Road. Under law he was not required to disclose this fact. He was only required to disclose the factum of occupying another residential building owned by him in the urban area concerned. True it may be, that it would have been better if the landlord had disclosed all the facts but non-disclosure of a fact which he was not under law required to disclose could not in my opinion be a ground to dismiss his eviction petition.',
	(int) 44 => '<p>26. However, what are the premises in his occupation even as a tenant can be taken into consideration while deciding the question whether he bona fide requires the demised premises for his personal use or occupation or not.',
	(int) 45 => '<p>27. Lastly comes the question with regard to the bona fide requirement of the landlord. The landlord has no children. According to the landlord as well as his other witnesses i.e. his brother-in-law PW-2 and his wife PW-3, the wife now wants to come back and settle in Shimla. There is no reason to disbelieve their statements. Even according to the evidence led by the tenant the accommodation in possession of the landlord consists of two rooms, kitchen, bath room etc. Admittedly, the landlord is also having his office as an Architect in this building. The landlord belongs to the middle class of the Society. It cannot be expected of a landlord who owns sufficient property to reside in a two room set wherein he also runs his office.',
	(int) 46 => '<p>28. The law by now is well settled that the landlord is the best judge of the suitability of the accommodation required by him. This suitability has however to be judged in the context of reasonable expectations. The landlord and his wife who are both well educated can reasonably be expected to entertain guests and they will have visitors to their house. They would obviously require a drawing room, a bed room and a spare bed room for guests. Even at his residence the landlord may require another room for his professional work. This is the minimum accommodation which they would require. Even if the accommodation possessed by the landlord, though not owned by him, at 31, the Mall, Shimla is taken into consideration such accommodation is not sufficient to meet his requirements since admittedly the landlord is running his profession of Architect from some portion of his these premises.',
	(int) 47 => '<p>29. Keeping in view the entire facts and circumstances, I am of the considered view that the learned Appellate Authority gravely erred in rejecting the eviction petition of the landlord solely on the ground that he had not disclosed the factum of being in possession of the premises at 31, the Mall Shimla. Even though I have held that the said premises are residential premises, in view of the above discussion I hold that the landlord cannot be non-suited only on the ground of his being in possession of such premises since same were not owned by him.',
	(int) 48 => '<p>30. In view of the above discussion, the Revision Petition is allowed, the order of the learned Appellate Authority dated 6.5.2003 is seaside and the order of the Rent Controller dated 22.8.2001 is restored.',
	(int) 49 => '<p>31. Keeping in view the fact that the tenant has been in possession of the premises for a long period he is granted time up to 31st October, 2008 to vacate the premises.',
	(int) 50 => '<p>32. No order as to costs.<p>',
	(int) 51 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 52
$i = (int) 28
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

18. The Apex Court in Onkar Nath v. Ved Vyas ILR 1979 HP 1, held as follows:

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Shri Arun Bhanwara Vs Shri S L Srivastava - Citation 891084 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '891084',
			'acts' => '',
			'appealno' => '',
			'appellant' => 'Shri Arun Bhanwara',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Shri Arun Bhanwara Vs. Shri S.L. Srivastava',
			'casenote' => ' - CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908.[C.A. No. 5/1908]. Order 14, Rule 2 [As amended by Amending Act of 1976]: [V.K. Gupta, CJ, Deepak Gupta & Surjit Singh, JJ] Preliminary issue of law and fact  Court framing all issues both of law and facts together and also  tried all the issues together, including the issue relating to jurisdiction of Court  Held, Except in situations perceived or warranted under sub-rule (2) of Rule 2 of Order 14 where a  Court in fact frames only issues of law in the first instance and postpones settlement of other issues, clearly and explicitly in situations where the Court has framed all issues together, both of law as well as facts and has also tried all these issues together, it is not open to the Court to adopt the principle of severability and proceed to decide issues of law first, without taking up simultaneously other issues for decision. This course of action is not available to a Court because sub-rule (1) does not permit the  Court to adopt any such principle of severability and to dispose of a suit only on preliminary issues, or what can be termed as issues of law. Sub-rule (1)  clearly mandates that in a situation contemplated under it, where all the issues have been together and have also been taken up for adjudication during the course of the trial, these must be decided together and the judgment in the suit as a whole must be pronounced by the Court covering all the issues framed in the suit.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => 'Ram Narain Arora v. Asha Rani;',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => '',
			'counseldef' => '',
			'court' => 'Himachal Pradesh',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2008-07-31',
			'deposition' => 'Petition allowed',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => ' Deepak Gupta, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">Deepak Gupta, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. This Revision Petition under Section 25(5) of the H.P. Urban Rent Control Act, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) is directed against the order of the learned Appellate Authority, Shimla in CMA No. 60-S/14 of 2001 whereby the appeal filed by the respondent (hereinafter referred to as the tenant) has been allowed, the order of the Rent Controller has been set-aside and the petition for eviction filed by the present petitioner (hereinafter referred to as the Landlord) on the ground of personal bona fide requirement has been set-aside.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The undisputed facts are that the landlord is owner of the demised premises situated in building known as Tunnel View, Sanjauli, Shimla-6 consisting of two bed rooms with attached bath room and latrine, drawing-cum-dining room, kitchen and balcony. These premises were purchased by the landlord in the year 1986. Thereafter, the landlord had rented out the premises to one Sh. B.K. Chauhan. According to the landlord, when he got married he requested Sh. B.K. Chauhan to vacate the said premises. Sh. Chauhan vacated the said premises but admittedly the landlord did not occupy the same but rented out the same to the tenant in the year 1990.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. In the year 1997 the landlord filed a petition for eviction of the tenant on two grounds; firstly that the tenant is in arrears of rent from 1.11.1990 to 31.7.1997 and secondly that the premises are bona fide required by the landlord for the use and occupation of himself and his family.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. This petition was contested by the tenant. After trial, the Rent Controller ordered the eviction of the tenant on two grounds; (i) that the tenant was in arrears of rent from November, 1999 till date of order i.e. 22nd August, 2001 and (ii) that the landlord required the premises for his own use and occupation.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. The tenant deposited the rent within the time prescribed. He also filed an appeal challenging the finding on the issue of bona fide requirement. The learned Appellate Authority came to the conclusion that the landlord had not made a proper and full disclosure of facts as required under the provisions of the Act and had withheld material facts from the Court viz. that the landlord was in occupation of residential premises on 31, Mall Road in the urban area of Shimla and as such rejected this petition on this short ground.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. Aggrieved by the said order, the landlord has filed the present Revision Petition.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. I have heard Sh. Ramakant Sharma, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sh. Bhupinder Gupta, learned senior Counsel for the tenant.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. It has been urged on behalf of the landlord that the building which is alleged to be in possession of the landlord i.e. 31, the Mall Shimla is not a residential building and secondly that the building is not owned by him.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. On the other hand Sh. Bhupinder Gupta, learned Counsel of the tenant has strenuously urged that the landlord in para 18 has not stated anything about any building being owned by him and has only made an averment that he does not own or possess any other such building within the urban area Shimla. It is contended by Sh. Bhupinder Gupta that the landlord of his own volition did not state anything about the ownership of the building and since he has kept silent about the building which he is in occupation he has made a false averment and therefore his petition for eviction has rightly been rejected.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. I am not at all in agreement with the contention of the landlord that the premises known as 31, the Mall Shimla which are admittedly in the occupation of the landlord are commercial premises only and not being used by him for his residence. As pointed out above, the landlord purchased the demised premises in 1986. They fell vacant when he got married despite that he did not occupy the same and rented out the same to the tenant in the year 1990. The question that arises is where was the landlord living for this entire period. According to the landlord after the year 1994 he has been living with his brother-in-law Rajan (wife's brother) PW-2, since the year 1994. Prior to 1994 the landlord will have this Court to believe that he was living off and on with one friend or the other. This story is impossible to believe. The landlord was married in the year 1999. He is an Architect by profession. His wife is a law graduate. It is not believable that such a person would have no permanent abode and would continue to live as a guest with his friends for almost 5 years after his marriage. Even the story that he has been living with his brother-in-law after the year 1994 does not inspire confidence. It stands proved on record that the brother-in-law PW-2 Rajan lives with his own family i.e. wife and children. From the evidence it is also clear that the parents of the brother-in-law also reside with him, His flat consists of only two rooms. The flat in possession of the landlord at 31, the Mall Shimla, also consists of two rooms, kitchen and bath room. Even assuming that he was running an office in the part of the flat it cannot be believed that he would not live on his own flat on the Mall Road and reside with his brother-in-law in cramped premises. Even in the electoral list the landlord is shown to be a resident of 31, The Mall, Shimla. Therefore, I am of the considered view that the building 31, the Mall, Shimla was also being used as a residence by the landlord.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. Having held so, the question that arises is whether the landlord can be non-suited only on the ground that he has not made any disclosure about the residential accommodation available with him which premises were admittedly not owned by him.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. The short question which arises for decision in this petition is whether the landlord was guilty of suppressing and withholding such relevant facts which would disentitle him from seeking eviction of the tenant. To appreciate these contentions it would be necessary to refer to relevant portion of Section 14(3) of the Act:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Section 14:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1 and 2 xxxxxxxxxxx</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(3) A landlord may apply to the Controller for an order directing the tenant to put the landlord in possession-</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(a) in case of residential building, if</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(i) he required it for his own occupation:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Provided that he is not occupying another residential building owned by him, in the urban area concerned:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Provided further that he has not vacated such a building without sufficient cause within five years of the filing of the application, in the said urban area....</p><p style="text-align: justify;">13. A perusal of the bare provisions of the Act makes it clear that there are certain essential ingredients which the landlord must satisfy before seeking eviction of the tenant under the Act. Not only must he prove that the residential building is bona fide required by him for his own use and occupation but he must also plead and prove that he is not occupying any other residential building owned by him in the urban area concerned and further that he has not vacated such a building without sufficient cause within 5 years of the filing of the application.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">14. Reference may now be made to the relevant allegations made in para 18 of the eviction petition:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(ii) That the petitioner bona fide requires the premises for his own use and occupation and also for the use and occupation of his family.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The petitioner does not own or possess any other such building within the urban area of Simla nor the petitioner has vacated any such premises within five years of the filing of this petition.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The family of the petitioner presently consists of himself and his wife. Due to paucity of accommodation the petitioner has not been able to keep his wife with himself at Simla, where he is working as an Engineer and she has been residing at Chandigarh since 1991 but on account of her ill health she has been brought to Simla by the petitioner. The petitioner at present is seeking temporary shelter, from time to time, with his relations.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">15. The learned Appellate Authority came to the conclusion that the landlord had falsely pleaded that he does not own or possess any other such building within the urban area of Shimla and hence rejected the eviction petition on this ground.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">16. On a close analysis of the proviso to Section 14(3)(a)(i) of the Act it is clear that a landlord is not entitled to seek eviction of a tenant from residential building even in case of bona fide requirement if the landlord is occupying another residential building owned by him in the urban area concerned. One can read three essential ingredients in this proviso i.e. (i) that the landlord is in occupation of another residential building; (ii) that the said residential building is owned by him and (iii) that the said residential building is situated in the concerned urban area.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">17. The question that arises is what is the impact of the landlord not making a disclosure in respect of premises which he is occupying but are not owned by him.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">18. The Apex Court in Onkar Nath v. Ved Vyas ILR 1979 HP 1, held as follows:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">It is common ground that there are three requirements to make out a cause of action for eviction under that provision, and indeed this is apparent from a bare reading of the sub-section. In the present case the finding is to the effect that the landlord requires the residential building for his own occupation. But, the legislation has taken care to insist upon two more conditions, namely; (a) that the landlord is not occupying any other residential building in the area concerned; and (b) that he has not vacated such a building without sufficient cause. There is not a scintilla of evidence nor indeed there is any averment in compliance with these latter conditions. The necessary consequence follows that not merely is there inadequacy of pleadings sufficient to make out a cause of action but total absence of proof of two vital requirements....</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The Supreme Court also said that:.The statute benignly designed to protect tenants from unreasonable evictions has taken case to put restrictions which must be rigorously construed to fulfil the purpose of the statute.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">19. Following the aforesaid judgment and other pronouncements of the Apex Court, a learned Single Judge of this Court in Tara Chand Sharma v. Baij Nath and Ors. 1992 (2) R.C.J. 323, held as follows:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">16. What appears as the legislative intent, in bold relief, is that the landlord, while seeking eviction of a tenant on the ground that he needs a residential building for his own occupation, must come out clearly and honestly with facts relating to the requirement that he is not occupying another residential building owned by him, in the urban area concerned and that he had not vacated such a building without sufficient cause within five years of the filing of the application, in the said urban area. The primal burden of making a clear disclosure would lie upon the landlord, for, the true facts would be in his special knowledge. An order in his favour by the Rent Controller would depend upon the satisfaction of the Rent Controller in regard not only to the claim that the landlord requires the accommodation, from which he wishes to evict a tenant, for his own occupation but also that he was not occupying another residential building owned by him nor had he vacated such building without sufficient cause within five years of the filing of the application in the application in the urban area concerned....</p><p style="text-align: justify;">It was further held as under:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">18. That the landlord should make a full disclosure of the relevant facts, pertaining to the requirements of Sub-section (3)(a)(i) and the two provisos, becomes all the more necessary because the satisfaction of the Rent Controller in regard thereto is the condition precedent for the making of an order in favour of the landlord....</p><p style="text-align: justify;">20. The aforesaid judgment has been followed in a number of other cases including Vijay Kapoor v. Maya Ram 1997 (2) RCR 437, wherein another learned single Judge of this Court following the aforesaid judgment held that the landlord must make complete and proper disclosure of all the material facts.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">21. On the other hand Sh. Ramakant Sharma has relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in Ram Narain Arora v. Asha Rani 1998(2) RCR 268. In that case the Rent Controller came to the conclusion that the landlord had suppressed material information and had not disclosed the fact that he was already in occupation of a house in Subji Mandi. Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act reads as follows:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Section 14(1)(e). That the premises let for residential purposes are required bona fide by the landlord for occupation as a residence for himself or for any member of his family dependent on him, if he is the owner thereof, or for any person for whose benefit the premises are held and that the landlord or such person has no other reasonably suitable residential accommodation.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">22. The difference between Delhi Act and the present Act is that under the Delhi Act the only requirement is that the landlord has no other reasonably suitable accommodation whereas under the Himachal Act the residential premises are required to be owned by the landlord. The Apex Court in Rama Narain Arora's case (supra) held that the nondisclosure of the fact that the landlord was in occupation of certain premises in Subji Mandi was.not a ground to non-suit the landlord in view of the facts and circumstances of the case. The Apex Court held as follows:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. In making a claim that the suit premises is required bona fide for his own occupation as a residence for himself and other members of his family dependent on him and that he has no other reasonably suitable accommodation is a requirement of law before the Court can state whether the landlord requires the premises bona fide for his use and occupation. In doing so, the Court must also find out whether the landlord or such other person for whose benefit the premises is required has no other reasonably suitable residential accommodation. It cannot be said that the requirement of the landlord is not intermixed with the question of finding out whether he has any other reasonably suitable accommodation. If he has other reasonably suitable accommodation, ihen necessarily it would mean that he does not require the suit premises and his requirement may not be bona fide. In such circumstances further inquiry would be whether that premises is more suitable than the suit premises. Therefore, the questions raised before the Court would not necessarily depend upon only the pleadings. It could be a good defence that the landlord has other reasonably suitable residential accommodation and thereby defend the claim of the landlord.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. There cannot be a pedantic or a dogmatic approach in the matter of analysis of pleadings or of the evidence adduced thereto. It is no doubt true that if the pleadings are clearly set out, it would be easy for the Court to decide the matters. But if the pleadings are lacking or vague and if both parties have understood what was the case pleaded and put forth with reference to requirement of law and placed such material before the Court, neither party is prejudiced. If we analyse from this angle, we do not think that the High Court was not justified in interfering with the order made by the Rent Controller.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">23. From the perusal of the judgment of the Apex Court it is apparent that the Rent Controller must approach the matter in a practical manner. In case the non-disclosure is such as that it goes to the very root of the case the Rent Controller would be justified in non-suiting the landlord. However, if the non-disclosure is such that it would not prejudice the rights of the respondent then the landlord should not be non-suited only on this ground.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">24. The decisions of this Court cited hereinabove were delivered prior to the judgment delivered by the Apex Court in Ram Nar'ain Arora's case. Further more both in Tara Chand Sharma's case and Vijay Kapoor's case decided by this Court, no averment had been made ixi respect of other residential buildings owned by a landlord. There was complete non-disclosure as to whether any such residential building owned by the landlord was in his possession or not. In the present case, as I have held above, the residential premises at 31, The Mall, Shimla was not owned by the landlord and hence these two earlier judgments of this Court are distinguishable on facts also.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">25. In the present case, the landlord has been non-suited only on the ground that he did not disclose the fact that he was in occupation of certain premises on the Mall Road. Under law he was not required to disclose this fact. He was only required to disclose the factum of occupying another residential building owned by him in the urban area concerned. True it may be, that it would have been better if the landlord had disclosed all the facts but non-disclosure of a fact which he was not under law required to disclose could not in my opinion be a ground to dismiss his eviction petition.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">26. However, what are the premises in his occupation even as a tenant can be taken into consideration while deciding the question whether he bona fide requires the demised premises for his personal use or occupation or not.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">27. Lastly comes the question with regard to the bona fide requirement of the landlord. The landlord has no children. According to the landlord as well as his other witnesses i.e. his brother-in-law PW-2 and his wife PW-3, the wife now wants to come back and settle in Shimla. There is no reason to disbelieve their statements. Even according to the evidence led by the tenant the accommodation in possession of the landlord consists of two rooms, kitchen, bath room etc. Admittedly, the landlord is also having his office as an Architect in this building. The landlord belongs to the middle class of the Society. It cannot be expected of a landlord who owns sufficient property to reside in a two room set wherein he also runs his office.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">28. The law by now is well settled that the landlord is the best judge of the suitability of the accommodation required by him. This suitability has however to be judged in the context of reasonable expectations. The landlord and his wife who are both well educated can reasonably be expected to entertain guests and they will have visitors to their house. They would obviously require a drawing room, a bed room and a spare bed room for guests. Even at his residence the landlord may require another room for his professional work. This is the minimum accommodation which they would require. Even if the accommodation possessed by the landlord, though not owned by him, at 31, the Mall, Shimla is taken into consideration such accommodation is not sufficient to meet his requirements since admittedly the landlord is running his profession of Architect from some portion of his these premises.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">29. Keeping in view the entire facts and circumstances, I am of the considered view that the learned Appellate Authority gravely erred in rejecting the eviction petition of the landlord solely on the ground that he had not disclosed the factum of being in possession of the premises at 31, the Mall Shimla. Even though I have held that the said premises are residential premises, in view of the above discussion I hold that the landlord cannot be non-suited only on the ground of his being in possession of such premises since same were not owned by him.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">30. In view of the above discussion, the Revision Petition is allowed, the order of the learned Appellate Authority dated 6.5.2003 is seaside and the order of the Rent Controller dated 22.8.2001 is restored.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">31. Keeping in view the fact that the tenant has been in possession of the premises for a long period he is granted time up to 31st October, 2008 to vacate the premises.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">32. No order as to costs.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '2008(2)ShimLC491',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'Shri S.L. Srivastava',
			'sub' => 'Tenancy',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'shri-arun-bhanwara-vs-s-l-srivastava',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '891084',
		(int) 1 => 'shri-arun-bhanwara-vs-s-l-srivastava'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Shri Arun Bhanwara Vs Shri S L Srivastava - Citation 891084 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '891084',
		'acts' => '',
		'appealno' => '',
		'appellant' => 'Shri Arun Bhanwara',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Shri Arun Bhanwara Vs. Shri S.L. Srivastava',
		'casenote' => ' - CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908.[C.A. No. 5/1908]. Order 14, Rule 2 [As amended by Amending Act of 1976]: [V.K. Gupta, CJ, Deepak Gupta & Surjit Singh, JJ] Preliminary issue of law and fact  Court framing all issues both of law and facts together and also  tried all the issues together, including the issue relating to jurisdiction of Court  Held, Except in situations perceived or warranted under sub-rule (2) of Rule 2 of Order 14 where a  Court in fact frames only issues of law in the first instance and postpones settlement of other issues, clearly and explicitly in situations where the Court has framed all issues together, both of law as well as facts and has also tried all these issues together, it is not open to the Court to adopt the principle of severability and proceed to decide issues of law first, without taking up simultaneously other issues for decision. This course of action is not available to a Court because sub-rule (1) does not permit the  Court to adopt any such principle of severability and to dispose of a suit only on preliminary issues, or what can be termed as issues of law. Sub-rule (1)  clearly mandates that in a situation contemplated under it, where all the issues have been together and have also been taken up for adjudication during the course of the trial, these must be decided together and the judgment in the suit as a whole must be pronounced by the Court covering all the issues framed in the suit.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => 'Ram Narain Arora v. Asha Rani;',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => '',
		'counseldef' => '',
		'court' => 'Himachal Pradesh',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2008-07-31',
		'deposition' => 'Petition allowed',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => ' Deepak Gupta, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>Deepak Gupta, J.</p><p>1. This Revision Petition under Section 25(5) of the H.P. Urban Rent Control Act, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) is directed against the order of the learned Appellate Authority, Shimla in CMA No. 60-S/14 of 2001 whereby the appeal filed by the respondent (hereinafter referred to as the tenant) has been allowed, the order of the Rent Controller has been set-aside and the petition for eviction filed by the present petitioner (hereinafter referred to as the Landlord) on the ground of personal bona fide requirement has been set-aside.</p><p>2. The undisputed facts are that the landlord is owner of the demised premises situated in building known as Tunnel View, Sanjauli, Shimla-6 consisting of two bed rooms with attached bath room and latrine, drawing-cum-dining room, kitchen and balcony. These premises were purchased by the landlord in the year 1986. Thereafter, the landlord had rented out the premises to one Sh. B.K. Chauhan. According to the landlord, when he got married he requested Sh. B.K. Chauhan to vacate the said premises. Sh. Chauhan vacated the said premises but admittedly the landlord did not occupy the same but rented out the same to the tenant in the year 1990.</p><p>3. In the year 1997 the landlord filed a petition for eviction of the tenant on two grounds; firstly that the tenant is in arrears of rent from 1.11.1990 to 31.7.1997 and secondly that the premises are bona fide required by the landlord for the use and occupation of himself and his family.</p><p>4. This petition was contested by the tenant. After trial, the Rent Controller ordered the eviction of the tenant on two grounds; (i) that the tenant was in arrears of rent from November, 1999 till date of order i.e. 22nd August, 2001 and (ii) that the landlord required the premises for his own use and occupation.</p><p>5. The tenant deposited the rent within the time prescribed. He also filed an appeal challenging the finding on the issue of bona fide requirement. The learned Appellate Authority came to the conclusion that the landlord had not made a proper and full disclosure of facts as required under the provisions of the Act and had withheld material facts from the Court viz. that the landlord was in occupation of residential premises on 31, Mall Road in the urban area of Shimla and as such rejected this petition on this short ground.</p><p>6. Aggrieved by the said order, the landlord has filed the present Revision Petition.</p><p>7. I have heard Sh. Ramakant Sharma, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sh. Bhupinder Gupta, learned senior Counsel for the tenant.</p><p>8. It has been urged on behalf of the landlord that the building which is alleged to be in possession of the landlord i.e. 31, the Mall Shimla is not a residential building and secondly that the building is not owned by him.</p><p>9. On the other hand Sh. Bhupinder Gupta, learned Counsel of the tenant has strenuously urged that the landlord in para 18 has not stated anything about any building being owned by him and has only made an averment that he does not own or possess any other such building within the urban area Shimla. It is contended by Sh. Bhupinder Gupta that the landlord of his own volition did not state anything about the ownership of the building and since he has kept silent about the building which he is in occupation he has made a false averment and therefore his petition for eviction has rightly been rejected.</p><p>10. I am not at all in agreement with the contention of the landlord that the premises known as 31, the Mall Shimla which are admittedly in the occupation of the landlord are commercial premises only and not being used by him for his residence. As pointed out above, the landlord purchased the demised premises in 1986. They fell vacant when he got married despite that he did not occupy the same and rented out the same to the tenant in the year 1990. The question that arises is where was the landlord living for this entire period. According to the landlord after the year 1994 he has been living with his brother-in-law Rajan (wife's brother) PW-2, since the year 1994. Prior to 1994 the landlord will have this Court to believe that he was living off and on with one friend or the other. This story is impossible to believe. The landlord was married in the year 1999. He is an Architect by profession. His wife is a law graduate. It is not believable that such a person would have no permanent abode and would continue to live as a guest with his friends for almost 5 years after his marriage. Even the story that he has been living with his brother-in-law after the year 1994 does not inspire confidence. It stands proved on record that the brother-in-law PW-2 Rajan lives with his own family i.e. wife and children. From the evidence it is also clear that the parents of the brother-in-law also reside with him, His flat consists of only two rooms. The flat in possession of the landlord at 31, the Mall Shimla, also consists of two rooms, kitchen and bath room. Even assuming that he was running an office in the part of the flat it cannot be believed that he would not live on his own flat on the Mall Road and reside with his brother-in-law in cramped premises. Even in the electoral list the landlord is shown to be a resident of 31, The Mall, Shimla. Therefore, I am of the considered view that the building 31, the Mall, Shimla was also being used as a residence by the landlord.</p><p>11. Having held so, the question that arises is whether the landlord can be non-suited only on the ground that he has not made any disclosure about the residential accommodation available with him which premises were admittedly not owned by him.</p><p>12. The short question which arises for decision in this petition is whether the landlord was guilty of suppressing and withholding such relevant facts which would disentitle him from seeking eviction of the tenant. To appreciate these contentions it would be necessary to refer to relevant portion of Section 14(3) of the Act:</p><p>Section 14:</p><p>1 and 2 xxxxxxxxxxx</p><p>(3) A landlord may apply to the Controller for an order directing the tenant to put the landlord in possession-</p><p>(a) in case of residential building, if</p><p>(i) he required it for his own occupation:</p><p>Provided that he is not occupying another residential building owned by him, in the urban area concerned:</p><p>Provided further that he has not vacated such a building without sufficient cause within five years of the filing of the application, in the said urban area....</p><p>13. A perusal of the bare provisions of the Act makes it clear that there are certain essential ingredients which the landlord must satisfy before seeking eviction of the tenant under the Act. Not only must he prove that the residential building is bona fide required by him for his own use and occupation but he must also plead and prove that he is not occupying any other residential building owned by him in the urban area concerned and further that he has not vacated such a building without sufficient cause within 5 years of the filing of the application.</p><p>14. Reference may now be made to the relevant allegations made in para 18 of the eviction petition:</p><p>(ii) That the petitioner bona fide requires the premises for his own use and occupation and also for the use and occupation of his family.</p><p>The petitioner does not own or possess any other such building within the urban area of Simla nor the petitioner has vacated any such premises within five years of the filing of this petition.</p><p>The family of the petitioner presently consists of himself and his wife. Due to paucity of accommodation the petitioner has not been able to keep his wife with himself at Simla, where he is working as an Engineer and she has been residing at Chandigarh since 1991 but on account of her ill health she has been brought to Simla by the petitioner. The petitioner at present is seeking temporary shelter, from time to time, with his relations.</p><p>15. The learned Appellate Authority came to the conclusion that the landlord had falsely pleaded that he does not own or possess any other such building within the urban area of Shimla and hence rejected the eviction petition on this ground.</p><p>16. On a close analysis of the proviso to Section 14(3)(a)(i) of the Act it is clear that a landlord is not entitled to seek eviction of a tenant from residential building even in case of bona fide requirement if the landlord is occupying another residential building owned by him in the urban area concerned. One can read three essential ingredients in this proviso i.e. (i) that the landlord is in occupation of another residential building; (ii) that the said residential building is owned by him and (iii) that the said residential building is situated in the concerned urban area.</p><p>17. The question that arises is what is the impact of the landlord not making a disclosure in respect of premises which he is occupying but are not owned by him.</p><p>18. The Apex Court in Onkar Nath v. Ved Vyas ILR 1979 HP 1, held as follows:</p><p>It is common ground that there are three requirements to make out a cause of action for eviction under that provision, and indeed this is apparent from a bare reading of the sub-section. In the present case the finding is to the effect that the landlord requires the residential building for his own occupation. But, the legislation has taken care to insist upon two more conditions, namely; (a) that the landlord is not occupying any other residential building in the area concerned; and (b) that he has not vacated such a building without sufficient cause. There is not a scintilla of evidence nor indeed there is any averment in compliance with these latter conditions. The necessary consequence follows that not merely is there inadequacy of pleadings sufficient to make out a cause of action but total absence of proof of two vital requirements....</p><p>The Supreme Court also said that:.The statute benignly designed to protect tenants from unreasonable evictions has taken case to put restrictions which must be rigorously construed to fulfil the purpose of the statute.</p><p>19. Following the aforesaid judgment and other pronouncements of the Apex Court, a learned Single Judge of this Court in Tara Chand Sharma v. Baij Nath and Ors. 1992 (2) R.C.J. 323, held as follows:</p><p>16. What appears as the legislative intent, in bold relief, is that the landlord, while seeking eviction of a tenant on the ground that he needs a residential building for his own occupation, must come out clearly and honestly with facts relating to the requirement that he is not occupying another residential building owned by him, in the urban area concerned and that he had not vacated such a building without sufficient cause within five years of the filing of the application, in the said urban area. The primal burden of making a clear disclosure would lie upon the landlord, for, the true facts would be in his special knowledge. An order in his favour by the Rent Controller would depend upon the satisfaction of the Rent Controller in regard not only to the claim that the landlord requires the accommodation, from which he wishes to evict a tenant, for his own occupation but also that he was not occupying another residential building owned by him nor had he vacated such building without sufficient cause within five years of the filing of the application in the application in the urban area concerned....</p><p>It was further held as under:</p><p>18. That the landlord should make a full disclosure of the relevant facts, pertaining to the requirements of Sub-section (3)(a)(i) and the two provisos, becomes all the more necessary because the satisfaction of the Rent Controller in regard thereto is the condition precedent for the making of an order in favour of the landlord....</p><p>20. The aforesaid judgment has been followed in a number of other cases including Vijay Kapoor v. Maya Ram 1997 (2) RCR 437, wherein another learned single Judge of this Court following the aforesaid judgment held that the landlord must make complete and proper disclosure of all the material facts.</p><p>21. On the other hand Sh. Ramakant Sharma has relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in Ram Narain Arora v. Asha Rani 1998(2) RCR 268. In that case the Rent Controller came to the conclusion that the landlord had suppressed material information and had not disclosed the fact that he was already in occupation of a house in Subji Mandi. Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act reads as follows:</p><p>Section 14(1)(e). That the premises let for residential purposes are required bona fide by the landlord for occupation as a residence for himself or for any member of his family dependent on him, if he is the owner thereof, or for any person for whose benefit the premises are held and that the landlord or such person has no other reasonably suitable residential accommodation.</p><p>22. The difference between Delhi Act and the present Act is that under the Delhi Act the only requirement is that the landlord has no other reasonably suitable accommodation whereas under the Himachal Act the residential premises are required to be owned by the landlord. The Apex Court in Rama Narain Arora's case (supra) held that the nondisclosure of the fact that the landlord was in occupation of certain premises in Subji Mandi was.not a ground to non-suit the landlord in view of the facts and circumstances of the case. The Apex Court held as follows:</p><p>9. In making a claim that the suit premises is required bona fide for his own occupation as a residence for himself and other members of his family dependent on him and that he has no other reasonably suitable accommodation is a requirement of law before the Court can state whether the landlord requires the premises bona fide for his use and occupation. In doing so, the Court must also find out whether the landlord or such other person for whose benefit the premises is required has no other reasonably suitable residential accommodation. It cannot be said that the requirement of the landlord is not intermixed with the question of finding out whether he has any other reasonably suitable accommodation. If he has other reasonably suitable accommodation, ihen necessarily it would mean that he does not require the suit premises and his requirement may not be bona fide. In such circumstances further inquiry would be whether that premises is more suitable than the suit premises. Therefore, the questions raised before the Court would not necessarily depend upon only the pleadings. It could be a good defence that the landlord has other reasonably suitable residential accommodation and thereby defend the claim of the landlord.</p><p>10. There cannot be a pedantic or a dogmatic approach in the matter of analysis of pleadings or of the evidence adduced thereto. It is no doubt true that if the pleadings are clearly set out, it would be easy for the Court to decide the matters. But if the pleadings are lacking or vague and if both parties have understood what was the case pleaded and put forth with reference to requirement of law and placed such material before the Court, neither party is prejudiced. If we analyse from this angle, we do not think that the High Court was not justified in interfering with the order made by the Rent Controller.</p><p>23. From the perusal of the judgment of the Apex Court it is apparent that the Rent Controller must approach the matter in a practical manner. In case the non-disclosure is such as that it goes to the very root of the case the Rent Controller would be justified in non-suiting the landlord. However, if the non-disclosure is such that it would not prejudice the rights of the respondent then the landlord should not be non-suited only on this ground.</p><p>24. The decisions of this Court cited hereinabove were delivered prior to the judgment delivered by the Apex Court in Ram Nar'ain Arora's case. Further more both in Tara Chand Sharma's case and Vijay Kapoor's case decided by this Court, no averment had been made ixi respect of other residential buildings owned by a landlord. There was complete non-disclosure as to whether any such residential building owned by the landlord was in his possession or not. In the present case, as I have held above, the residential premises at 31, The Mall, Shimla was not owned by the landlord and hence these two earlier judgments of this Court are distinguishable on facts also.</p><p>25. In the present case, the landlord has been non-suited only on the ground that he did not disclose the fact that he was in occupation of certain premises on the Mall Road. Under law he was not required to disclose this fact. He was only required to disclose the factum of occupying another residential building owned by him in the urban area concerned. True it may be, that it would have been better if the landlord had disclosed all the facts but non-disclosure of a fact which he was not under law required to disclose could not in my opinion be a ground to dismiss his eviction petition.</p><p>26. However, what are the premises in his occupation even as a tenant can be taken into consideration while deciding the question whether he bona fide requires the demised premises for his personal use or occupation or not.</p><p>27. Lastly comes the question with regard to the bona fide requirement of the landlord. The landlord has no children. According to the landlord as well as his other witnesses i.e. his brother-in-law PW-2 and his wife PW-3, the wife now wants to come back and settle in Shimla. There is no reason to disbelieve their statements. Even according to the evidence led by the tenant the accommodation in possession of the landlord consists of two rooms, kitchen, bath room etc. Admittedly, the landlord is also having his office as an Architect in this building. The landlord belongs to the middle class of the Society. It cannot be expected of a landlord who owns sufficient property to reside in a two room set wherein he also runs his office.</p><p>28. The law by now is well settled that the landlord is the best judge of the suitability of the accommodation required by him. This suitability has however to be judged in the context of reasonable expectations. The landlord and his wife who are both well educated can reasonably be expected to entertain guests and they will have visitors to their house. They would obviously require a drawing room, a bed room and a spare bed room for guests. Even at his residence the landlord may require another room for his professional work. This is the minimum accommodation which they would require. Even if the accommodation possessed by the landlord, though not owned by him, at 31, the Mall, Shimla is taken into consideration such accommodation is not sufficient to meet his requirements since admittedly the landlord is running his profession of Architect from some portion of his these premises.</p><p>29. Keeping in view the entire facts and circumstances, I am of the considered view that the learned Appellate Authority gravely erred in rejecting the eviction petition of the landlord solely on the ground that he had not disclosed the factum of being in possession of the premises at 31, the Mall Shimla. Even though I have held that the said premises are residential premises, in view of the above discussion I hold that the landlord cannot be non-suited only on the ground of his being in possession of such premises since same were not owned by him.</p><p>30. In view of the above discussion, the Revision Petition is allowed, the order of the learned Appellate Authority dated 6.5.2003 is seaside and the order of the Rent Controller dated 22.8.2001 is restored.</p><p>31. Keeping in view the fact that the tenant has been in possession of the premises for a long period he is granted time up to 31st October, 2008 to vacate the premises.</p><p>32. No order as to costs.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '2008(2)ShimLC491',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'Shri S.L. Srivastava',
		'sub' => 'Tenancy',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'shri-arun-bhanwara-vs-s-l-srivastava'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '891084',
	(int) 1 => 'shri-arun-bhanwara-vs-s-l-srivastava'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/891084/shri-arun-bhanwara-vs-s-l-srivastava'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$caseref = 'Ram Narain Arora v. Asha Rani<br>'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>Deepak Gupta, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. This Revision Petition under Section 25(5) of the H.P. Urban Rent Control Act, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) is directed against the order of the learned Appellate Authority, Shimla in CMA No. 60-S/14 of 2001 whereby the appeal filed by the respondent (hereinafter referred to as the tenant) has been allowed, the order of the Rent Controller has been set-aside and the petition for eviction filed by the present petitioner (hereinafter referred to as the Landlord) on the ground of personal bona fide requirement has been set-aside.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. The undisputed facts are that the landlord is owner of the demised premises situated in building known as Tunnel View, Sanjauli, Shimla-6 consisting of two bed rooms with attached bath room and latrine, drawing-cum-dining room, kitchen and balcony. These premises were purchased by the landlord in the year 1986. Thereafter, the landlord had rented out the premises to one Sh. B.K. Chauhan. According to the landlord, when he got married he requested Sh. B.K. Chauhan to vacate the said premises. Sh. Chauhan vacated the said premises but admittedly the landlord did not occupy the same but rented out the same to the tenant in the year 1990.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. In the year 1997 the landlord filed a petition for eviction of the tenant on two grounds; firstly that the tenant is in arrears of rent from 1.11.1990 to 31.7.1997 and secondly that the premises are bona fide required by the landlord for the use and occupation of himself and his family.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>4. This petition was contested by the tenant. After trial, the Rent Controller ordered the eviction of the tenant on two grounds; (i) that the tenant was in arrears of rent from November, 1999 till date of order i.e. 22nd August, 2001 and (ii) that the landlord required the premises for his own use and occupation.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>5. The tenant deposited the rent within the time prescribed. He also filed an appeal challenging the finding on the issue of bona fide requirement. The learned Appellate Authority came to the conclusion that the landlord had not made a proper and full disclosure of facts as required under the provisions of the Act and had withheld material facts from the Court viz. that the landlord was in occupation of residential premises on 31, Mall Road in the urban area of Shimla and as such rejected this petition on this short ground.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>6. Aggrieved by the said order, the landlord has filed the present Revision Petition.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>7. I have heard Sh. Ramakant Sharma, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sh. Bhupinder Gupta, learned senior Counsel for the tenant.',
	(int) 8 => '<p>8. It has been urged on behalf of the landlord that the building which is alleged to be in possession of the landlord i.e. 31, the Mall Shimla is not a residential building and secondly that the building is not owned by him.',
	(int) 9 => '<p>9. On the other hand Sh. Bhupinder Gupta, learned Counsel of the tenant has strenuously urged that the landlord in para 18 has not stated anything about any building being owned by him and has only made an averment that he does not own or possess any other such building within the urban area Shimla. It is contended by Sh. Bhupinder Gupta that the landlord of his own volition did not state anything about the ownership of the building and since he has kept silent about the building which he is in occupation he has made a false averment and therefore his petition for eviction has rightly been rejected.',
	(int) 10 => '<p>10. I am not at all in agreement with the contention of the landlord that the premises known as 31, the Mall Shimla which are admittedly in the occupation of the landlord are commercial premises only and not being used by him for his residence. As pointed out above, the landlord purchased the demised premises in 1986. They fell vacant when he got married despite that he did not occupy the same and rented out the same to the tenant in the year 1990. The question that arises is where was the landlord living for this entire period. According to the landlord after the year 1994 he has been living with his brother-in-law Rajan (wife's brother) PW-2, since the year 1994. Prior to 1994 the landlord will have this Court to believe that he was living off and on with one friend or the other. This story is impossible to believe. The landlord was married in the year 1999. He is an Architect by profession. His wife is a law graduate. It is not believable that such a person would have no permanent abode and would continue to live as a guest with his friends for almost 5 years after his marriage. Even the story that he has been living with his brother-in-law after the year 1994 does not inspire confidence. It stands proved on record that the brother-in-law PW-2 Rajan lives with his own family i.e. wife and children. From the evidence it is also clear that the parents of the brother-in-law also reside with him, His flat consists of only two rooms. The flat in possession of the landlord at 31, the Mall Shimla, also consists of two rooms, kitchen and bath room. Even assuming that he was running an office in the part of the flat it cannot be believed that he would not live on his own flat on the Mall Road and reside with his brother-in-law in cramped premises. Even in the electoral list the landlord is shown to be a resident of 31, The Mall, Shimla. Therefore, I am of the considered view that the building 31, the Mall, Shimla was also being used as a residence by the landlord.',
	(int) 11 => '<p>11. Having held so, the question that arises is whether the landlord can be non-suited only on the ground that he has not made any disclosure about the residential accommodation available with him which premises were admittedly not owned by him.',
	(int) 12 => '<p>12. The short question which arises for decision in this petition is whether the landlord was guilty of suppressing and withholding such relevant facts which would disentitle him from seeking eviction of the tenant. To appreciate these contentions it would be necessary to refer to relevant portion of Section 14(3) of the Act:',
	(int) 13 => '<p>Section 14:',
	(int) 14 => '<p>1 and 2 xxxxxxxxxxx',
	(int) 15 => '<p>(3) A landlord may apply to the Controller for an order directing the tenant to put the landlord in possession-',
	(int) 16 => '<p>(a) in case of residential building, if',
	(int) 17 => '<p>(i) he required it for his own occupation:',
	(int) 18 => '<p>Provided that he is not occupying another residential building owned by him, in the urban area concerned:',
	(int) 19 => '<p>Provided further that he has not vacated such a building without sufficient cause within five years of the filing of the application, in the said urban area....',
	(int) 20 => '<p>13. A perusal of the bare provisions of the Act makes it clear that there are certain essential ingredients which the landlord must satisfy before seeking eviction of the tenant under the Act. Not only must he prove that the residential building is bona fide required by him for his own use and occupation but he must also plead and prove that he is not occupying any other residential building owned by him in the urban area concerned and further that he has not vacated such a building without sufficient cause within 5 years of the filing of the application.',
	(int) 21 => '<p>14. Reference may now be made to the relevant allegations made in para 18 of the eviction petition:',
	(int) 22 => '<p>(ii) That the petitioner bona fide requires the premises for his own use and occupation and also for the use and occupation of his family.',
	(int) 23 => '<p>The petitioner does not own or possess any other such building within the urban area of Simla nor the petitioner has vacated any such premises within five years of the filing of this petition.',
	(int) 24 => '<p>The family of the petitioner presently consists of himself and his wife. Due to paucity of accommodation the petitioner has not been able to keep his wife with himself at Simla, where he is working as an Engineer and she has been residing at Chandigarh since 1991 but on account of her ill health she has been brought to Simla by the petitioner. The petitioner at present is seeking temporary shelter, from time to time, with his relations.',
	(int) 25 => '<p>15. The learned Appellate Authority came to the conclusion that the landlord had falsely pleaded that he does not own or possess any other such building within the urban area of Shimla and hence rejected the eviction petition on this ground.',
	(int) 26 => '<p>16. On a close analysis of the proviso to Section 14(3)(a)(i) of the Act it is clear that a landlord is not entitled to seek eviction of a tenant from residential building even in case of bona fide requirement if the landlord is occupying another residential building owned by him in the urban area concerned. One can read three essential ingredients in this proviso i.e. (i) that the landlord is in occupation of another residential building; (ii) that the said residential building is owned by him and (iii) that the said residential building is situated in the concerned urban area.',
	(int) 27 => '<p>17. The question that arises is what is the impact of the landlord not making a disclosure in respect of premises which he is occupying but are not owned by him.',
	(int) 28 => '<p>18. The Apex Court in Onkar Nath v. Ved Vyas ILR 1979 HP 1, held as follows:',
	(int) 29 => '<p>It is common ground that there are three requirements to make out a cause of action for eviction under that provision, and indeed this is apparent from a bare reading of the sub-section. In the present case the finding is to the effect that the landlord requires the residential building for his own occupation. But, the legislation has taken care to insist upon two more conditions, namely; (a) that the landlord is not occupying any other residential building in the area concerned; and (b) that he has not vacated such a building without sufficient cause. There is not a scintilla of evidence nor indeed there is any averment in compliance with these latter conditions. The necessary consequence follows that not merely is there inadequacy of pleadings sufficient to make out a cause of action but total absence of proof of two vital requirements....',
	(int) 30 => '<p>The Supreme Court also said that:.The statute benignly designed to protect tenants from unreasonable evictions has taken case to put restrictions which must be rigorously construed to fulfil the purpose of the statute.',
	(int) 31 => '<p>19. Following the aforesaid judgment and other pronouncements of the Apex Court, a learned Single Judge of this Court in Tara Chand Sharma v. Baij Nath and Ors. 1992 (2) R.C.J. 323, held as follows:',
	(int) 32 => '<p>16. What appears as the legislative intent, in bold relief, is that the landlord, while seeking eviction of a tenant on the ground that he needs a residential building for his own occupation, must come out clearly and honestly with facts relating to the requirement that he is not occupying another residential building owned by him, in the urban area concerned and that he had not vacated such a building without sufficient cause within five years of the filing of the application, in the said urban area. The primal burden of making a clear disclosure would lie upon the landlord, for, the true facts would be in his special knowledge. An order in his favour by the Rent Controller would depend upon the satisfaction of the Rent Controller in regard not only to the claim that the landlord requires the accommodation, from which he wishes to evict a tenant, for his own occupation but also that he was not occupying another residential building owned by him nor had he vacated such building without sufficient cause within five years of the filing of the application in the application in the urban area concerned....',
	(int) 33 => '<p>It was further held as under:',
	(int) 34 => '<p>18. That the landlord should make a full disclosure of the relevant facts, pertaining to the requirements of Sub-section (3)(a)(i) and the two provisos, becomes all the more necessary because the satisfaction of the Rent Controller in regard thereto is the condition precedent for the making of an order in favour of the landlord....',
	(int) 35 => '<p>20. The aforesaid judgment has been followed in a number of other cases including Vijay Kapoor v. Maya Ram 1997 (2) RCR 437, wherein another learned single Judge of this Court following the aforesaid judgment held that the landlord must make complete and proper disclosure of all the material facts.',
	(int) 36 => '<p>21. On the other hand Sh. Ramakant Sharma has relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in Ram Narain Arora v. Asha Rani 1998(2) RCR 268. In that case the Rent Controller came to the conclusion that the landlord had suppressed material information and had not disclosed the fact that he was already in occupation of a house in Subji Mandi. Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act reads as follows:',
	(int) 37 => '<p>Section 14(1)(e). That the premises let for residential purposes are required bona fide by the landlord for occupation as a residence for himself or for any member of his family dependent on him, if he is the owner thereof, or for any person for whose benefit the premises are held and that the landlord or such person has no other reasonably suitable residential accommodation.',
	(int) 38 => '<p>22. The difference between Delhi Act and the present Act is that under the Delhi Act the only requirement is that the landlord has no other reasonably suitable accommodation whereas under the Himachal Act the residential premises are required to be owned by the landlord. The Apex Court in Rama Narain Arora's case (supra) held that the nondisclosure of the fact that the landlord was in occupation of certain premises in Subji Mandi was.not a ground to non-suit the landlord in view of the facts and circumstances of the case. The Apex Court held as follows:',
	(int) 39 => '<p>9. In making a claim that the suit premises is required bona fide for his own occupation as a residence for himself and other members of his family dependent on him and that he has no other reasonably suitable accommodation is a requirement of law before the Court can state whether the landlord requires the premises bona fide for his use and occupation. In doing so, the Court must also find out whether the landlord or such other person for whose benefit the premises is required has no other reasonably suitable residential accommodation. It cannot be said that the requirement of the landlord is not intermixed with the question of finding out whether he has any other reasonably suitable accommodation. If he has other reasonably suitable accommodation, ihen necessarily it would mean that he does not require the suit premises and his requirement may not be bona fide. In such circumstances further inquiry would be whether that premises is more suitable than the suit premises. Therefore, the questions raised before the Court would not necessarily depend upon only the pleadings. It could be a good defence that the landlord has other reasonably suitable residential accommodation and thereby defend the claim of the landlord.',
	(int) 40 => '<p>10. There cannot be a pedantic or a dogmatic approach in the matter of analysis of pleadings or of the evidence adduced thereto. It is no doubt true that if the pleadings are clearly set out, it would be easy for the Court to decide the matters. But if the pleadings are lacking or vague and if both parties have understood what was the case pleaded and put forth with reference to requirement of law and placed such material before the Court, neither party is prejudiced. If we analyse from this angle, we do not think that the High Court was not justified in interfering with the order made by the Rent Controller.',
	(int) 41 => '<p>23. From the perusal of the judgment of the Apex Court it is apparent that the Rent Controller must approach the matter in a practical manner. In case the non-disclosure is such as that it goes to the very root of the case the Rent Controller would be justified in non-suiting the landlord. However, if the non-disclosure is such that it would not prejudice the rights of the respondent then the landlord should not be non-suited only on this ground.',
	(int) 42 => '<p>24. The decisions of this Court cited hereinabove were delivered prior to the judgment delivered by the Apex Court in Ram Nar'ain Arora's case. Further more both in Tara Chand Sharma's case and Vijay Kapoor's case decided by this Court, no averment had been made ixi respect of other residential buildings owned by a landlord. There was complete non-disclosure as to whether any such residential building owned by the landlord was in his possession or not. In the present case, as I have held above, the residential premises at 31, The Mall, Shimla was not owned by the landlord and hence these two earlier judgments of this Court are distinguishable on facts also.',
	(int) 43 => '<p>25. In the present case, the landlord has been non-suited only on the ground that he did not disclose the fact that he was in occupation of certain premises on the Mall Road. Under law he was not required to disclose this fact. He was only required to disclose the factum of occupying another residential building owned by him in the urban area concerned. True it may be, that it would have been better if the landlord had disclosed all the facts but non-disclosure of a fact which he was not under law required to disclose could not in my opinion be a ground to dismiss his eviction petition.',
	(int) 44 => '<p>26. However, what are the premises in his occupation even as a tenant can be taken into consideration while deciding the question whether he bona fide requires the demised premises for his personal use or occupation or not.',
	(int) 45 => '<p>27. Lastly comes the question with regard to the bona fide requirement of the landlord. The landlord has no children. According to the landlord as well as his other witnesses i.e. his brother-in-law PW-2 and his wife PW-3, the wife now wants to come back and settle in Shimla. There is no reason to disbelieve their statements. Even according to the evidence led by the tenant the accommodation in possession of the landlord consists of two rooms, kitchen, bath room etc. Admittedly, the landlord is also having his office as an Architect in this building. The landlord belongs to the middle class of the Society. It cannot be expected of a landlord who owns sufficient property to reside in a two room set wherein he also runs his office.',
	(int) 46 => '<p>28. The law by now is well settled that the landlord is the best judge of the suitability of the accommodation required by him. This suitability has however to be judged in the context of reasonable expectations. The landlord and his wife who are both well educated can reasonably be expected to entertain guests and they will have visitors to their house. They would obviously require a drawing room, a bed room and a spare bed room for guests. Even at his residence the landlord may require another room for his professional work. This is the minimum accommodation which they would require. Even if the accommodation possessed by the landlord, though not owned by him, at 31, the Mall, Shimla is taken into consideration such accommodation is not sufficient to meet his requirements since admittedly the landlord is running his profession of Architect from some portion of his these premises.',
	(int) 47 => '<p>29. Keeping in view the entire facts and circumstances, I am of the considered view that the learned Appellate Authority gravely erred in rejecting the eviction petition of the landlord solely on the ground that he had not disclosed the factum of being in possession of the premises at 31, the Mall Shimla. Even though I have held that the said premises are residential premises, in view of the above discussion I hold that the landlord cannot be non-suited only on the ground of his being in possession of such premises since same were not owned by him.',
	(int) 48 => '<p>30. In view of the above discussion, the Revision Petition is allowed, the order of the learned Appellate Authority dated 6.5.2003 is seaside and the order of the Rent Controller dated 22.8.2001 is restored.',
	(int) 49 => '<p>31. Keeping in view the fact that the tenant has been in possession of the premises for a long period he is granted time up to 31st October, 2008 to vacate the premises.',
	(int) 50 => '<p>32. No order as to costs.<p>',
	(int) 51 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 52
$i = (int) 29
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

It is common ground that there are three requirements to make out a cause of action for eviction under that provision, and indeed this is apparent from a bare reading of the sub-section. In the present case the finding is to the effect that the landlord requires the residential building for his own occupation. But, the legislation has taken care to insist upon two more conditions, namely; (a) that the landlord is not occupying any other residential building in the area concerned; and (b) that he has not vacated such a building without sufficient cause. There is not a scintilla of evidence nor indeed there is any averment in compliance with these latter conditions. The necessary consequence follows that not merely is there inadequacy of pleadings sufficient to make out a cause of action but total absence of proof of two vital requirements....

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Shri Arun Bhanwara Vs Shri S L Srivastava - Citation 891084 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '891084',
			'acts' => '',
			'appealno' => '',
			'appellant' => 'Shri Arun Bhanwara',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Shri Arun Bhanwara Vs. Shri S.L. Srivastava',
			'casenote' => ' - CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908.[C.A. No. 5/1908]. Order 14, Rule 2 [As amended by Amending Act of 1976]: [V.K. Gupta, CJ, Deepak Gupta & Surjit Singh, JJ] Preliminary issue of law and fact  Court framing all issues both of law and facts together and also  tried all the issues together, including the issue relating to jurisdiction of Court  Held, Except in situations perceived or warranted under sub-rule (2) of Rule 2 of Order 14 where a  Court in fact frames only issues of law in the first instance and postpones settlement of other issues, clearly and explicitly in situations where the Court has framed all issues together, both of law as well as facts and has also tried all these issues together, it is not open to the Court to adopt the principle of severability and proceed to decide issues of law first, without taking up simultaneously other issues for decision. This course of action is not available to a Court because sub-rule (1) does not permit the  Court to adopt any such principle of severability and to dispose of a suit only on preliminary issues, or what can be termed as issues of law. Sub-rule (1)  clearly mandates that in a situation contemplated under it, where all the issues have been together and have also been taken up for adjudication during the course of the trial, these must be decided together and the judgment in the suit as a whole must be pronounced by the Court covering all the issues framed in the suit.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => 'Ram Narain Arora v. Asha Rani;',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => '',
			'counseldef' => '',
			'court' => 'Himachal Pradesh',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2008-07-31',
			'deposition' => 'Petition allowed',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => ' Deepak Gupta, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">Deepak Gupta, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. This Revision Petition under Section 25(5) of the H.P. Urban Rent Control Act, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) is directed against the order of the learned Appellate Authority, Shimla in CMA No. 60-S/14 of 2001 whereby the appeal filed by the respondent (hereinafter referred to as the tenant) has been allowed, the order of the Rent Controller has been set-aside and the petition for eviction filed by the present petitioner (hereinafter referred to as the Landlord) on the ground of personal bona fide requirement has been set-aside.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The undisputed facts are that the landlord is owner of the demised premises situated in building known as Tunnel View, Sanjauli, Shimla-6 consisting of two bed rooms with attached bath room and latrine, drawing-cum-dining room, kitchen and balcony. These premises were purchased by the landlord in the year 1986. Thereafter, the landlord had rented out the premises to one Sh. B.K. Chauhan. According to the landlord, when he got married he requested Sh. B.K. Chauhan to vacate the said premises. Sh. Chauhan vacated the said premises but admittedly the landlord did not occupy the same but rented out the same to the tenant in the year 1990.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. In the year 1997 the landlord filed a petition for eviction of the tenant on two grounds; firstly that the tenant is in arrears of rent from 1.11.1990 to 31.7.1997 and secondly that the premises are bona fide required by the landlord for the use and occupation of himself and his family.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. This petition was contested by the tenant. After trial, the Rent Controller ordered the eviction of the tenant on two grounds; (i) that the tenant was in arrears of rent from November, 1999 till date of order i.e. 22nd August, 2001 and (ii) that the landlord required the premises for his own use and occupation.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. The tenant deposited the rent within the time prescribed. He also filed an appeal challenging the finding on the issue of bona fide requirement. The learned Appellate Authority came to the conclusion that the landlord had not made a proper and full disclosure of facts as required under the provisions of the Act and had withheld material facts from the Court viz. that the landlord was in occupation of residential premises on 31, Mall Road in the urban area of Shimla and as such rejected this petition on this short ground.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. Aggrieved by the said order, the landlord has filed the present Revision Petition.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. I have heard Sh. Ramakant Sharma, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sh. Bhupinder Gupta, learned senior Counsel for the tenant.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. It has been urged on behalf of the landlord that the building which is alleged to be in possession of the landlord i.e. 31, the Mall Shimla is not a residential building and secondly that the building is not owned by him.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. On the other hand Sh. Bhupinder Gupta, learned Counsel of the tenant has strenuously urged that the landlord in para 18 has not stated anything about any building being owned by him and has only made an averment that he does not own or possess any other such building within the urban area Shimla. It is contended by Sh. Bhupinder Gupta that the landlord of his own volition did not state anything about the ownership of the building and since he has kept silent about the building which he is in occupation he has made a false averment and therefore his petition for eviction has rightly been rejected.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. I am not at all in agreement with the contention of the landlord that the premises known as 31, the Mall Shimla which are admittedly in the occupation of the landlord are commercial premises only and not being used by him for his residence. As pointed out above, the landlord purchased the demised premises in 1986. They fell vacant when he got married despite that he did not occupy the same and rented out the same to the tenant in the year 1990. The question that arises is where was the landlord living for this entire period. According to the landlord after the year 1994 he has been living with his brother-in-law Rajan (wife's brother) PW-2, since the year 1994. Prior to 1994 the landlord will have this Court to believe that he was living off and on with one friend or the other. This story is impossible to believe. The landlord was married in the year 1999. He is an Architect by profession. His wife is a law graduate. It is not believable that such a person would have no permanent abode and would continue to live as a guest with his friends for almost 5 years after his marriage. Even the story that he has been living with his brother-in-law after the year 1994 does not inspire confidence. It stands proved on record that the brother-in-law PW-2 Rajan lives with his own family i.e. wife and children. From the evidence it is also clear that the parents of the brother-in-law also reside with him, His flat consists of only two rooms. The flat in possession of the landlord at 31, the Mall Shimla, also consists of two rooms, kitchen and bath room. Even assuming that he was running an office in the part of the flat it cannot be believed that he would not live on his own flat on the Mall Road and reside with his brother-in-law in cramped premises. Even in the electoral list the landlord is shown to be a resident of 31, The Mall, Shimla. Therefore, I am of the considered view that the building 31, the Mall, Shimla was also being used as a residence by the landlord.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. Having held so, the question that arises is whether the landlord can be non-suited only on the ground that he has not made any disclosure about the residential accommodation available with him which premises were admittedly not owned by him.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. The short question which arises for decision in this petition is whether the landlord was guilty of suppressing and withholding such relevant facts which would disentitle him from seeking eviction of the tenant. To appreciate these contentions it would be necessary to refer to relevant portion of Section 14(3) of the Act:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Section 14:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1 and 2 xxxxxxxxxxx</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(3) A landlord may apply to the Controller for an order directing the tenant to put the landlord in possession-</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(a) in case of residential building, if</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(i) he required it for his own occupation:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Provided that he is not occupying another residential building owned by him, in the urban area concerned:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Provided further that he has not vacated such a building without sufficient cause within five years of the filing of the application, in the said urban area....</p><p style="text-align: justify;">13. A perusal of the bare provisions of the Act makes it clear that there are certain essential ingredients which the landlord must satisfy before seeking eviction of the tenant under the Act. Not only must he prove that the residential building is bona fide required by him for his own use and occupation but he must also plead and prove that he is not occupying any other residential building owned by him in the urban area concerned and further that he has not vacated such a building without sufficient cause within 5 years of the filing of the application.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">14. Reference may now be made to the relevant allegations made in para 18 of the eviction petition:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(ii) That the petitioner bona fide requires the premises for his own use and occupation and also for the use and occupation of his family.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The petitioner does not own or possess any other such building within the urban area of Simla nor the petitioner has vacated any such premises within five years of the filing of this petition.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The family of the petitioner presently consists of himself and his wife. Due to paucity of accommodation the petitioner has not been able to keep his wife with himself at Simla, where he is working as an Engineer and she has been residing at Chandigarh since 1991 but on account of her ill health she has been brought to Simla by the petitioner. The petitioner at present is seeking temporary shelter, from time to time, with his relations.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">15. The learned Appellate Authority came to the conclusion that the landlord had falsely pleaded that he does not own or possess any other such building within the urban area of Shimla and hence rejected the eviction petition on this ground.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">16. On a close analysis of the proviso to Section 14(3)(a)(i) of the Act it is clear that a landlord is not entitled to seek eviction of a tenant from residential building even in case of bona fide requirement if the landlord is occupying another residential building owned by him in the urban area concerned. One can read three essential ingredients in this proviso i.e. (i) that the landlord is in occupation of another residential building; (ii) that the said residential building is owned by him and (iii) that the said residential building is situated in the concerned urban area.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">17. The question that arises is what is the impact of the landlord not making a disclosure in respect of premises which he is occupying but are not owned by him.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">18. The Apex Court in Onkar Nath v. Ved Vyas ILR 1979 HP 1, held as follows:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">It is common ground that there are three requirements to make out a cause of action for eviction under that provision, and indeed this is apparent from a bare reading of the sub-section. In the present case the finding is to the effect that the landlord requires the residential building for his own occupation. But, the legislation has taken care to insist upon two more conditions, namely; (a) that the landlord is not occupying any other residential building in the area concerned; and (b) that he has not vacated such a building without sufficient cause. There is not a scintilla of evidence nor indeed there is any averment in compliance with these latter conditions. The necessary consequence follows that not merely is there inadequacy of pleadings sufficient to make out a cause of action but total absence of proof of two vital requirements....</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The Supreme Court also said that:.The statute benignly designed to protect tenants from unreasonable evictions has taken case to put restrictions which must be rigorously construed to fulfil the purpose of the statute.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">19. Following the aforesaid judgment and other pronouncements of the Apex Court, a learned Single Judge of this Court in Tara Chand Sharma v. Baij Nath and Ors. 1992 (2) R.C.J. 323, held as follows:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">16. What appears as the legislative intent, in bold relief, is that the landlord, while seeking eviction of a tenant on the ground that he needs a residential building for his own occupation, must come out clearly and honestly with facts relating to the requirement that he is not occupying another residential building owned by him, in the urban area concerned and that he had not vacated such a building without sufficient cause within five years of the filing of the application, in the said urban area. The primal burden of making a clear disclosure would lie upon the landlord, for, the true facts would be in his special knowledge. An order in his favour by the Rent Controller would depend upon the satisfaction of the Rent Controller in regard not only to the claim that the landlord requires the accommodation, from which he wishes to evict a tenant, for his own occupation but also that he was not occupying another residential building owned by him nor had he vacated such building without sufficient cause within five years of the filing of the application in the application in the urban area concerned....</p><p style="text-align: justify;">It was further held as under:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">18. That the landlord should make a full disclosure of the relevant facts, pertaining to the requirements of Sub-section (3)(a)(i) and the two provisos, becomes all the more necessary because the satisfaction of the Rent Controller in regard thereto is the condition precedent for the making of an order in favour of the landlord....</p><p style="text-align: justify;">20. The aforesaid judgment has been followed in a number of other cases including Vijay Kapoor v. Maya Ram 1997 (2) RCR 437, wherein another learned single Judge of this Court following the aforesaid judgment held that the landlord must make complete and proper disclosure of all the material facts.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">21. On the other hand Sh. Ramakant Sharma has relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in Ram Narain Arora v. Asha Rani 1998(2) RCR 268. In that case the Rent Controller came to the conclusion that the landlord had suppressed material information and had not disclosed the fact that he was already in occupation of a house in Subji Mandi. Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act reads as follows:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Section 14(1)(e). That the premises let for residential purposes are required bona fide by the landlord for occupation as a residence for himself or for any member of his family dependent on him, if he is the owner thereof, or for any person for whose benefit the premises are held and that the landlord or such person has no other reasonably suitable residential accommodation.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">22. The difference between Delhi Act and the present Act is that under the Delhi Act the only requirement is that the landlord has no other reasonably suitable accommodation whereas under the Himachal Act the residential premises are required to be owned by the landlord. The Apex Court in Rama Narain Arora's case (supra) held that the nondisclosure of the fact that the landlord was in occupation of certain premises in Subji Mandi was.not a ground to non-suit the landlord in view of the facts and circumstances of the case. The Apex Court held as follows:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. In making a claim that the suit premises is required bona fide for his own occupation as a residence for himself and other members of his family dependent on him and that he has no other reasonably suitable accommodation is a requirement of law before the Court can state whether the landlord requires the premises bona fide for his use and occupation. In doing so, the Court must also find out whether the landlord or such other person for whose benefit the premises is required has no other reasonably suitable residential accommodation. It cannot be said that the requirement of the landlord is not intermixed with the question of finding out whether he has any other reasonably suitable accommodation. If he has other reasonably suitable accommodation, ihen necessarily it would mean that he does not require the suit premises and his requirement may not be bona fide. In such circumstances further inquiry would be whether that premises is more suitable than the suit premises. Therefore, the questions raised before the Court would not necessarily depend upon only the pleadings. It could be a good defence that the landlord has other reasonably suitable residential accommodation and thereby defend the claim of the landlord.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. There cannot be a pedantic or a dogmatic approach in the matter of analysis of pleadings or of the evidence adduced thereto. It is no doubt true that if the pleadings are clearly set out, it would be easy for the Court to decide the matters. But if the pleadings are lacking or vague and if both parties have understood what was the case pleaded and put forth with reference to requirement of law and placed such material before the Court, neither party is prejudiced. If we analyse from this angle, we do not think that the High Court was not justified in interfering with the order made by the Rent Controller.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">23. From the perusal of the judgment of the Apex Court it is apparent that the Rent Controller must approach the matter in a practical manner. In case the non-disclosure is such as that it goes to the very root of the case the Rent Controller would be justified in non-suiting the landlord. However, if the non-disclosure is such that it would not prejudice the rights of the respondent then the landlord should not be non-suited only on this ground.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">24. The decisions of this Court cited hereinabove were delivered prior to the judgment delivered by the Apex Court in Ram Nar'ain Arora's case. Further more both in Tara Chand Sharma's case and Vijay Kapoor's case decided by this Court, no averment had been made ixi respect of other residential buildings owned by a landlord. There was complete non-disclosure as to whether any such residential building owned by the landlord was in his possession or not. In the present case, as I have held above, the residential premises at 31, The Mall, Shimla was not owned by the landlord and hence these two earlier judgments of this Court are distinguishable on facts also.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">25. In the present case, the landlord has been non-suited only on the ground that he did not disclose the fact that he was in occupation of certain premises on the Mall Road. Under law he was not required to disclose this fact. He was only required to disclose the factum of occupying another residential building owned by him in the urban area concerned. True it may be, that it would have been better if the landlord had disclosed all the facts but non-disclosure of a fact which he was not under law required to disclose could not in my opinion be a ground to dismiss his eviction petition.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">26. However, what are the premises in his occupation even as a tenant can be taken into consideration while deciding the question whether he bona fide requires the demised premises for his personal use or occupation or not.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">27. Lastly comes the question with regard to the bona fide requirement of the landlord. The landlord has no children. According to the landlord as well as his other witnesses i.e. his brother-in-law PW-2 and his wife PW-3, the wife now wants to come back and settle in Shimla. There is no reason to disbelieve their statements. Even according to the evidence led by the tenant the accommodation in possession of the landlord consists of two rooms, kitchen, bath room etc. Admittedly, the landlord is also having his office as an Architect in this building. The landlord belongs to the middle class of the Society. It cannot be expected of a landlord who owns sufficient property to reside in a two room set wherein he also runs his office.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">28. The law by now is well settled that the landlord is the best judge of the suitability of the accommodation required by him. This suitability has however to be judged in the context of reasonable expectations. The landlord and his wife who are both well educated can reasonably be expected to entertain guests and they will have visitors to their house. They would obviously require a drawing room, a bed room and a spare bed room for guests. Even at his residence the landlord may require another room for his professional work. This is the minimum accommodation which they would require. Even if the accommodation possessed by the landlord, though not owned by him, at 31, the Mall, Shimla is taken into consideration such accommodation is not sufficient to meet his requirements since admittedly the landlord is running his profession of Architect from some portion of his these premises.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">29. Keeping in view the entire facts and circumstances, I am of the considered view that the learned Appellate Authority gravely erred in rejecting the eviction petition of the landlord solely on the ground that he had not disclosed the factum of being in possession of the premises at 31, the Mall Shimla. Even though I have held that the said premises are residential premises, in view of the above discussion I hold that the landlord cannot be non-suited only on the ground of his being in possession of such premises since same were not owned by him.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">30. In view of the above discussion, the Revision Petition is allowed, the order of the learned Appellate Authority dated 6.5.2003 is seaside and the order of the Rent Controller dated 22.8.2001 is restored.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">31. Keeping in view the fact that the tenant has been in possession of the premises for a long period he is granted time up to 31st October, 2008 to vacate the premises.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">32. No order as to costs.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '2008(2)ShimLC491',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'Shri S.L. Srivastava',
			'sub' => 'Tenancy',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'shri-arun-bhanwara-vs-s-l-srivastava',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '891084',
		(int) 1 => 'shri-arun-bhanwara-vs-s-l-srivastava'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Shri Arun Bhanwara Vs Shri S L Srivastava - Citation 891084 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '891084',
		'acts' => '',
		'appealno' => '',
		'appellant' => 'Shri Arun Bhanwara',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Shri Arun Bhanwara Vs. Shri S.L. Srivastava',
		'casenote' => ' - CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908.[C.A. No. 5/1908]. Order 14, Rule 2 [As amended by Amending Act of 1976]: [V.K. Gupta, CJ, Deepak Gupta & Surjit Singh, JJ] Preliminary issue of law and fact  Court framing all issues both of law and facts together and also  tried all the issues together, including the issue relating to jurisdiction of Court  Held, Except in situations perceived or warranted under sub-rule (2) of Rule 2 of Order 14 where a  Court in fact frames only issues of law in the first instance and postpones settlement of other issues, clearly and explicitly in situations where the Court has framed all issues together, both of law as well as facts and has also tried all these issues together, it is not open to the Court to adopt the principle of severability and proceed to decide issues of law first, without taking up simultaneously other issues for decision. This course of action is not available to a Court because sub-rule (1) does not permit the  Court to adopt any such principle of severability and to dispose of a suit only on preliminary issues, or what can be termed as issues of law. Sub-rule (1)  clearly mandates that in a situation contemplated under it, where all the issues have been together and have also been taken up for adjudication during the course of the trial, these must be decided together and the judgment in the suit as a whole must be pronounced by the Court covering all the issues framed in the suit.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => 'Ram Narain Arora v. Asha Rani;',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => '',
		'counseldef' => '',
		'court' => 'Himachal Pradesh',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2008-07-31',
		'deposition' => 'Petition allowed',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => ' Deepak Gupta, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>Deepak Gupta, J.</p><p>1. This Revision Petition under Section 25(5) of the H.P. Urban Rent Control Act, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) is directed against the order of the learned Appellate Authority, Shimla in CMA No. 60-S/14 of 2001 whereby the appeal filed by the respondent (hereinafter referred to as the tenant) has been allowed, the order of the Rent Controller has been set-aside and the petition for eviction filed by the present petitioner (hereinafter referred to as the Landlord) on the ground of personal bona fide requirement has been set-aside.</p><p>2. The undisputed facts are that the landlord is owner of the demised premises situated in building known as Tunnel View, Sanjauli, Shimla-6 consisting of two bed rooms with attached bath room and latrine, drawing-cum-dining room, kitchen and balcony. These premises were purchased by the landlord in the year 1986. Thereafter, the landlord had rented out the premises to one Sh. B.K. Chauhan. According to the landlord, when he got married he requested Sh. B.K. Chauhan to vacate the said premises. Sh. Chauhan vacated the said premises but admittedly the landlord did not occupy the same but rented out the same to the tenant in the year 1990.</p><p>3. In the year 1997 the landlord filed a petition for eviction of the tenant on two grounds; firstly that the tenant is in arrears of rent from 1.11.1990 to 31.7.1997 and secondly that the premises are bona fide required by the landlord for the use and occupation of himself and his family.</p><p>4. This petition was contested by the tenant. After trial, the Rent Controller ordered the eviction of the tenant on two grounds; (i) that the tenant was in arrears of rent from November, 1999 till date of order i.e. 22nd August, 2001 and (ii) that the landlord required the premises for his own use and occupation.</p><p>5. The tenant deposited the rent within the time prescribed. He also filed an appeal challenging the finding on the issue of bona fide requirement. The learned Appellate Authority came to the conclusion that the landlord had not made a proper and full disclosure of facts as required under the provisions of the Act and had withheld material facts from the Court viz. that the landlord was in occupation of residential premises on 31, Mall Road in the urban area of Shimla and as such rejected this petition on this short ground.</p><p>6. Aggrieved by the said order, the landlord has filed the present Revision Petition.</p><p>7. I have heard Sh. Ramakant Sharma, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sh. Bhupinder Gupta, learned senior Counsel for the tenant.</p><p>8. It has been urged on behalf of the landlord that the building which is alleged to be in possession of the landlord i.e. 31, the Mall Shimla is not a residential building and secondly that the building is not owned by him.</p><p>9. On the other hand Sh. Bhupinder Gupta, learned Counsel of the tenant has strenuously urged that the landlord in para 18 has not stated anything about any building being owned by him and has only made an averment that he does not own or possess any other such building within the urban area Shimla. It is contended by Sh. Bhupinder Gupta that the landlord of his own volition did not state anything about the ownership of the building and since he has kept silent about the building which he is in occupation he has made a false averment and therefore his petition for eviction has rightly been rejected.</p><p>10. I am not at all in agreement with the contention of the landlord that the premises known as 31, the Mall Shimla which are admittedly in the occupation of the landlord are commercial premises only and not being used by him for his residence. As pointed out above, the landlord purchased the demised premises in 1986. They fell vacant when he got married despite that he did not occupy the same and rented out the same to the tenant in the year 1990. The question that arises is where was the landlord living for this entire period. According to the landlord after the year 1994 he has been living with his brother-in-law Rajan (wife's brother) PW-2, since the year 1994. Prior to 1994 the landlord will have this Court to believe that he was living off and on with one friend or the other. This story is impossible to believe. The landlord was married in the year 1999. He is an Architect by profession. His wife is a law graduate. It is not believable that such a person would have no permanent abode and would continue to live as a guest with his friends for almost 5 years after his marriage. Even the story that he has been living with his brother-in-law after the year 1994 does not inspire confidence. It stands proved on record that the brother-in-law PW-2 Rajan lives with his own family i.e. wife and children. From the evidence it is also clear that the parents of the brother-in-law also reside with him, His flat consists of only two rooms. The flat in possession of the landlord at 31, the Mall Shimla, also consists of two rooms, kitchen and bath room. Even assuming that he was running an office in the part of the flat it cannot be believed that he would not live on his own flat on the Mall Road and reside with his brother-in-law in cramped premises. Even in the electoral list the landlord is shown to be a resident of 31, The Mall, Shimla. Therefore, I am of the considered view that the building 31, the Mall, Shimla was also being used as a residence by the landlord.</p><p>11. Having held so, the question that arises is whether the landlord can be non-suited only on the ground that he has not made any disclosure about the residential accommodation available with him which premises were admittedly not owned by him.</p><p>12. The short question which arises for decision in this petition is whether the landlord was guilty of suppressing and withholding such relevant facts which would disentitle him from seeking eviction of the tenant. To appreciate these contentions it would be necessary to refer to relevant portion of Section 14(3) of the Act:</p><p>Section 14:</p><p>1 and 2 xxxxxxxxxxx</p><p>(3) A landlord may apply to the Controller for an order directing the tenant to put the landlord in possession-</p><p>(a) in case of residential building, if</p><p>(i) he required it for his own occupation:</p><p>Provided that he is not occupying another residential building owned by him, in the urban area concerned:</p><p>Provided further that he has not vacated such a building without sufficient cause within five years of the filing of the application, in the said urban area....</p><p>13. A perusal of the bare provisions of the Act makes it clear that there are certain essential ingredients which the landlord must satisfy before seeking eviction of the tenant under the Act. Not only must he prove that the residential building is bona fide required by him for his own use and occupation but he must also plead and prove that he is not occupying any other residential building owned by him in the urban area concerned and further that he has not vacated such a building without sufficient cause within 5 years of the filing of the application.</p><p>14. Reference may now be made to the relevant allegations made in para 18 of the eviction petition:</p><p>(ii) That the petitioner bona fide requires the premises for his own use and occupation and also for the use and occupation of his family.</p><p>The petitioner does not own or possess any other such building within the urban area of Simla nor the petitioner has vacated any such premises within five years of the filing of this petition.</p><p>The family of the petitioner presently consists of himself and his wife. Due to paucity of accommodation the petitioner has not been able to keep his wife with himself at Simla, where he is working as an Engineer and she has been residing at Chandigarh since 1991 but on account of her ill health she has been brought to Simla by the petitioner. The petitioner at present is seeking temporary shelter, from time to time, with his relations.</p><p>15. The learned Appellate Authority came to the conclusion that the landlord had falsely pleaded that he does not own or possess any other such building within the urban area of Shimla and hence rejected the eviction petition on this ground.</p><p>16. On a close analysis of the proviso to Section 14(3)(a)(i) of the Act it is clear that a landlord is not entitled to seek eviction of a tenant from residential building even in case of bona fide requirement if the landlord is occupying another residential building owned by him in the urban area concerned. One can read three essential ingredients in this proviso i.e. (i) that the landlord is in occupation of another residential building; (ii) that the said residential building is owned by him and (iii) that the said residential building is situated in the concerned urban area.</p><p>17. The question that arises is what is the impact of the landlord not making a disclosure in respect of premises which he is occupying but are not owned by him.</p><p>18. The Apex Court in Onkar Nath v. Ved Vyas ILR 1979 HP 1, held as follows:</p><p>It is common ground that there are three requirements to make out a cause of action for eviction under that provision, and indeed this is apparent from a bare reading of the sub-section. In the present case the finding is to the effect that the landlord requires the residential building for his own occupation. But, the legislation has taken care to insist upon two more conditions, namely; (a) that the landlord is not occupying any other residential building in the area concerned; and (b) that he has not vacated such a building without sufficient cause. There is not a scintilla of evidence nor indeed there is any averment in compliance with these latter conditions. The necessary consequence follows that not merely is there inadequacy of pleadings sufficient to make out a cause of action but total absence of proof of two vital requirements....</p><p>The Supreme Court also said that:.The statute benignly designed to protect tenants from unreasonable evictions has taken case to put restrictions which must be rigorously construed to fulfil the purpose of the statute.</p><p>19. Following the aforesaid judgment and other pronouncements of the Apex Court, a learned Single Judge of this Court in Tara Chand Sharma v. Baij Nath and Ors. 1992 (2) R.C.J. 323, held as follows:</p><p>16. What appears as the legislative intent, in bold relief, is that the landlord, while seeking eviction of a tenant on the ground that he needs a residential building for his own occupation, must come out clearly and honestly with facts relating to the requirement that he is not occupying another residential building owned by him, in the urban area concerned and that he had not vacated such a building without sufficient cause within five years of the filing of the application, in the said urban area. The primal burden of making a clear disclosure would lie upon the landlord, for, the true facts would be in his special knowledge. An order in his favour by the Rent Controller would depend upon the satisfaction of the Rent Controller in regard not only to the claim that the landlord requires the accommodation, from which he wishes to evict a tenant, for his own occupation but also that he was not occupying another residential building owned by him nor had he vacated such building without sufficient cause within five years of the filing of the application in the application in the urban area concerned....</p><p>It was further held as under:</p><p>18. That the landlord should make a full disclosure of the relevant facts, pertaining to the requirements of Sub-section (3)(a)(i) and the two provisos, becomes all the more necessary because the satisfaction of the Rent Controller in regard thereto is the condition precedent for the making of an order in favour of the landlord....</p><p>20. The aforesaid judgment has been followed in a number of other cases including Vijay Kapoor v. Maya Ram 1997 (2) RCR 437, wherein another learned single Judge of this Court following the aforesaid judgment held that the landlord must make complete and proper disclosure of all the material facts.</p><p>21. On the other hand Sh. Ramakant Sharma has relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in Ram Narain Arora v. Asha Rani 1998(2) RCR 268. In that case the Rent Controller came to the conclusion that the landlord had suppressed material information and had not disclosed the fact that he was already in occupation of a house in Subji Mandi. Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act reads as follows:</p><p>Section 14(1)(e). That the premises let for residential purposes are required bona fide by the landlord for occupation as a residence for himself or for any member of his family dependent on him, if he is the owner thereof, or for any person for whose benefit the premises are held and that the landlord or such person has no other reasonably suitable residential accommodation.</p><p>22. The difference between Delhi Act and the present Act is that under the Delhi Act the only requirement is that the landlord has no other reasonably suitable accommodation whereas under the Himachal Act the residential premises are required to be owned by the landlord. The Apex Court in Rama Narain Arora's case (supra) held that the nondisclosure of the fact that the landlord was in occupation of certain premises in Subji Mandi was.not a ground to non-suit the landlord in view of the facts and circumstances of the case. The Apex Court held as follows:</p><p>9. In making a claim that the suit premises is required bona fide for his own occupation as a residence for himself and other members of his family dependent on him and that he has no other reasonably suitable accommodation is a requirement of law before the Court can state whether the landlord requires the premises bona fide for his use and occupation. In doing so, the Court must also find out whether the landlord or such other person for whose benefit the premises is required has no other reasonably suitable residential accommodation. It cannot be said that the requirement of the landlord is not intermixed with the question of finding out whether he has any other reasonably suitable accommodation. If he has other reasonably suitable accommodation, ihen necessarily it would mean that he does not require the suit premises and his requirement may not be bona fide. In such circumstances further inquiry would be whether that premises is more suitable than the suit premises. Therefore, the questions raised before the Court would not necessarily depend upon only the pleadings. It could be a good defence that the landlord has other reasonably suitable residential accommodation and thereby defend the claim of the landlord.</p><p>10. There cannot be a pedantic or a dogmatic approach in the matter of analysis of pleadings or of the evidence adduced thereto. It is no doubt true that if the pleadings are clearly set out, it would be easy for the Court to decide the matters. But if the pleadings are lacking or vague and if both parties have understood what was the case pleaded and put forth with reference to requirement of law and placed such material before the Court, neither party is prejudiced. If we analyse from this angle, we do not think that the High Court was not justified in interfering with the order made by the Rent Controller.</p><p>23. From the perusal of the judgment of the Apex Court it is apparent that the Rent Controller must approach the matter in a practical manner. In case the non-disclosure is such as that it goes to the very root of the case the Rent Controller would be justified in non-suiting the landlord. However, if the non-disclosure is such that it would not prejudice the rights of the respondent then the landlord should not be non-suited only on this ground.</p><p>24. The decisions of this Court cited hereinabove were delivered prior to the judgment delivered by the Apex Court in Ram Nar'ain Arora's case. Further more both in Tara Chand Sharma's case and Vijay Kapoor's case decided by this Court, no averment had been made ixi respect of other residential buildings owned by a landlord. There was complete non-disclosure as to whether any such residential building owned by the landlord was in his possession or not. In the present case, as I have held above, the residential premises at 31, The Mall, Shimla was not owned by the landlord and hence these two earlier judgments of this Court are distinguishable on facts also.</p><p>25. In the present case, the landlord has been non-suited only on the ground that he did not disclose the fact that he was in occupation of certain premises on the Mall Road. Under law he was not required to disclose this fact. He was only required to disclose the factum of occupying another residential building owned by him in the urban area concerned. True it may be, that it would have been better if the landlord had disclosed all the facts but non-disclosure of a fact which he was not under law required to disclose could not in my opinion be a ground to dismiss his eviction petition.</p><p>26. However, what are the premises in his occupation even as a tenant can be taken into consideration while deciding the question whether he bona fide requires the demised premises for his personal use or occupation or not.</p><p>27. Lastly comes the question with regard to the bona fide requirement of the landlord. The landlord has no children. According to the landlord as well as his other witnesses i.e. his brother-in-law PW-2 and his wife PW-3, the wife now wants to come back and settle in Shimla. There is no reason to disbelieve their statements. Even according to the evidence led by the tenant the accommodation in possession of the landlord consists of two rooms, kitchen, bath room etc. Admittedly, the landlord is also having his office as an Architect in this building. The landlord belongs to the middle class of the Society. It cannot be expected of a landlord who owns sufficient property to reside in a two room set wherein he also runs his office.</p><p>28. The law by now is well settled that the landlord is the best judge of the suitability of the accommodation required by him. This suitability has however to be judged in the context of reasonable expectations. The landlord and his wife who are both well educated can reasonably be expected to entertain guests and they will have visitors to their house. They would obviously require a drawing room, a bed room and a spare bed room for guests. Even at his residence the landlord may require another room for his professional work. This is the minimum accommodation which they would require. Even if the accommodation possessed by the landlord, though not owned by him, at 31, the Mall, Shimla is taken into consideration such accommodation is not sufficient to meet his requirements since admittedly the landlord is running his profession of Architect from some portion of his these premises.</p><p>29. Keeping in view the entire facts and circumstances, I am of the considered view that the learned Appellate Authority gravely erred in rejecting the eviction petition of the landlord solely on the ground that he had not disclosed the factum of being in possession of the premises at 31, the Mall Shimla. Even though I have held that the said premises are residential premises, in view of the above discussion I hold that the landlord cannot be non-suited only on the ground of his being in possession of such premises since same were not owned by him.</p><p>30. In view of the above discussion, the Revision Petition is allowed, the order of the learned Appellate Authority dated 6.5.2003 is seaside and the order of the Rent Controller dated 22.8.2001 is restored.</p><p>31. Keeping in view the fact that the tenant has been in possession of the premises for a long period he is granted time up to 31st October, 2008 to vacate the premises.</p><p>32. No order as to costs.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '2008(2)ShimLC491',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'Shri S.L. Srivastava',
		'sub' => 'Tenancy',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'shri-arun-bhanwara-vs-s-l-srivastava'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '891084',
	(int) 1 => 'shri-arun-bhanwara-vs-s-l-srivastava'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/891084/shri-arun-bhanwara-vs-s-l-srivastava'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$caseref = 'Ram Narain Arora v. Asha Rani<br>'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>Deepak Gupta, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. This Revision Petition under Section 25(5) of the H.P. Urban Rent Control Act, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) is directed against the order of the learned Appellate Authority, Shimla in CMA No. 60-S/14 of 2001 whereby the appeal filed by the respondent (hereinafter referred to as the tenant) has been allowed, the order of the Rent Controller has been set-aside and the petition for eviction filed by the present petitioner (hereinafter referred to as the Landlord) on the ground of personal bona fide requirement has been set-aside.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. The undisputed facts are that the landlord is owner of the demised premises situated in building known as Tunnel View, Sanjauli, Shimla-6 consisting of two bed rooms with attached bath room and latrine, drawing-cum-dining room, kitchen and balcony. These premises were purchased by the landlord in the year 1986. Thereafter, the landlord had rented out the premises to one Sh. B.K. Chauhan. According to the landlord, when he got married he requested Sh. B.K. Chauhan to vacate the said premises. Sh. Chauhan vacated the said premises but admittedly the landlord did not occupy the same but rented out the same to the tenant in the year 1990.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. In the year 1997 the landlord filed a petition for eviction of the tenant on two grounds; firstly that the tenant is in arrears of rent from 1.11.1990 to 31.7.1997 and secondly that the premises are bona fide required by the landlord for the use and occupation of himself and his family.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>4. This petition was contested by the tenant. After trial, the Rent Controller ordered the eviction of the tenant on two grounds; (i) that the tenant was in arrears of rent from November, 1999 till date of order i.e. 22nd August, 2001 and (ii) that the landlord required the premises for his own use and occupation.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>5. The tenant deposited the rent within the time prescribed. He also filed an appeal challenging the finding on the issue of bona fide requirement. The learned Appellate Authority came to the conclusion that the landlord had not made a proper and full disclosure of facts as required under the provisions of the Act and had withheld material facts from the Court viz. that the landlord was in occupation of residential premises on 31, Mall Road in the urban area of Shimla and as such rejected this petition on this short ground.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>6. Aggrieved by the said order, the landlord has filed the present Revision Petition.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>7. I have heard Sh. Ramakant Sharma, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sh. Bhupinder Gupta, learned senior Counsel for the tenant.',
	(int) 8 => '<p>8. It has been urged on behalf of the landlord that the building which is alleged to be in possession of the landlord i.e. 31, the Mall Shimla is not a residential building and secondly that the building is not owned by him.',
	(int) 9 => '<p>9. On the other hand Sh. Bhupinder Gupta, learned Counsel of the tenant has strenuously urged that the landlord in para 18 has not stated anything about any building being owned by him and has only made an averment that he does not own or possess any other such building within the urban area Shimla. It is contended by Sh. Bhupinder Gupta that the landlord of his own volition did not state anything about the ownership of the building and since he has kept silent about the building which he is in occupation he has made a false averment and therefore his petition for eviction has rightly been rejected.',
	(int) 10 => '<p>10. I am not at all in agreement with the contention of the landlord that the premises known as 31, the Mall Shimla which are admittedly in the occupation of the landlord are commercial premises only and not being used by him for his residence. As pointed out above, the landlord purchased the demised premises in 1986. They fell vacant when he got married despite that he did not occupy the same and rented out the same to the tenant in the year 1990. The question that arises is where was the landlord living for this entire period. According to the landlord after the year 1994 he has been living with his brother-in-law Rajan (wife's brother) PW-2, since the year 1994. Prior to 1994 the landlord will have this Court to believe that he was living off and on with one friend or the other. This story is impossible to believe. The landlord was married in the year 1999. He is an Architect by profession. His wife is a law graduate. It is not believable that such a person would have no permanent abode and would continue to live as a guest with his friends for almost 5 years after his marriage. Even the story that he has been living with his brother-in-law after the year 1994 does not inspire confidence. It stands proved on record that the brother-in-law PW-2 Rajan lives with his own family i.e. wife and children. From the evidence it is also clear that the parents of the brother-in-law also reside with him, His flat consists of only two rooms. The flat in possession of the landlord at 31, the Mall Shimla, also consists of two rooms, kitchen and bath room. Even assuming that he was running an office in the part of the flat it cannot be believed that he would not live on his own flat on the Mall Road and reside with his brother-in-law in cramped premises. Even in the electoral list the landlord is shown to be a resident of 31, The Mall, Shimla. Therefore, I am of the considered view that the building 31, the Mall, Shimla was also being used as a residence by the landlord.',
	(int) 11 => '<p>11. Having held so, the question that arises is whether the landlord can be non-suited only on the ground that he has not made any disclosure about the residential accommodation available with him which premises were admittedly not owned by him.',
	(int) 12 => '<p>12. The short question which arises for decision in this petition is whether the landlord was guilty of suppressing and withholding such relevant facts which would disentitle him from seeking eviction of the tenant. To appreciate these contentions it would be necessary to refer to relevant portion of Section 14(3) of the Act:',
	(int) 13 => '<p>Section 14:',
	(int) 14 => '<p>1 and 2 xxxxxxxxxxx',
	(int) 15 => '<p>(3) A landlord may apply to the Controller for an order directing the tenant to put the landlord in possession-',
	(int) 16 => '<p>(a) in case of residential building, if',
	(int) 17 => '<p>(i) he required it for his own occupation:',
	(int) 18 => '<p>Provided that he is not occupying another residential building owned by him, in the urban area concerned:',
	(int) 19 => '<p>Provided further that he has not vacated such a building without sufficient cause within five years of the filing of the application, in the said urban area....',
	(int) 20 => '<p>13. A perusal of the bare provisions of the Act makes it clear that there are certain essential ingredients which the landlord must satisfy before seeking eviction of the tenant under the Act. Not only must he prove that the residential building is bona fide required by him for his own use and occupation but he must also plead and prove that he is not occupying any other residential building owned by him in the urban area concerned and further that he has not vacated such a building without sufficient cause within 5 years of the filing of the application.',
	(int) 21 => '<p>14. Reference may now be made to the relevant allegations made in para 18 of the eviction petition:',
	(int) 22 => '<p>(ii) That the petitioner bona fide requires the premises for his own use and occupation and also for the use and occupation of his family.',
	(int) 23 => '<p>The petitioner does not own or possess any other such building within the urban area of Simla nor the petitioner has vacated any such premises within five years of the filing of this petition.',
	(int) 24 => '<p>The family of the petitioner presently consists of himself and his wife. Due to paucity of accommodation the petitioner has not been able to keep his wife with himself at Simla, where he is working as an Engineer and she has been residing at Chandigarh since 1991 but on account of her ill health she has been brought to Simla by the petitioner. The petitioner at present is seeking temporary shelter, from time to time, with his relations.',
	(int) 25 => '<p>15. The learned Appellate Authority came to the conclusion that the landlord had falsely pleaded that he does not own or possess any other such building within the urban area of Shimla and hence rejected the eviction petition on this ground.',
	(int) 26 => '<p>16. On a close analysis of the proviso to Section 14(3)(a)(i) of the Act it is clear that a landlord is not entitled to seek eviction of a tenant from residential building even in case of bona fide requirement if the landlord is occupying another residential building owned by him in the urban area concerned. One can read three essential ingredients in this proviso i.e. (i) that the landlord is in occupation of another residential building; (ii) that the said residential building is owned by him and (iii) that the said residential building is situated in the concerned urban area.',
	(int) 27 => '<p>17. The question that arises is what is the impact of the landlord not making a disclosure in respect of premises which he is occupying but are not owned by him.',
	(int) 28 => '<p>18. The Apex Court in Onkar Nath v. Ved Vyas ILR 1979 HP 1, held as follows:',
	(int) 29 => '<p>It is common ground that there are three requirements to make out a cause of action for eviction under that provision, and indeed this is apparent from a bare reading of the sub-section. In the present case the finding is to the effect that the landlord requires the residential building for his own occupation. But, the legislation has taken care to insist upon two more conditions, namely; (a) that the landlord is not occupying any other residential building in the area concerned; and (b) that he has not vacated such a building without sufficient cause. There is not a scintilla of evidence nor indeed there is any averment in compliance with these latter conditions. The necessary consequence follows that not merely is there inadequacy of pleadings sufficient to make out a cause of action but total absence of proof of two vital requirements....',
	(int) 30 => '<p>The Supreme Court also said that:.The statute benignly designed to protect tenants from unreasonable evictions has taken case to put restrictions which must be rigorously construed to fulfil the purpose of the statute.',
	(int) 31 => '<p>19. Following the aforesaid judgment and other pronouncements of the Apex Court, a learned Single Judge of this Court in Tara Chand Sharma v. Baij Nath and Ors. 1992 (2) R.C.J. 323, held as follows:',
	(int) 32 => '<p>16. What appears as the legislative intent, in bold relief, is that the landlord, while seeking eviction of a tenant on the ground that he needs a residential building for his own occupation, must come out clearly and honestly with facts relating to the requirement that he is not occupying another residential building owned by him, in the urban area concerned and that he had not vacated such a building without sufficient cause within five years of the filing of the application, in the said urban area. The primal burden of making a clear disclosure would lie upon the landlord, for, the true facts would be in his special knowledge. An order in his favour by the Rent Controller would depend upon the satisfaction of the Rent Controller in regard not only to the claim that the landlord requires the accommodation, from which he wishes to evict a tenant, for his own occupation but also that he was not occupying another residential building owned by him nor had he vacated such building without sufficient cause within five years of the filing of the application in the application in the urban area concerned....',
	(int) 33 => '<p>It was further held as under:',
	(int) 34 => '<p>18. That the landlord should make a full disclosure of the relevant facts, pertaining to the requirements of Sub-section (3)(a)(i) and the two provisos, becomes all the more necessary because the satisfaction of the Rent Controller in regard thereto is the condition precedent for the making of an order in favour of the landlord....',
	(int) 35 => '<p>20. The aforesaid judgment has been followed in a number of other cases including Vijay Kapoor v. Maya Ram 1997 (2) RCR 437, wherein another learned single Judge of this Court following the aforesaid judgment held that the landlord must make complete and proper disclosure of all the material facts.',
	(int) 36 => '<p>21. On the other hand Sh. Ramakant Sharma has relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in Ram Narain Arora v. Asha Rani 1998(2) RCR 268. In that case the Rent Controller came to the conclusion that the landlord had suppressed material information and had not disclosed the fact that he was already in occupation of a house in Subji Mandi. Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act reads as follows:',
	(int) 37 => '<p>Section 14(1)(e). That the premises let for residential purposes are required bona fide by the landlord for occupation as a residence for himself or for any member of his family dependent on him, if he is the owner thereof, or for any person for whose benefit the premises are held and that the landlord or such person has no other reasonably suitable residential accommodation.',
	(int) 38 => '<p>22. The difference between Delhi Act and the present Act is that under the Delhi Act the only requirement is that the landlord has no other reasonably suitable accommodation whereas under the Himachal Act the residential premises are required to be owned by the landlord. The Apex Court in Rama Narain Arora's case (supra) held that the nondisclosure of the fact that the landlord was in occupation of certain premises in Subji Mandi was.not a ground to non-suit the landlord in view of the facts and circumstances of the case. The Apex Court held as follows:',
	(int) 39 => '<p>9. In making a claim that the suit premises is required bona fide for his own occupation as a residence for himself and other members of his family dependent on him and that he has no other reasonably suitable accommodation is a requirement of law before the Court can state whether the landlord requires the premises bona fide for his use and occupation. In doing so, the Court must also find out whether the landlord or such other person for whose benefit the premises is required has no other reasonably suitable residential accommodation. It cannot be said that the requirement of the landlord is not intermixed with the question of finding out whether he has any other reasonably suitable accommodation. If he has other reasonably suitable accommodation, ihen necessarily it would mean that he does not require the suit premises and his requirement may not be bona fide. In such circumstances further inquiry would be whether that premises is more suitable than the suit premises. Therefore, the questions raised before the Court would not necessarily depend upon only the pleadings. It could be a good defence that the landlord has other reasonably suitable residential accommodation and thereby defend the claim of the landlord.',
	(int) 40 => '<p>10. There cannot be a pedantic or a dogmatic approach in the matter of analysis of pleadings or of the evidence adduced thereto. It is no doubt true that if the pleadings are clearly set out, it would be easy for the Court to decide the matters. But if the pleadings are lacking or vague and if both parties have understood what was the case pleaded and put forth with reference to requirement of law and placed such material before the Court, neither party is prejudiced. If we analyse from this angle, we do not think that the High Court was not justified in interfering with the order made by the Rent Controller.',
	(int) 41 => '<p>23. From the perusal of the judgment of the Apex Court it is apparent that the Rent Controller must approach the matter in a practical manner. In case the non-disclosure is such as that it goes to the very root of the case the Rent Controller would be justified in non-suiting the landlord. However, if the non-disclosure is such that it would not prejudice the rights of the respondent then the landlord should not be non-suited only on this ground.',
	(int) 42 => '<p>24. The decisions of this Court cited hereinabove were delivered prior to the judgment delivered by the Apex Court in Ram Nar'ain Arora's case. Further more both in Tara Chand Sharma's case and Vijay Kapoor's case decided by this Court, no averment had been made ixi respect of other residential buildings owned by a landlord. There was complete non-disclosure as to whether any such residential building owned by the landlord was in his possession or not. In the present case, as I have held above, the residential premises at 31, The Mall, Shimla was not owned by the landlord and hence these two earlier judgments of this Court are distinguishable on facts also.',
	(int) 43 => '<p>25. In the present case, the landlord has been non-suited only on the ground that he did not disclose the fact that he was in occupation of certain premises on the Mall Road. Under law he was not required to disclose this fact. He was only required to disclose the factum of occupying another residential building owned by him in the urban area concerned. True it may be, that it would have been better if the landlord had disclosed all the facts but non-disclosure of a fact which he was not under law required to disclose could not in my opinion be a ground to dismiss his eviction petition.',
	(int) 44 => '<p>26. However, what are the premises in his occupation even as a tenant can be taken into consideration while deciding the question whether he bona fide requires the demised premises for his personal use or occupation or not.',
	(int) 45 => '<p>27. Lastly comes the question with regard to the bona fide requirement of the landlord. The landlord has no children. According to the landlord as well as his other witnesses i.e. his brother-in-law PW-2 and his wife PW-3, the wife now wants to come back and settle in Shimla. There is no reason to disbelieve their statements. Even according to the evidence led by the tenant the accommodation in possession of the landlord consists of two rooms, kitchen, bath room etc. Admittedly, the landlord is also having his office as an Architect in this building. The landlord belongs to the middle class of the Society. It cannot be expected of a landlord who owns sufficient property to reside in a two room set wherein he also runs his office.',
	(int) 46 => '<p>28. The law by now is well settled that the landlord is the best judge of the suitability of the accommodation required by him. This suitability has however to be judged in the context of reasonable expectations. The landlord and his wife who are both well educated can reasonably be expected to entertain guests and they will have visitors to their house. They would obviously require a drawing room, a bed room and a spare bed room for guests. Even at his residence the landlord may require another room for his professional work. This is the minimum accommodation which they would require. Even if the accommodation possessed by the landlord, though not owned by him, at 31, the Mall, Shimla is taken into consideration such accommodation is not sufficient to meet his requirements since admittedly the landlord is running his profession of Architect from some portion of his these premises.',
	(int) 47 => '<p>29. Keeping in view the entire facts and circumstances, I am of the considered view that the learned Appellate Authority gravely erred in rejecting the eviction petition of the landlord solely on the ground that he had not disclosed the factum of being in possession of the premises at 31, the Mall Shimla. Even though I have held that the said premises are residential premises, in view of the above discussion I hold that the landlord cannot be non-suited only on the ground of his being in possession of such premises since same were not owned by him.',
	(int) 48 => '<p>30. In view of the above discussion, the Revision Petition is allowed, the order of the learned Appellate Authority dated 6.5.2003 is seaside and the order of the Rent Controller dated 22.8.2001 is restored.',
	(int) 49 => '<p>31. Keeping in view the fact that the tenant has been in possession of the premises for a long period he is granted time up to 31st October, 2008 to vacate the premises.',
	(int) 50 => '<p>32. No order as to costs.<p>',
	(int) 51 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 52
$i = (int) 30
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

The Supreme Court also said that:.The statute benignly designed to protect tenants from unreasonable evictions has taken case to put restrictions which must be rigorously construed to fulfil the purpose of the statute.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Shri Arun Bhanwara Vs Shri S L Srivastava - Citation 891084 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '891084',
			'acts' => '',
			'appealno' => '',
			'appellant' => 'Shri Arun Bhanwara',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Shri Arun Bhanwara Vs. Shri S.L. Srivastava',
			'casenote' => ' - CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908.[C.A. No. 5/1908]. Order 14, Rule 2 [As amended by Amending Act of 1976]: [V.K. Gupta, CJ, Deepak Gupta & Surjit Singh, JJ] Preliminary issue of law and fact  Court framing all issues both of law and facts together and also  tried all the issues together, including the issue relating to jurisdiction of Court  Held, Except in situations perceived or warranted under sub-rule (2) of Rule 2 of Order 14 where a  Court in fact frames only issues of law in the first instance and postpones settlement of other issues, clearly and explicitly in situations where the Court has framed all issues together, both of law as well as facts and has also tried all these issues together, it is not open to the Court to adopt the principle of severability and proceed to decide issues of law first, without taking up simultaneously other issues for decision. This course of action is not available to a Court because sub-rule (1) does not permit the  Court to adopt any such principle of severability and to dispose of a suit only on preliminary issues, or what can be termed as issues of law. Sub-rule (1)  clearly mandates that in a situation contemplated under it, where all the issues have been together and have also been taken up for adjudication during the course of the trial, these must be decided together and the judgment in the suit as a whole must be pronounced by the Court covering all the issues framed in the suit.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => 'Ram Narain Arora v. Asha Rani;',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => '',
			'counseldef' => '',
			'court' => 'Himachal Pradesh',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2008-07-31',
			'deposition' => 'Petition allowed',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => ' Deepak Gupta, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">Deepak Gupta, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. This Revision Petition under Section 25(5) of the H.P. Urban Rent Control Act, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) is directed against the order of the learned Appellate Authority, Shimla in CMA No. 60-S/14 of 2001 whereby the appeal filed by the respondent (hereinafter referred to as the tenant) has been allowed, the order of the Rent Controller has been set-aside and the petition for eviction filed by the present petitioner (hereinafter referred to as the Landlord) on the ground of personal bona fide requirement has been set-aside.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The undisputed facts are that the landlord is owner of the demised premises situated in building known as Tunnel View, Sanjauli, Shimla-6 consisting of two bed rooms with attached bath room and latrine, drawing-cum-dining room, kitchen and balcony. These premises were purchased by the landlord in the year 1986. Thereafter, the landlord had rented out the premises to one Sh. B.K. Chauhan. According to the landlord, when he got married he requested Sh. B.K. Chauhan to vacate the said premises. Sh. Chauhan vacated the said premises but admittedly the landlord did not occupy the same but rented out the same to the tenant in the year 1990.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. In the year 1997 the landlord filed a petition for eviction of the tenant on two grounds; firstly that the tenant is in arrears of rent from 1.11.1990 to 31.7.1997 and secondly that the premises are bona fide required by the landlord for the use and occupation of himself and his family.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. This petition was contested by the tenant. After trial, the Rent Controller ordered the eviction of the tenant on two grounds; (i) that the tenant was in arrears of rent from November, 1999 till date of order i.e. 22nd August, 2001 and (ii) that the landlord required the premises for his own use and occupation.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. The tenant deposited the rent within the time prescribed. He also filed an appeal challenging the finding on the issue of bona fide requirement. The learned Appellate Authority came to the conclusion that the landlord had not made a proper and full disclosure of facts as required under the provisions of the Act and had withheld material facts from the Court viz. that the landlord was in occupation of residential premises on 31, Mall Road in the urban area of Shimla and as such rejected this petition on this short ground.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. Aggrieved by the said order, the landlord has filed the present Revision Petition.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. I have heard Sh. Ramakant Sharma, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sh. Bhupinder Gupta, learned senior Counsel for the tenant.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. It has been urged on behalf of the landlord that the building which is alleged to be in possession of the landlord i.e. 31, the Mall Shimla is not a residential building and secondly that the building is not owned by him.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. On the other hand Sh. Bhupinder Gupta, learned Counsel of the tenant has strenuously urged that the landlord in para 18 has not stated anything about any building being owned by him and has only made an averment that he does not own or possess any other such building within the urban area Shimla. It is contended by Sh. Bhupinder Gupta that the landlord of his own volition did not state anything about the ownership of the building and since he has kept silent about the building which he is in occupation he has made a false averment and therefore his petition for eviction has rightly been rejected.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. I am not at all in agreement with the contention of the landlord that the premises known as 31, the Mall Shimla which are admittedly in the occupation of the landlord are commercial premises only and not being used by him for his residence. As pointed out above, the landlord purchased the demised premises in 1986. They fell vacant when he got married despite that he did not occupy the same and rented out the same to the tenant in the year 1990. The question that arises is where was the landlord living for this entire period. According to the landlord after the year 1994 he has been living with his brother-in-law Rajan (wife's brother) PW-2, since the year 1994. Prior to 1994 the landlord will have this Court to believe that he was living off and on with one friend or the other. This story is impossible to believe. The landlord was married in the year 1999. He is an Architect by profession. His wife is a law graduate. It is not believable that such a person would have no permanent abode and would continue to live as a guest with his friends for almost 5 years after his marriage. Even the story that he has been living with his brother-in-law after the year 1994 does not inspire confidence. It stands proved on record that the brother-in-law PW-2 Rajan lives with his own family i.e. wife and children. From the evidence it is also clear that the parents of the brother-in-law also reside with him, His flat consists of only two rooms. The flat in possession of the landlord at 31, the Mall Shimla, also consists of two rooms, kitchen and bath room. Even assuming that he was running an office in the part of the flat it cannot be believed that he would not live on his own flat on the Mall Road and reside with his brother-in-law in cramped premises. Even in the electoral list the landlord is shown to be a resident of 31, The Mall, Shimla. Therefore, I am of the considered view that the building 31, the Mall, Shimla was also being used as a residence by the landlord.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. Having held so, the question that arises is whether the landlord can be non-suited only on the ground that he has not made any disclosure about the residential accommodation available with him which premises were admittedly not owned by him.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. The short question which arises for decision in this petition is whether the landlord was guilty of suppressing and withholding such relevant facts which would disentitle him from seeking eviction of the tenant. To appreciate these contentions it would be necessary to refer to relevant portion of Section 14(3) of the Act:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Section 14:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1 and 2 xxxxxxxxxxx</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(3) A landlord may apply to the Controller for an order directing the tenant to put the landlord in possession-</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(a) in case of residential building, if</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(i) he required it for his own occupation:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Provided that he is not occupying another residential building owned by him, in the urban area concerned:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Provided further that he has not vacated such a building without sufficient cause within five years of the filing of the application, in the said urban area....</p><p style="text-align: justify;">13. A perusal of the bare provisions of the Act makes it clear that there are certain essential ingredients which the landlord must satisfy before seeking eviction of the tenant under the Act. Not only must he prove that the residential building is bona fide required by him for his own use and occupation but he must also plead and prove that he is not occupying any other residential building owned by him in the urban area concerned and further that he has not vacated such a building without sufficient cause within 5 years of the filing of the application.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">14. Reference may now be made to the relevant allegations made in para 18 of the eviction petition:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(ii) That the petitioner bona fide requires the premises for his own use and occupation and also for the use and occupation of his family.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The petitioner does not own or possess any other such building within the urban area of Simla nor the petitioner has vacated any such premises within five years of the filing of this petition.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The family of the petitioner presently consists of himself and his wife. Due to paucity of accommodation the petitioner has not been able to keep his wife with himself at Simla, where he is working as an Engineer and she has been residing at Chandigarh since 1991 but on account of her ill health she has been brought to Simla by the petitioner. The petitioner at present is seeking temporary shelter, from time to time, with his relations.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">15. The learned Appellate Authority came to the conclusion that the landlord had falsely pleaded that he does not own or possess any other such building within the urban area of Shimla and hence rejected the eviction petition on this ground.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">16. On a close analysis of the proviso to Section 14(3)(a)(i) of the Act it is clear that a landlord is not entitled to seek eviction of a tenant from residential building even in case of bona fide requirement if the landlord is occupying another residential building owned by him in the urban area concerned. One can read three essential ingredients in this proviso i.e. (i) that the landlord is in occupation of another residential building; (ii) that the said residential building is owned by him and (iii) that the said residential building is situated in the concerned urban area.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">17. The question that arises is what is the impact of the landlord not making a disclosure in respect of premises which he is occupying but are not owned by him.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">18. The Apex Court in Onkar Nath v. Ved Vyas ILR 1979 HP 1, held as follows:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">It is common ground that there are three requirements to make out a cause of action for eviction under that provision, and indeed this is apparent from a bare reading of the sub-section. In the present case the finding is to the effect that the landlord requires the residential building for his own occupation. But, the legislation has taken care to insist upon two more conditions, namely; (a) that the landlord is not occupying any other residential building in the area concerned; and (b) that he has not vacated such a building without sufficient cause. There is not a scintilla of evidence nor indeed there is any averment in compliance with these latter conditions. The necessary consequence follows that not merely is there inadequacy of pleadings sufficient to make out a cause of action but total absence of proof of two vital requirements....</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The Supreme Court also said that:.The statute benignly designed to protect tenants from unreasonable evictions has taken case to put restrictions which must be rigorously construed to fulfil the purpose of the statute.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">19. Following the aforesaid judgment and other pronouncements of the Apex Court, a learned Single Judge of this Court in Tara Chand Sharma v. Baij Nath and Ors. 1992 (2) R.C.J. 323, held as follows:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">16. What appears as the legislative intent, in bold relief, is that the landlord, while seeking eviction of a tenant on the ground that he needs a residential building for his own occupation, must come out clearly and honestly with facts relating to the requirement that he is not occupying another residential building owned by him, in the urban area concerned and that he had not vacated such a building without sufficient cause within five years of the filing of the application, in the said urban area. The primal burden of making a clear disclosure would lie upon the landlord, for, the true facts would be in his special knowledge. An order in his favour by the Rent Controller would depend upon the satisfaction of the Rent Controller in regard not only to the claim that the landlord requires the accommodation, from which he wishes to evict a tenant, for his own occupation but also that he was not occupying another residential building owned by him nor had he vacated such building without sufficient cause within five years of the filing of the application in the application in the urban area concerned....</p><p style="text-align: justify;">It was further held as under:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">18. That the landlord should make a full disclosure of the relevant facts, pertaining to the requirements of Sub-section (3)(a)(i) and the two provisos, becomes all the more necessary because the satisfaction of the Rent Controller in regard thereto is the condition precedent for the making of an order in favour of the landlord....</p><p style="text-align: justify;">20. The aforesaid judgment has been followed in a number of other cases including Vijay Kapoor v. Maya Ram 1997 (2) RCR 437, wherein another learned single Judge of this Court following the aforesaid judgment held that the landlord must make complete and proper disclosure of all the material facts.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">21. On the other hand Sh. Ramakant Sharma has relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in Ram Narain Arora v. Asha Rani 1998(2) RCR 268. In that case the Rent Controller came to the conclusion that the landlord had suppressed material information and had not disclosed the fact that he was already in occupation of a house in Subji Mandi. Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act reads as follows:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Section 14(1)(e). That the premises let for residential purposes are required bona fide by the landlord for occupation as a residence for himself or for any member of his family dependent on him, if he is the owner thereof, or for any person for whose benefit the premises are held and that the landlord or such person has no other reasonably suitable residential accommodation.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">22. The difference between Delhi Act and the present Act is that under the Delhi Act the only requirement is that the landlord has no other reasonably suitable accommodation whereas under the Himachal Act the residential premises are required to be owned by the landlord. The Apex Court in Rama Narain Arora's case (supra) held that the nondisclosure of the fact that the landlord was in occupation of certain premises in Subji Mandi was.not a ground to non-suit the landlord in view of the facts and circumstances of the case. The Apex Court held as follows:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. In making a claim that the suit premises is required bona fide for his own occupation as a residence for himself and other members of his family dependent on him and that he has no other reasonably suitable accommodation is a requirement of law before the Court can state whether the landlord requires the premises bona fide for his use and occupation. In doing so, the Court must also find out whether the landlord or such other person for whose benefit the premises is required has no other reasonably suitable residential accommodation. It cannot be said that the requirement of the landlord is not intermixed with the question of finding out whether he has any other reasonably suitable accommodation. If he has other reasonably suitable accommodation, ihen necessarily it would mean that he does not require the suit premises and his requirement may not be bona fide. In such circumstances further inquiry would be whether that premises is more suitable than the suit premises. Therefore, the questions raised before the Court would not necessarily depend upon only the pleadings. It could be a good defence that the landlord has other reasonably suitable residential accommodation and thereby defend the claim of the landlord.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. There cannot be a pedantic or a dogmatic approach in the matter of analysis of pleadings or of the evidence adduced thereto. It is no doubt true that if the pleadings are clearly set out, it would be easy for the Court to decide the matters. But if the pleadings are lacking or vague and if both parties have understood what was the case pleaded and put forth with reference to requirement of law and placed such material before the Court, neither party is prejudiced. If we analyse from this angle, we do not think that the High Court was not justified in interfering with the order made by the Rent Controller.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">23. From the perusal of the judgment of the Apex Court it is apparent that the Rent Controller must approach the matter in a practical manner. In case the non-disclosure is such as that it goes to the very root of the case the Rent Controller would be justified in non-suiting the landlord. However, if the non-disclosure is such that it would not prejudice the rights of the respondent then the landlord should not be non-suited only on this ground.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">24. The decisions of this Court cited hereinabove were delivered prior to the judgment delivered by the Apex Court in Ram Nar'ain Arora's case. Further more both in Tara Chand Sharma's case and Vijay Kapoor's case decided by this Court, no averment had been made ixi respect of other residential buildings owned by a landlord. There was complete non-disclosure as to whether any such residential building owned by the landlord was in his possession or not. In the present case, as I have held above, the residential premises at 31, The Mall, Shimla was not owned by the landlord and hence these two earlier judgments of this Court are distinguishable on facts also.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">25. In the present case, the landlord has been non-suited only on the ground that he did not disclose the fact that he was in occupation of certain premises on the Mall Road. Under law he was not required to disclose this fact. He was only required to disclose the factum of occupying another residential building owned by him in the urban area concerned. True it may be, that it would have been better if the landlord had disclosed all the facts but non-disclosure of a fact which he was not under law required to disclose could not in my opinion be a ground to dismiss his eviction petition.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">26. However, what are the premises in his occupation even as a tenant can be taken into consideration while deciding the question whether he bona fide requires the demised premises for his personal use or occupation or not.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">27. Lastly comes the question with regard to the bona fide requirement of the landlord. The landlord has no children. According to the landlord as well as his other witnesses i.e. his brother-in-law PW-2 and his wife PW-3, the wife now wants to come back and settle in Shimla. There is no reason to disbelieve their statements. Even according to the evidence led by the tenant the accommodation in possession of the landlord consists of two rooms, kitchen, bath room etc. Admittedly, the landlord is also having his office as an Architect in this building. The landlord belongs to the middle class of the Society. It cannot be expected of a landlord who owns sufficient property to reside in a two room set wherein he also runs his office.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">28. The law by now is well settled that the landlord is the best judge of the suitability of the accommodation required by him. This suitability has however to be judged in the context of reasonable expectations. The landlord and his wife who are both well educated can reasonably be expected to entertain guests and they will have visitors to their house. They would obviously require a drawing room, a bed room and a spare bed room for guests. Even at his residence the landlord may require another room for his professional work. This is the minimum accommodation which they would require. Even if the accommodation possessed by the landlord, though not owned by him, at 31, the Mall, Shimla is taken into consideration such accommodation is not sufficient to meet his requirements since admittedly the landlord is running his profession of Architect from some portion of his these premises.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">29. Keeping in view the entire facts and circumstances, I am of the considered view that the learned Appellate Authority gravely erred in rejecting the eviction petition of the landlord solely on the ground that he had not disclosed the factum of being in possession of the premises at 31, the Mall Shimla. Even though I have held that the said premises are residential premises, in view of the above discussion I hold that the landlord cannot be non-suited only on the ground of his being in possession of such premises since same were not owned by him.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">30. In view of the above discussion, the Revision Petition is allowed, the order of the learned Appellate Authority dated 6.5.2003 is seaside and the order of the Rent Controller dated 22.8.2001 is restored.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">31. Keeping in view the fact that the tenant has been in possession of the premises for a long period he is granted time up to 31st October, 2008 to vacate the premises.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">32. No order as to costs.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '2008(2)ShimLC491',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'Shri S.L. Srivastava',
			'sub' => 'Tenancy',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'shri-arun-bhanwara-vs-s-l-srivastava',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '891084',
		(int) 1 => 'shri-arun-bhanwara-vs-s-l-srivastava'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Shri Arun Bhanwara Vs Shri S L Srivastava - Citation 891084 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '891084',
		'acts' => '',
		'appealno' => '',
		'appellant' => 'Shri Arun Bhanwara',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Shri Arun Bhanwara Vs. Shri S.L. Srivastava',
		'casenote' => ' - CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908.[C.A. No. 5/1908]. Order 14, Rule 2 [As amended by Amending Act of 1976]: [V.K. Gupta, CJ, Deepak Gupta & Surjit Singh, JJ] Preliminary issue of law and fact  Court framing all issues both of law and facts together and also  tried all the issues together, including the issue relating to jurisdiction of Court  Held, Except in situations perceived or warranted under sub-rule (2) of Rule 2 of Order 14 where a  Court in fact frames only issues of law in the first instance and postpones settlement of other issues, clearly and explicitly in situations where the Court has framed all issues together, both of law as well as facts and has also tried all these issues together, it is not open to the Court to adopt the principle of severability and proceed to decide issues of law first, without taking up simultaneously other issues for decision. This course of action is not available to a Court because sub-rule (1) does not permit the  Court to adopt any such principle of severability and to dispose of a suit only on preliminary issues, or what can be termed as issues of law. Sub-rule (1)  clearly mandates that in a situation contemplated under it, where all the issues have been together and have also been taken up for adjudication during the course of the trial, these must be decided together and the judgment in the suit as a whole must be pronounced by the Court covering all the issues framed in the suit.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => 'Ram Narain Arora v. Asha Rani;',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => '',
		'counseldef' => '',
		'court' => 'Himachal Pradesh',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2008-07-31',
		'deposition' => 'Petition allowed',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => ' Deepak Gupta, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>Deepak Gupta, J.</p><p>1. This Revision Petition under Section 25(5) of the H.P. Urban Rent Control Act, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) is directed against the order of the learned Appellate Authority, Shimla in CMA No. 60-S/14 of 2001 whereby the appeal filed by the respondent (hereinafter referred to as the tenant) has been allowed, the order of the Rent Controller has been set-aside and the petition for eviction filed by the present petitioner (hereinafter referred to as the Landlord) on the ground of personal bona fide requirement has been set-aside.</p><p>2. The undisputed facts are that the landlord is owner of the demised premises situated in building known as Tunnel View, Sanjauli, Shimla-6 consisting of two bed rooms with attached bath room and latrine, drawing-cum-dining room, kitchen and balcony. These premises were purchased by the landlord in the year 1986. Thereafter, the landlord had rented out the premises to one Sh. B.K. Chauhan. According to the landlord, when he got married he requested Sh. B.K. Chauhan to vacate the said premises. Sh. Chauhan vacated the said premises but admittedly the landlord did not occupy the same but rented out the same to the tenant in the year 1990.</p><p>3. In the year 1997 the landlord filed a petition for eviction of the tenant on two grounds; firstly that the tenant is in arrears of rent from 1.11.1990 to 31.7.1997 and secondly that the premises are bona fide required by the landlord for the use and occupation of himself and his family.</p><p>4. This petition was contested by the tenant. After trial, the Rent Controller ordered the eviction of the tenant on two grounds; (i) that the tenant was in arrears of rent from November, 1999 till date of order i.e. 22nd August, 2001 and (ii) that the landlord required the premises for his own use and occupation.</p><p>5. The tenant deposited the rent within the time prescribed. He also filed an appeal challenging the finding on the issue of bona fide requirement. The learned Appellate Authority came to the conclusion that the landlord had not made a proper and full disclosure of facts as required under the provisions of the Act and had withheld material facts from the Court viz. that the landlord was in occupation of residential premises on 31, Mall Road in the urban area of Shimla and as such rejected this petition on this short ground.</p><p>6. Aggrieved by the said order, the landlord has filed the present Revision Petition.</p><p>7. I have heard Sh. Ramakant Sharma, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sh. Bhupinder Gupta, learned senior Counsel for the tenant.</p><p>8. It has been urged on behalf of the landlord that the building which is alleged to be in possession of the landlord i.e. 31, the Mall Shimla is not a residential building and secondly that the building is not owned by him.</p><p>9. On the other hand Sh. Bhupinder Gupta, learned Counsel of the tenant has strenuously urged that the landlord in para 18 has not stated anything about any building being owned by him and has only made an averment that he does not own or possess any other such building within the urban area Shimla. It is contended by Sh. Bhupinder Gupta that the landlord of his own volition did not state anything about the ownership of the building and since he has kept silent about the building which he is in occupation he has made a false averment and therefore his petition for eviction has rightly been rejected.</p><p>10. I am not at all in agreement with the contention of the landlord that the premises known as 31, the Mall Shimla which are admittedly in the occupation of the landlord are commercial premises only and not being used by him for his residence. As pointed out above, the landlord purchased the demised premises in 1986. They fell vacant when he got married despite that he did not occupy the same and rented out the same to the tenant in the year 1990. The question that arises is where was the landlord living for this entire period. According to the landlord after the year 1994 he has been living with his brother-in-law Rajan (wife's brother) PW-2, since the year 1994. Prior to 1994 the landlord will have this Court to believe that he was living off and on with one friend or the other. This story is impossible to believe. The landlord was married in the year 1999. He is an Architect by profession. His wife is a law graduate. It is not believable that such a person would have no permanent abode and would continue to live as a guest with his friends for almost 5 years after his marriage. Even the story that he has been living with his brother-in-law after the year 1994 does not inspire confidence. It stands proved on record that the brother-in-law PW-2 Rajan lives with his own family i.e. wife and children. From the evidence it is also clear that the parents of the brother-in-law also reside with him, His flat consists of only two rooms. The flat in possession of the landlord at 31, the Mall Shimla, also consists of two rooms, kitchen and bath room. Even assuming that he was running an office in the part of the flat it cannot be believed that he would not live on his own flat on the Mall Road and reside with his brother-in-law in cramped premises. Even in the electoral list the landlord is shown to be a resident of 31, The Mall, Shimla. Therefore, I am of the considered view that the building 31, the Mall, Shimla was also being used as a residence by the landlord.</p><p>11. Having held so, the question that arises is whether the landlord can be non-suited only on the ground that he has not made any disclosure about the residential accommodation available with him which premises were admittedly not owned by him.</p><p>12. The short question which arises for decision in this petition is whether the landlord was guilty of suppressing and withholding such relevant facts which would disentitle him from seeking eviction of the tenant. To appreciate these contentions it would be necessary to refer to relevant portion of Section 14(3) of the Act:</p><p>Section 14:</p><p>1 and 2 xxxxxxxxxxx</p><p>(3) A landlord may apply to the Controller for an order directing the tenant to put the landlord in possession-</p><p>(a) in case of residential building, if</p><p>(i) he required it for his own occupation:</p><p>Provided that he is not occupying another residential building owned by him, in the urban area concerned:</p><p>Provided further that he has not vacated such a building without sufficient cause within five years of the filing of the application, in the said urban area....</p><p>13. A perusal of the bare provisions of the Act makes it clear that there are certain essential ingredients which the landlord must satisfy before seeking eviction of the tenant under the Act. Not only must he prove that the residential building is bona fide required by him for his own use and occupation but he must also plead and prove that he is not occupying any other residential building owned by him in the urban area concerned and further that he has not vacated such a building without sufficient cause within 5 years of the filing of the application.</p><p>14. Reference may now be made to the relevant allegations made in para 18 of the eviction petition:</p><p>(ii) That the petitioner bona fide requires the premises for his own use and occupation and also for the use and occupation of his family.</p><p>The petitioner does not own or possess any other such building within the urban area of Simla nor the petitioner has vacated any such premises within five years of the filing of this petition.</p><p>The family of the petitioner presently consists of himself and his wife. Due to paucity of accommodation the petitioner has not been able to keep his wife with himself at Simla, where he is working as an Engineer and she has been residing at Chandigarh since 1991 but on account of her ill health she has been brought to Simla by the petitioner. The petitioner at present is seeking temporary shelter, from time to time, with his relations.</p><p>15. The learned Appellate Authority came to the conclusion that the landlord had falsely pleaded that he does not own or possess any other such building within the urban area of Shimla and hence rejected the eviction petition on this ground.</p><p>16. On a close analysis of the proviso to Section 14(3)(a)(i) of the Act it is clear that a landlord is not entitled to seek eviction of a tenant from residential building even in case of bona fide requirement if the landlord is occupying another residential building owned by him in the urban area concerned. One can read three essential ingredients in this proviso i.e. (i) that the landlord is in occupation of another residential building; (ii) that the said residential building is owned by him and (iii) that the said residential building is situated in the concerned urban area.</p><p>17. The question that arises is what is the impact of the landlord not making a disclosure in respect of premises which he is occupying but are not owned by him.</p><p>18. The Apex Court in Onkar Nath v. Ved Vyas ILR 1979 HP 1, held as follows:</p><p>It is common ground that there are three requirements to make out a cause of action for eviction under that provision, and indeed this is apparent from a bare reading of the sub-section. In the present case the finding is to the effect that the landlord requires the residential building for his own occupation. But, the legislation has taken care to insist upon two more conditions, namely; (a) that the landlord is not occupying any other residential building in the area concerned; and (b) that he has not vacated such a building without sufficient cause. There is not a scintilla of evidence nor indeed there is any averment in compliance with these latter conditions. The necessary consequence follows that not merely is there inadequacy of pleadings sufficient to make out a cause of action but total absence of proof of two vital requirements....</p><p>The Supreme Court also said that:.The statute benignly designed to protect tenants from unreasonable evictions has taken case to put restrictions which must be rigorously construed to fulfil the purpose of the statute.</p><p>19. Following the aforesaid judgment and other pronouncements of the Apex Court, a learned Single Judge of this Court in Tara Chand Sharma v. Baij Nath and Ors. 1992 (2) R.C.J. 323, held as follows:</p><p>16. What appears as the legislative intent, in bold relief, is that the landlord, while seeking eviction of a tenant on the ground that he needs a residential building for his own occupation, must come out clearly and honestly with facts relating to the requirement that he is not occupying another residential building owned by him, in the urban area concerned and that he had not vacated such a building without sufficient cause within five years of the filing of the application, in the said urban area. The primal burden of making a clear disclosure would lie upon the landlord, for, the true facts would be in his special knowledge. An order in his favour by the Rent Controller would depend upon the satisfaction of the Rent Controller in regard not only to the claim that the landlord requires the accommodation, from which he wishes to evict a tenant, for his own occupation but also that he was not occupying another residential building owned by him nor had he vacated such building without sufficient cause within five years of the filing of the application in the application in the urban area concerned....</p><p>It was further held as under:</p><p>18. That the landlord should make a full disclosure of the relevant facts, pertaining to the requirements of Sub-section (3)(a)(i) and the two provisos, becomes all the more necessary because the satisfaction of the Rent Controller in regard thereto is the condition precedent for the making of an order in favour of the landlord....</p><p>20. The aforesaid judgment has been followed in a number of other cases including Vijay Kapoor v. Maya Ram 1997 (2) RCR 437, wherein another learned single Judge of this Court following the aforesaid judgment held that the landlord must make complete and proper disclosure of all the material facts.</p><p>21. On the other hand Sh. Ramakant Sharma has relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in Ram Narain Arora v. Asha Rani 1998(2) RCR 268. In that case the Rent Controller came to the conclusion that the landlord had suppressed material information and had not disclosed the fact that he was already in occupation of a house in Subji Mandi. Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act reads as follows:</p><p>Section 14(1)(e). That the premises let for residential purposes are required bona fide by the landlord for occupation as a residence for himself or for any member of his family dependent on him, if he is the owner thereof, or for any person for whose benefit the premises are held and that the landlord or such person has no other reasonably suitable residential accommodation.</p><p>22. The difference between Delhi Act and the present Act is that under the Delhi Act the only requirement is that the landlord has no other reasonably suitable accommodation whereas under the Himachal Act the residential premises are required to be owned by the landlord. The Apex Court in Rama Narain Arora's case (supra) held that the nondisclosure of the fact that the landlord was in occupation of certain premises in Subji Mandi was.not a ground to non-suit the landlord in view of the facts and circumstances of the case. The Apex Court held as follows:</p><p>9. In making a claim that the suit premises is required bona fide for his own occupation as a residence for himself and other members of his family dependent on him and that he has no other reasonably suitable accommodation is a requirement of law before the Court can state whether the landlord requires the premises bona fide for his use and occupation. In doing so, the Court must also find out whether the landlord or such other person for whose benefit the premises is required has no other reasonably suitable residential accommodation. It cannot be said that the requirement of the landlord is not intermixed with the question of finding out whether he has any other reasonably suitable accommodation. If he has other reasonably suitable accommodation, ihen necessarily it would mean that he does not require the suit premises and his requirement may not be bona fide. In such circumstances further inquiry would be whether that premises is more suitable than the suit premises. Therefore, the questions raised before the Court would not necessarily depend upon only the pleadings. It could be a good defence that the landlord has other reasonably suitable residential accommodation and thereby defend the claim of the landlord.</p><p>10. There cannot be a pedantic or a dogmatic approach in the matter of analysis of pleadings or of the evidence adduced thereto. It is no doubt true that if the pleadings are clearly set out, it would be easy for the Court to decide the matters. But if the pleadings are lacking or vague and if both parties have understood what was the case pleaded and put forth with reference to requirement of law and placed such material before the Court, neither party is prejudiced. If we analyse from this angle, we do not think that the High Court was not justified in interfering with the order made by the Rent Controller.</p><p>23. From the perusal of the judgment of the Apex Court it is apparent that the Rent Controller must approach the matter in a practical manner. In case the non-disclosure is such as that it goes to the very root of the case the Rent Controller would be justified in non-suiting the landlord. However, if the non-disclosure is such that it would not prejudice the rights of the respondent then the landlord should not be non-suited only on this ground.</p><p>24. The decisions of this Court cited hereinabove were delivered prior to the judgment delivered by the Apex Court in Ram Nar'ain Arora's case. Further more both in Tara Chand Sharma's case and Vijay Kapoor's case decided by this Court, no averment had been made ixi respect of other residential buildings owned by a landlord. There was complete non-disclosure as to whether any such residential building owned by the landlord was in his possession or not. In the present case, as I have held above, the residential premises at 31, The Mall, Shimla was not owned by the landlord and hence these two earlier judgments of this Court are distinguishable on facts also.</p><p>25. In the present case, the landlord has been non-suited only on the ground that he did not disclose the fact that he was in occupation of certain premises on the Mall Road. Under law he was not required to disclose this fact. He was only required to disclose the factum of occupying another residential building owned by him in the urban area concerned. True it may be, that it would have been better if the landlord had disclosed all the facts but non-disclosure of a fact which he was not under law required to disclose could not in my opinion be a ground to dismiss his eviction petition.</p><p>26. However, what are the premises in his occupation even as a tenant can be taken into consideration while deciding the question whether he bona fide requires the demised premises for his personal use or occupation or not.</p><p>27. Lastly comes the question with regard to the bona fide requirement of the landlord. The landlord has no children. According to the landlord as well as his other witnesses i.e. his brother-in-law PW-2 and his wife PW-3, the wife now wants to come back and settle in Shimla. There is no reason to disbelieve their statements. Even according to the evidence led by the tenant the accommodation in possession of the landlord consists of two rooms, kitchen, bath room etc. Admittedly, the landlord is also having his office as an Architect in this building. The landlord belongs to the middle class of the Society. It cannot be expected of a landlord who owns sufficient property to reside in a two room set wherein he also runs his office.</p><p>28. The law by now is well settled that the landlord is the best judge of the suitability of the accommodation required by him. This suitability has however to be judged in the context of reasonable expectations. The landlord and his wife who are both well educated can reasonably be expected to entertain guests and they will have visitors to their house. They would obviously require a drawing room, a bed room and a spare bed room for guests. Even at his residence the landlord may require another room for his professional work. This is the minimum accommodation which they would require. Even if the accommodation possessed by the landlord, though not owned by him, at 31, the Mall, Shimla is taken into consideration such accommodation is not sufficient to meet his requirements since admittedly the landlord is running his profession of Architect from some portion of his these premises.</p><p>29. Keeping in view the entire facts and circumstances, I am of the considered view that the learned Appellate Authority gravely erred in rejecting the eviction petition of the landlord solely on the ground that he had not disclosed the factum of being in possession of the premises at 31, the Mall Shimla. Even though I have held that the said premises are residential premises, in view of the above discussion I hold that the landlord cannot be non-suited only on the ground of his being in possession of such premises since same were not owned by him.</p><p>30. In view of the above discussion, the Revision Petition is allowed, the order of the learned Appellate Authority dated 6.5.2003 is seaside and the order of the Rent Controller dated 22.8.2001 is restored.</p><p>31. Keeping in view the fact that the tenant has been in possession of the premises for a long period he is granted time up to 31st October, 2008 to vacate the premises.</p><p>32. No order as to costs.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '2008(2)ShimLC491',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'Shri S.L. Srivastava',
		'sub' => 'Tenancy',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'shri-arun-bhanwara-vs-s-l-srivastava'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '891084',
	(int) 1 => 'shri-arun-bhanwara-vs-s-l-srivastava'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/891084/shri-arun-bhanwara-vs-s-l-srivastava'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$caseref = 'Ram Narain Arora v. Asha Rani<br>'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>Deepak Gupta, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. This Revision Petition under Section 25(5) of the H.P. Urban Rent Control Act, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) is directed against the order of the learned Appellate Authority, Shimla in CMA No. 60-S/14 of 2001 whereby the appeal filed by the respondent (hereinafter referred to as the tenant) has been allowed, the order of the Rent Controller has been set-aside and the petition for eviction filed by the present petitioner (hereinafter referred to as the Landlord) on the ground of personal bona fide requirement has been set-aside.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. The undisputed facts are that the landlord is owner of the demised premises situated in building known as Tunnel View, Sanjauli, Shimla-6 consisting of two bed rooms with attached bath room and latrine, drawing-cum-dining room, kitchen and balcony. These premises were purchased by the landlord in the year 1986. Thereafter, the landlord had rented out the premises to one Sh. B.K. Chauhan. According to the landlord, when he got married he requested Sh. B.K. Chauhan to vacate the said premises. Sh. Chauhan vacated the said premises but admittedly the landlord did not occupy the same but rented out the same to the tenant in the year 1990.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. In the year 1997 the landlord filed a petition for eviction of the tenant on two grounds; firstly that the tenant is in arrears of rent from 1.11.1990 to 31.7.1997 and secondly that the premises are bona fide required by the landlord for the use and occupation of himself and his family.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>4. This petition was contested by the tenant. After trial, the Rent Controller ordered the eviction of the tenant on two grounds; (i) that the tenant was in arrears of rent from November, 1999 till date of order i.e. 22nd August, 2001 and (ii) that the landlord required the premises for his own use and occupation.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>5. The tenant deposited the rent within the time prescribed. He also filed an appeal challenging the finding on the issue of bona fide requirement. The learned Appellate Authority came to the conclusion that the landlord had not made a proper and full disclosure of facts as required under the provisions of the Act and had withheld material facts from the Court viz. that the landlord was in occupation of residential premises on 31, Mall Road in the urban area of Shimla and as such rejected this petition on this short ground.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>6. Aggrieved by the said order, the landlord has filed the present Revision Petition.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>7. I have heard Sh. Ramakant Sharma, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sh. Bhupinder Gupta, learned senior Counsel for the tenant.',
	(int) 8 => '<p>8. It has been urged on behalf of the landlord that the building which is alleged to be in possession of the landlord i.e. 31, the Mall Shimla is not a residential building and secondly that the building is not owned by him.',
	(int) 9 => '<p>9. On the other hand Sh. Bhupinder Gupta, learned Counsel of the tenant has strenuously urged that the landlord in para 18 has not stated anything about any building being owned by him and has only made an averment that he does not own or possess any other such building within the urban area Shimla. It is contended by Sh. Bhupinder Gupta that the landlord of his own volition did not state anything about the ownership of the building and since he has kept silent about the building which he is in occupation he has made a false averment and therefore his petition for eviction has rightly been rejected.',
	(int) 10 => '<p>10. I am not at all in agreement with the contention of the landlord that the premises known as 31, the Mall Shimla which are admittedly in the occupation of the landlord are commercial premises only and not being used by him for his residence. As pointed out above, the landlord purchased the demised premises in 1986. They fell vacant when he got married despite that he did not occupy the same and rented out the same to the tenant in the year 1990. The question that arises is where was the landlord living for this entire period. According to the landlord after the year 1994 he has been living with his brother-in-law Rajan (wife's brother) PW-2, since the year 1994. Prior to 1994 the landlord will have this Court to believe that he was living off and on with one friend or the other. This story is impossible to believe. The landlord was married in the year 1999. He is an Architect by profession. His wife is a law graduate. It is not believable that such a person would have no permanent abode and would continue to live as a guest with his friends for almost 5 years after his marriage. Even the story that he has been living with his brother-in-law after the year 1994 does not inspire confidence. It stands proved on record that the brother-in-law PW-2 Rajan lives with his own family i.e. wife and children. From the evidence it is also clear that the parents of the brother-in-law also reside with him, His flat consists of only two rooms. The flat in possession of the landlord at 31, the Mall Shimla, also consists of two rooms, kitchen and bath room. Even assuming that he was running an office in the part of the flat it cannot be believed that he would not live on his own flat on the Mall Road and reside with his brother-in-law in cramped premises. Even in the electoral list the landlord is shown to be a resident of 31, The Mall, Shimla. Therefore, I am of the considered view that the building 31, the Mall, Shimla was also being used as a residence by the landlord.',
	(int) 11 => '<p>11. Having held so, the question that arises is whether the landlord can be non-suited only on the ground that he has not made any disclosure about the residential accommodation available with him which premises were admittedly not owned by him.',
	(int) 12 => '<p>12. The short question which arises for decision in this petition is whether the landlord was guilty of suppressing and withholding such relevant facts which would disentitle him from seeking eviction of the tenant. To appreciate these contentions it would be necessary to refer to relevant portion of Section 14(3) of the Act:',
	(int) 13 => '<p>Section 14:',
	(int) 14 => '<p>1 and 2 xxxxxxxxxxx',
	(int) 15 => '<p>(3) A landlord may apply to the Controller for an order directing the tenant to put the landlord in possession-',
	(int) 16 => '<p>(a) in case of residential building, if',
	(int) 17 => '<p>(i) he required it for his own occupation:',
	(int) 18 => '<p>Provided that he is not occupying another residential building owned by him, in the urban area concerned:',
	(int) 19 => '<p>Provided further that he has not vacated such a building without sufficient cause within five years of the filing of the application, in the said urban area....',
	(int) 20 => '<p>13. A perusal of the bare provisions of the Act makes it clear that there are certain essential ingredients which the landlord must satisfy before seeking eviction of the tenant under the Act. Not only must he prove that the residential building is bona fide required by him for his own use and occupation but he must also plead and prove that he is not occupying any other residential building owned by him in the urban area concerned and further that he has not vacated such a building without sufficient cause within 5 years of the filing of the application.',
	(int) 21 => '<p>14. Reference may now be made to the relevant allegations made in para 18 of the eviction petition:',
	(int) 22 => '<p>(ii) That the petitioner bona fide requires the premises for his own use and occupation and also for the use and occupation of his family.',
	(int) 23 => '<p>The petitioner does not own or possess any other such building within the urban area of Simla nor the petitioner has vacated any such premises within five years of the filing of this petition.',
	(int) 24 => '<p>The family of the petitioner presently consists of himself and his wife. Due to paucity of accommodation the petitioner has not been able to keep his wife with himself at Simla, where he is working as an Engineer and she has been residing at Chandigarh since 1991 but on account of her ill health she has been brought to Simla by the petitioner. The petitioner at present is seeking temporary shelter, from time to time, with his relations.',
	(int) 25 => '<p>15. The learned Appellate Authority came to the conclusion that the landlord had falsely pleaded that he does not own or possess any other such building within the urban area of Shimla and hence rejected the eviction petition on this ground.',
	(int) 26 => '<p>16. On a close analysis of the proviso to Section 14(3)(a)(i) of the Act it is clear that a landlord is not entitled to seek eviction of a tenant from residential building even in case of bona fide requirement if the landlord is occupying another residential building owned by him in the urban area concerned. One can read three essential ingredients in this proviso i.e. (i) that the landlord is in occupation of another residential building; (ii) that the said residential building is owned by him and (iii) that the said residential building is situated in the concerned urban area.',
	(int) 27 => '<p>17. The question that arises is what is the impact of the landlord not making a disclosure in respect of premises which he is occupying but are not owned by him.',
	(int) 28 => '<p>18. The Apex Court in Onkar Nath v. Ved Vyas ILR 1979 HP 1, held as follows:',
	(int) 29 => '<p>It is common ground that there are three requirements to make out a cause of action for eviction under that provision, and indeed this is apparent from a bare reading of the sub-section. In the present case the finding is to the effect that the landlord requires the residential building for his own occupation. But, the legislation has taken care to insist upon two more conditions, namely; (a) that the landlord is not occupying any other residential building in the area concerned; and (b) that he has not vacated such a building without sufficient cause. There is not a scintilla of evidence nor indeed there is any averment in compliance with these latter conditions. The necessary consequence follows that not merely is there inadequacy of pleadings sufficient to make out a cause of action but total absence of proof of two vital requirements....',
	(int) 30 => '<p>The Supreme Court also said that:.The statute benignly designed to protect tenants from unreasonable evictions has taken case to put restrictions which must be rigorously construed to fulfil the purpose of the statute.',
	(int) 31 => '<p>19. Following the aforesaid judgment and other pronouncements of the Apex Court, a learned Single Judge of this Court in Tara Chand Sharma v. Baij Nath and Ors. 1992 (2) R.C.J. 323, held as follows:',
	(int) 32 => '<p>16. What appears as the legislative intent, in bold relief, is that the landlord, while seeking eviction of a tenant on the ground that he needs a residential building for his own occupation, must come out clearly and honestly with facts relating to the requirement that he is not occupying another residential building owned by him, in the urban area concerned and that he had not vacated such a building without sufficient cause within five years of the filing of the application, in the said urban area. The primal burden of making a clear disclosure would lie upon the landlord, for, the true facts would be in his special knowledge. An order in his favour by the Rent Controller would depend upon the satisfaction of the Rent Controller in regard not only to the claim that the landlord requires the accommodation, from which he wishes to evict a tenant, for his own occupation but also that he was not occupying another residential building owned by him nor had he vacated such building without sufficient cause within five years of the filing of the application in the application in the urban area concerned....',
	(int) 33 => '<p>It was further held as under:',
	(int) 34 => '<p>18. That the landlord should make a full disclosure of the relevant facts, pertaining to the requirements of Sub-section (3)(a)(i) and the two provisos, becomes all the more necessary because the satisfaction of the Rent Controller in regard thereto is the condition precedent for the making of an order in favour of the landlord....',
	(int) 35 => '<p>20. The aforesaid judgment has been followed in a number of other cases including Vijay Kapoor v. Maya Ram 1997 (2) RCR 437, wherein another learned single Judge of this Court following the aforesaid judgment held that the landlord must make complete and proper disclosure of all the material facts.',
	(int) 36 => '<p>21. On the other hand Sh. Ramakant Sharma has relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in Ram Narain Arora v. Asha Rani 1998(2) RCR 268. In that case the Rent Controller came to the conclusion that the landlord had suppressed material information and had not disclosed the fact that he was already in occupation of a house in Subji Mandi. Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act reads as follows:',
	(int) 37 => '<p>Section 14(1)(e). That the premises let for residential purposes are required bona fide by the landlord for occupation as a residence for himself or for any member of his family dependent on him, if he is the owner thereof, or for any person for whose benefit the premises are held and that the landlord or such person has no other reasonably suitable residential accommodation.',
	(int) 38 => '<p>22. The difference between Delhi Act and the present Act is that under the Delhi Act the only requirement is that the landlord has no other reasonably suitable accommodation whereas under the Himachal Act the residential premises are required to be owned by the landlord. The Apex Court in Rama Narain Arora's case (supra) held that the nondisclosure of the fact that the landlord was in occupation of certain premises in Subji Mandi was.not a ground to non-suit the landlord in view of the facts and circumstances of the case. The Apex Court held as follows:',
	(int) 39 => '<p>9. In making a claim that the suit premises is required bona fide for his own occupation as a residence for himself and other members of his family dependent on him and that he has no other reasonably suitable accommodation is a requirement of law before the Court can state whether the landlord requires the premises bona fide for his use and occupation. In doing so, the Court must also find out whether the landlord or such other person for whose benefit the premises is required has no other reasonably suitable residential accommodation. It cannot be said that the requirement of the landlord is not intermixed with the question of finding out whether he has any other reasonably suitable accommodation. If he has other reasonably suitable accommodation, ihen necessarily it would mean that he does not require the suit premises and his requirement may not be bona fide. In such circumstances further inquiry would be whether that premises is more suitable than the suit premises. Therefore, the questions raised before the Court would not necessarily depend upon only the pleadings. It could be a good defence that the landlord has other reasonably suitable residential accommodation and thereby defend the claim of the landlord.',
	(int) 40 => '<p>10. There cannot be a pedantic or a dogmatic approach in the matter of analysis of pleadings or of the evidence adduced thereto. It is no doubt true that if the pleadings are clearly set out, it would be easy for the Court to decide the matters. But if the pleadings are lacking or vague and if both parties have understood what was the case pleaded and put forth with reference to requirement of law and placed such material before the Court, neither party is prejudiced. If we analyse from this angle, we do not think that the High Court was not justified in interfering with the order made by the Rent Controller.',
	(int) 41 => '<p>23. From the perusal of the judgment of the Apex Court it is apparent that the Rent Controller must approach the matter in a practical manner. In case the non-disclosure is such as that it goes to the very root of the case the Rent Controller would be justified in non-suiting the landlord. However, if the non-disclosure is such that it would not prejudice the rights of the respondent then the landlord should not be non-suited only on this ground.',
	(int) 42 => '<p>24. The decisions of this Court cited hereinabove were delivered prior to the judgment delivered by the Apex Court in Ram Nar'ain Arora's case. Further more both in Tara Chand Sharma's case and Vijay Kapoor's case decided by this Court, no averment had been made ixi respect of other residential buildings owned by a landlord. There was complete non-disclosure as to whether any such residential building owned by the landlord was in his possession or not. In the present case, as I have held above, the residential premises at 31, The Mall, Shimla was not owned by the landlord and hence these two earlier judgments of this Court are distinguishable on facts also.',
	(int) 43 => '<p>25. In the present case, the landlord has been non-suited only on the ground that he did not disclose the fact that he was in occupation of certain premises on the Mall Road. Under law he was not required to disclose this fact. He was only required to disclose the factum of occupying another residential building owned by him in the urban area concerned. True it may be, that it would have been better if the landlord had disclosed all the facts but non-disclosure of a fact which he was not under law required to disclose could not in my opinion be a ground to dismiss his eviction petition.',
	(int) 44 => '<p>26. However, what are the premises in his occupation even as a tenant can be taken into consideration while deciding the question whether he bona fide requires the demised premises for his personal use or occupation or not.',
	(int) 45 => '<p>27. Lastly comes the question with regard to the bona fide requirement of the landlord. The landlord has no children. According to the landlord as well as his other witnesses i.e. his brother-in-law PW-2 and his wife PW-3, the wife now wants to come back and settle in Shimla. There is no reason to disbelieve their statements. Even according to the evidence led by the tenant the accommodation in possession of the landlord consists of two rooms, kitchen, bath room etc. Admittedly, the landlord is also having his office as an Architect in this building. The landlord belongs to the middle class of the Society. It cannot be expected of a landlord who owns sufficient property to reside in a two room set wherein he also runs his office.',
	(int) 46 => '<p>28. The law by now is well settled that the landlord is the best judge of the suitability of the accommodation required by him. This suitability has however to be judged in the context of reasonable expectations. The landlord and his wife who are both well educated can reasonably be expected to entertain guests and they will have visitors to their house. They would obviously require a drawing room, a bed room and a spare bed room for guests. Even at his residence the landlord may require another room for his professional work. This is the minimum accommodation which they would require. Even if the accommodation possessed by the landlord, though not owned by him, at 31, the Mall, Shimla is taken into consideration such accommodation is not sufficient to meet his requirements since admittedly the landlord is running his profession of Architect from some portion of his these premises.',
	(int) 47 => '<p>29. Keeping in view the entire facts and circumstances, I am of the considered view that the learned Appellate Authority gravely erred in rejecting the eviction petition of the landlord solely on the ground that he had not disclosed the factum of being in possession of the premises at 31, the Mall Shimla. Even though I have held that the said premises are residential premises, in view of the above discussion I hold that the landlord cannot be non-suited only on the ground of his being in possession of such premises since same were not owned by him.',
	(int) 48 => '<p>30. In view of the above discussion, the Revision Petition is allowed, the order of the learned Appellate Authority dated 6.5.2003 is seaside and the order of the Rent Controller dated 22.8.2001 is restored.',
	(int) 49 => '<p>31. Keeping in view the fact that the tenant has been in possession of the premises for a long period he is granted time up to 31st October, 2008 to vacate the premises.',
	(int) 50 => '<p>32. No order as to costs.<p>',
	(int) 51 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 52
$i = (int) 31
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

19. Following the aforesaid judgment and other pronouncements of the Apex Court, a learned Single Judge of this Court in Tara Chand Sharma v. Baij Nath and Ors. 1992 (2) R.C.J. 323, held as follows:

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Shri Arun Bhanwara Vs Shri S L Srivastava - Citation 891084 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '891084',
			'acts' => '',
			'appealno' => '',
			'appellant' => 'Shri Arun Bhanwara',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Shri Arun Bhanwara Vs. Shri S.L. Srivastava',
			'casenote' => ' - CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908.[C.A. No. 5/1908]. Order 14, Rule 2 [As amended by Amending Act of 1976]: [V.K. Gupta, CJ, Deepak Gupta & Surjit Singh, JJ] Preliminary issue of law and fact  Court framing all issues both of law and facts together and also  tried all the issues together, including the issue relating to jurisdiction of Court  Held, Except in situations perceived or warranted under sub-rule (2) of Rule 2 of Order 14 where a  Court in fact frames only issues of law in the first instance and postpones settlement of other issues, clearly and explicitly in situations where the Court has framed all issues together, both of law as well as facts and has also tried all these issues together, it is not open to the Court to adopt the principle of severability and proceed to decide issues of law first, without taking up simultaneously other issues for decision. This course of action is not available to a Court because sub-rule (1) does not permit the  Court to adopt any such principle of severability and to dispose of a suit only on preliminary issues, or what can be termed as issues of law. Sub-rule (1)  clearly mandates that in a situation contemplated under it, where all the issues have been together and have also been taken up for adjudication during the course of the trial, these must be decided together and the judgment in the suit as a whole must be pronounced by the Court covering all the issues framed in the suit.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => 'Ram Narain Arora v. Asha Rani;',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => '',
			'counseldef' => '',
			'court' => 'Himachal Pradesh',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2008-07-31',
			'deposition' => 'Petition allowed',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => ' Deepak Gupta, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">Deepak Gupta, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. This Revision Petition under Section 25(5) of the H.P. Urban Rent Control Act, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) is directed against the order of the learned Appellate Authority, Shimla in CMA No. 60-S/14 of 2001 whereby the appeal filed by the respondent (hereinafter referred to as the tenant) has been allowed, the order of the Rent Controller has been set-aside and the petition for eviction filed by the present petitioner (hereinafter referred to as the Landlord) on the ground of personal bona fide requirement has been set-aside.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The undisputed facts are that the landlord is owner of the demised premises situated in building known as Tunnel View, Sanjauli, Shimla-6 consisting of two bed rooms with attached bath room and latrine, drawing-cum-dining room, kitchen and balcony. These premises were purchased by the landlord in the year 1986. Thereafter, the landlord had rented out the premises to one Sh. B.K. Chauhan. According to the landlord, when he got married he requested Sh. B.K. Chauhan to vacate the said premises. Sh. Chauhan vacated the said premises but admittedly the landlord did not occupy the same but rented out the same to the tenant in the year 1990.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. In the year 1997 the landlord filed a petition for eviction of the tenant on two grounds; firstly that the tenant is in arrears of rent from 1.11.1990 to 31.7.1997 and secondly that the premises are bona fide required by the landlord for the use and occupation of himself and his family.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. This petition was contested by the tenant. After trial, the Rent Controller ordered the eviction of the tenant on two grounds; (i) that the tenant was in arrears of rent from November, 1999 till date of order i.e. 22nd August, 2001 and (ii) that the landlord required the premises for his own use and occupation.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. The tenant deposited the rent within the time prescribed. He also filed an appeal challenging the finding on the issue of bona fide requirement. The learned Appellate Authority came to the conclusion that the landlord had not made a proper and full disclosure of facts as required under the provisions of the Act and had withheld material facts from the Court viz. that the landlord was in occupation of residential premises on 31, Mall Road in the urban area of Shimla and as such rejected this petition on this short ground.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. Aggrieved by the said order, the landlord has filed the present Revision Petition.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. I have heard Sh. Ramakant Sharma, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sh. Bhupinder Gupta, learned senior Counsel for the tenant.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. It has been urged on behalf of the landlord that the building which is alleged to be in possession of the landlord i.e. 31, the Mall Shimla is not a residential building and secondly that the building is not owned by him.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. On the other hand Sh. Bhupinder Gupta, learned Counsel of the tenant has strenuously urged that the landlord in para 18 has not stated anything about any building being owned by him and has only made an averment that he does not own or possess any other such building within the urban area Shimla. It is contended by Sh. Bhupinder Gupta that the landlord of his own volition did not state anything about the ownership of the building and since he has kept silent about the building which he is in occupation he has made a false averment and therefore his petition for eviction has rightly been rejected.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. I am not at all in agreement with the contention of the landlord that the premises known as 31, the Mall Shimla which are admittedly in the occupation of the landlord are commercial premises only and not being used by him for his residence. As pointed out above, the landlord purchased the demised premises in 1986. They fell vacant when he got married despite that he did not occupy the same and rented out the same to the tenant in the year 1990. The question that arises is where was the landlord living for this entire period. According to the landlord after the year 1994 he has been living with his brother-in-law Rajan (wife's brother) PW-2, since the year 1994. Prior to 1994 the landlord will have this Court to believe that he was living off and on with one friend or the other. This story is impossible to believe. The landlord was married in the year 1999. He is an Architect by profession. His wife is a law graduate. It is not believable that such a person would have no permanent abode and would continue to live as a guest with his friends for almost 5 years after his marriage. Even the story that he has been living with his brother-in-law after the year 1994 does not inspire confidence. It stands proved on record that the brother-in-law PW-2 Rajan lives with his own family i.e. wife and children. From the evidence it is also clear that the parents of the brother-in-law also reside with him, His flat consists of only two rooms. The flat in possession of the landlord at 31, the Mall Shimla, also consists of two rooms, kitchen and bath room. Even assuming that he was running an office in the part of the flat it cannot be believed that he would not live on his own flat on the Mall Road and reside with his brother-in-law in cramped premises. Even in the electoral list the landlord is shown to be a resident of 31, The Mall, Shimla. Therefore, I am of the considered view that the building 31, the Mall, Shimla was also being used as a residence by the landlord.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. Having held so, the question that arises is whether the landlord can be non-suited only on the ground that he has not made any disclosure about the residential accommodation available with him which premises were admittedly not owned by him.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. The short question which arises for decision in this petition is whether the landlord was guilty of suppressing and withholding such relevant facts which would disentitle him from seeking eviction of the tenant. To appreciate these contentions it would be necessary to refer to relevant portion of Section 14(3) of the Act:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Section 14:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1 and 2 xxxxxxxxxxx</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(3) A landlord may apply to the Controller for an order directing the tenant to put the landlord in possession-</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(a) in case of residential building, if</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(i) he required it for his own occupation:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Provided that he is not occupying another residential building owned by him, in the urban area concerned:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Provided further that he has not vacated such a building without sufficient cause within five years of the filing of the application, in the said urban area....</p><p style="text-align: justify;">13. A perusal of the bare provisions of the Act makes it clear that there are certain essential ingredients which the landlord must satisfy before seeking eviction of the tenant under the Act. Not only must he prove that the residential building is bona fide required by him for his own use and occupation but he must also plead and prove that he is not occupying any other residential building owned by him in the urban area concerned and further that he has not vacated such a building without sufficient cause within 5 years of the filing of the application.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">14. Reference may now be made to the relevant allegations made in para 18 of the eviction petition:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(ii) That the petitioner bona fide requires the premises for his own use and occupation and also for the use and occupation of his family.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The petitioner does not own or possess any other such building within the urban area of Simla nor the petitioner has vacated any such premises within five years of the filing of this petition.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The family of the petitioner presently consists of himself and his wife. Due to paucity of accommodation the petitioner has not been able to keep his wife with himself at Simla, where he is working as an Engineer and she has been residing at Chandigarh since 1991 but on account of her ill health she has been brought to Simla by the petitioner. The petitioner at present is seeking temporary shelter, from time to time, with his relations.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">15. The learned Appellate Authority came to the conclusion that the landlord had falsely pleaded that he does not own or possess any other such building within the urban area of Shimla and hence rejected the eviction petition on this ground.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">16. On a close analysis of the proviso to Section 14(3)(a)(i) of the Act it is clear that a landlord is not entitled to seek eviction of a tenant from residential building even in case of bona fide requirement if the landlord is occupying another residential building owned by him in the urban area concerned. One can read three essential ingredients in this proviso i.e. (i) that the landlord is in occupation of another residential building; (ii) that the said residential building is owned by him and (iii) that the said residential building is situated in the concerned urban area.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">17. The question that arises is what is the impact of the landlord not making a disclosure in respect of premises which he is occupying but are not owned by him.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">18. The Apex Court in Onkar Nath v. Ved Vyas ILR 1979 HP 1, held as follows:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">It is common ground that there are three requirements to make out a cause of action for eviction under that provision, and indeed this is apparent from a bare reading of the sub-section. In the present case the finding is to the effect that the landlord requires the residential building for his own occupation. But, the legislation has taken care to insist upon two more conditions, namely; (a) that the landlord is not occupying any other residential building in the area concerned; and (b) that he has not vacated such a building without sufficient cause. There is not a scintilla of evidence nor indeed there is any averment in compliance with these latter conditions. The necessary consequence follows that not merely is there inadequacy of pleadings sufficient to make out a cause of action but total absence of proof of two vital requirements....</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The Supreme Court also said that:.The statute benignly designed to protect tenants from unreasonable evictions has taken case to put restrictions which must be rigorously construed to fulfil the purpose of the statute.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">19. Following the aforesaid judgment and other pronouncements of the Apex Court, a learned Single Judge of this Court in Tara Chand Sharma v. Baij Nath and Ors. 1992 (2) R.C.J. 323, held as follows:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">16. What appears as the legislative intent, in bold relief, is that the landlord, while seeking eviction of a tenant on the ground that he needs a residential building for his own occupation, must come out clearly and honestly with facts relating to the requirement that he is not occupying another residential building owned by him, in the urban area concerned and that he had not vacated such a building without sufficient cause within five years of the filing of the application, in the said urban area. The primal burden of making a clear disclosure would lie upon the landlord, for, the true facts would be in his special knowledge. An order in his favour by the Rent Controller would depend upon the satisfaction of the Rent Controller in regard not only to the claim that the landlord requires the accommodation, from which he wishes to evict a tenant, for his own occupation but also that he was not occupying another residential building owned by him nor had he vacated such building without sufficient cause within five years of the filing of the application in the application in the urban area concerned....</p><p style="text-align: justify;">It was further held as under:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">18. That the landlord should make a full disclosure of the relevant facts, pertaining to the requirements of Sub-section (3)(a)(i) and the two provisos, becomes all the more necessary because the satisfaction of the Rent Controller in regard thereto is the condition precedent for the making of an order in favour of the landlord....</p><p style="text-align: justify;">20. The aforesaid judgment has been followed in a number of other cases including Vijay Kapoor v. Maya Ram 1997 (2) RCR 437, wherein another learned single Judge of this Court following the aforesaid judgment held that the landlord must make complete and proper disclosure of all the material facts.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">21. On the other hand Sh. Ramakant Sharma has relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in Ram Narain Arora v. Asha Rani 1998(2) RCR 268. In that case the Rent Controller came to the conclusion that the landlord had suppressed material information and had not disclosed the fact that he was already in occupation of a house in Subji Mandi. Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act reads as follows:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Section 14(1)(e). That the premises let for residential purposes are required bona fide by the landlord for occupation as a residence for himself or for any member of his family dependent on him, if he is the owner thereof, or for any person for whose benefit the premises are held and that the landlord or such person has no other reasonably suitable residential accommodation.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">22. The difference between Delhi Act and the present Act is that under the Delhi Act the only requirement is that the landlord has no other reasonably suitable accommodation whereas under the Himachal Act the residential premises are required to be owned by the landlord. The Apex Court in Rama Narain Arora's case (supra) held that the nondisclosure of the fact that the landlord was in occupation of certain premises in Subji Mandi was.not a ground to non-suit the landlord in view of the facts and circumstances of the case. The Apex Court held as follows:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. In making a claim that the suit premises is required bona fide for his own occupation as a residence for himself and other members of his family dependent on him and that he has no other reasonably suitable accommodation is a requirement of law before the Court can state whether the landlord requires the premises bona fide for his use and occupation. In doing so, the Court must also find out whether the landlord or such other person for whose benefit the premises is required has no other reasonably suitable residential accommodation. It cannot be said that the requirement of the landlord is not intermixed with the question of finding out whether he has any other reasonably suitable accommodation. If he has other reasonably suitable accommodation, ihen necessarily it would mean that he does not require the suit premises and his requirement may not be bona fide. In such circumstances further inquiry would be whether that premises is more suitable than the suit premises. Therefore, the questions raised before the Court would not necessarily depend upon only the pleadings. It could be a good defence that the landlord has other reasonably suitable residential accommodation and thereby defend the claim of the landlord.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. There cannot be a pedantic or a dogmatic approach in the matter of analysis of pleadings or of the evidence adduced thereto. It is no doubt true that if the pleadings are clearly set out, it would be easy for the Court to decide the matters. But if the pleadings are lacking or vague and if both parties have understood what was the case pleaded and put forth with reference to requirement of law and placed such material before the Court, neither party is prejudiced. If we analyse from this angle, we do not think that the High Court was not justified in interfering with the order made by the Rent Controller.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">23. From the perusal of the judgment of the Apex Court it is apparent that the Rent Controller must approach the matter in a practical manner. In case the non-disclosure is such as that it goes to the very root of the case the Rent Controller would be justified in non-suiting the landlord. However, if the non-disclosure is such that it would not prejudice the rights of the respondent then the landlord should not be non-suited only on this ground.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">24. The decisions of this Court cited hereinabove were delivered prior to the judgment delivered by the Apex Court in Ram Nar'ain Arora's case. Further more both in Tara Chand Sharma's case and Vijay Kapoor's case decided by this Court, no averment had been made ixi respect of other residential buildings owned by a landlord. There was complete non-disclosure as to whether any such residential building owned by the landlord was in his possession or not. In the present case, as I have held above, the residential premises at 31, The Mall, Shimla was not owned by the landlord and hence these two earlier judgments of this Court are distinguishable on facts also.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">25. In the present case, the landlord has been non-suited only on the ground that he did not disclose the fact that he was in occupation of certain premises on the Mall Road. Under law he was not required to disclose this fact. He was only required to disclose the factum of occupying another residential building owned by him in the urban area concerned. True it may be, that it would have been better if the landlord had disclosed all the facts but non-disclosure of a fact which he was not under law required to disclose could not in my opinion be a ground to dismiss his eviction petition.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">26. However, what are the premises in his occupation even as a tenant can be taken into consideration while deciding the question whether he bona fide requires the demised premises for his personal use or occupation or not.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">27. Lastly comes the question with regard to the bona fide requirement of the landlord. The landlord has no children. According to the landlord as well as his other witnesses i.e. his brother-in-law PW-2 and his wife PW-3, the wife now wants to come back and settle in Shimla. There is no reason to disbelieve their statements. Even according to the evidence led by the tenant the accommodation in possession of the landlord consists of two rooms, kitchen, bath room etc. Admittedly, the landlord is also having his office as an Architect in this building. The landlord belongs to the middle class of the Society. It cannot be expected of a landlord who owns sufficient property to reside in a two room set wherein he also runs his office.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">28. The law by now is well settled that the landlord is the best judge of the suitability of the accommodation required by him. This suitability has however to be judged in the context of reasonable expectations. The landlord and his wife who are both well educated can reasonably be expected to entertain guests and they will have visitors to their house. They would obviously require a drawing room, a bed room and a spare bed room for guests. Even at his residence the landlord may require another room for his professional work. This is the minimum accommodation which they would require. Even if the accommodation possessed by the landlord, though not owned by him, at 31, the Mall, Shimla is taken into consideration such accommodation is not sufficient to meet his requirements since admittedly the landlord is running his profession of Architect from some portion of his these premises.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">29. Keeping in view the entire facts and circumstances, I am of the considered view that the learned Appellate Authority gravely erred in rejecting the eviction petition of the landlord solely on the ground that he had not disclosed the factum of being in possession of the premises at 31, the Mall Shimla. Even though I have held that the said premises are residential premises, in view of the above discussion I hold that the landlord cannot be non-suited only on the ground of his being in possession of such premises since same were not owned by him.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">30. In view of the above discussion, the Revision Petition is allowed, the order of the learned Appellate Authority dated 6.5.2003 is seaside and the order of the Rent Controller dated 22.8.2001 is restored.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">31. Keeping in view the fact that the tenant has been in possession of the premises for a long period he is granted time up to 31st October, 2008 to vacate the premises.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">32. No order as to costs.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '2008(2)ShimLC491',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'Shri S.L. Srivastava',
			'sub' => 'Tenancy',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'shri-arun-bhanwara-vs-s-l-srivastava',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '891084',
		(int) 1 => 'shri-arun-bhanwara-vs-s-l-srivastava'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Shri Arun Bhanwara Vs Shri S L Srivastava - Citation 891084 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '891084',
		'acts' => '',
		'appealno' => '',
		'appellant' => 'Shri Arun Bhanwara',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Shri Arun Bhanwara Vs. Shri S.L. Srivastava',
		'casenote' => ' - CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908.[C.A. No. 5/1908]. Order 14, Rule 2 [As amended by Amending Act of 1976]: [V.K. Gupta, CJ, Deepak Gupta & Surjit Singh, JJ] Preliminary issue of law and fact  Court framing all issues both of law and facts together and also  tried all the issues together, including the issue relating to jurisdiction of Court  Held, Except in situations perceived or warranted under sub-rule (2) of Rule 2 of Order 14 where a  Court in fact frames only issues of law in the first instance and postpones settlement of other issues, clearly and explicitly in situations where the Court has framed all issues together, both of law as well as facts and has also tried all these issues together, it is not open to the Court to adopt the principle of severability and proceed to decide issues of law first, without taking up simultaneously other issues for decision. This course of action is not available to a Court because sub-rule (1) does not permit the  Court to adopt any such principle of severability and to dispose of a suit only on preliminary issues, or what can be termed as issues of law. Sub-rule (1)  clearly mandates that in a situation contemplated under it, where all the issues have been together and have also been taken up for adjudication during the course of the trial, these must be decided together and the judgment in the suit as a whole must be pronounced by the Court covering all the issues framed in the suit.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => 'Ram Narain Arora v. Asha Rani;',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => '',
		'counseldef' => '',
		'court' => 'Himachal Pradesh',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2008-07-31',
		'deposition' => 'Petition allowed',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => ' Deepak Gupta, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>Deepak Gupta, J.</p><p>1. This Revision Petition under Section 25(5) of the H.P. Urban Rent Control Act, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) is directed against the order of the learned Appellate Authority, Shimla in CMA No. 60-S/14 of 2001 whereby the appeal filed by the respondent (hereinafter referred to as the tenant) has been allowed, the order of the Rent Controller has been set-aside and the petition for eviction filed by the present petitioner (hereinafter referred to as the Landlord) on the ground of personal bona fide requirement has been set-aside.</p><p>2. The undisputed facts are that the landlord is owner of the demised premises situated in building known as Tunnel View, Sanjauli, Shimla-6 consisting of two bed rooms with attached bath room and latrine, drawing-cum-dining room, kitchen and balcony. These premises were purchased by the landlord in the year 1986. Thereafter, the landlord had rented out the premises to one Sh. B.K. Chauhan. According to the landlord, when he got married he requested Sh. B.K. Chauhan to vacate the said premises. Sh. Chauhan vacated the said premises but admittedly the landlord did not occupy the same but rented out the same to the tenant in the year 1990.</p><p>3. In the year 1997 the landlord filed a petition for eviction of the tenant on two grounds; firstly that the tenant is in arrears of rent from 1.11.1990 to 31.7.1997 and secondly that the premises are bona fide required by the landlord for the use and occupation of himself and his family.</p><p>4. This petition was contested by the tenant. After trial, the Rent Controller ordered the eviction of the tenant on two grounds; (i) that the tenant was in arrears of rent from November, 1999 till date of order i.e. 22nd August, 2001 and (ii) that the landlord required the premises for his own use and occupation.</p><p>5. The tenant deposited the rent within the time prescribed. He also filed an appeal challenging the finding on the issue of bona fide requirement. The learned Appellate Authority came to the conclusion that the landlord had not made a proper and full disclosure of facts as required under the provisions of the Act and had withheld material facts from the Court viz. that the landlord was in occupation of residential premises on 31, Mall Road in the urban area of Shimla and as such rejected this petition on this short ground.</p><p>6. Aggrieved by the said order, the landlord has filed the present Revision Petition.</p><p>7. I have heard Sh. Ramakant Sharma, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sh. Bhupinder Gupta, learned senior Counsel for the tenant.</p><p>8. It has been urged on behalf of the landlord that the building which is alleged to be in possession of the landlord i.e. 31, the Mall Shimla is not a residential building and secondly that the building is not owned by him.</p><p>9. On the other hand Sh. Bhupinder Gupta, learned Counsel of the tenant has strenuously urged that the landlord in para 18 has not stated anything about any building being owned by him and has only made an averment that he does not own or possess any other such building within the urban area Shimla. It is contended by Sh. Bhupinder Gupta that the landlord of his own volition did not state anything about the ownership of the building and since he has kept silent about the building which he is in occupation he has made a false averment and therefore his petition for eviction has rightly been rejected.</p><p>10. I am not at all in agreement with the contention of the landlord that the premises known as 31, the Mall Shimla which are admittedly in the occupation of the landlord are commercial premises only and not being used by him for his residence. As pointed out above, the landlord purchased the demised premises in 1986. They fell vacant when he got married despite that he did not occupy the same and rented out the same to the tenant in the year 1990. The question that arises is where was the landlord living for this entire period. According to the landlord after the year 1994 he has been living with his brother-in-law Rajan (wife's brother) PW-2, since the year 1994. Prior to 1994 the landlord will have this Court to believe that he was living off and on with one friend or the other. This story is impossible to believe. The landlord was married in the year 1999. He is an Architect by profession. His wife is a law graduate. It is not believable that such a person would have no permanent abode and would continue to live as a guest with his friends for almost 5 years after his marriage. Even the story that he has been living with his brother-in-law after the year 1994 does not inspire confidence. It stands proved on record that the brother-in-law PW-2 Rajan lives with his own family i.e. wife and children. From the evidence it is also clear that the parents of the brother-in-law also reside with him, His flat consists of only two rooms. The flat in possession of the landlord at 31, the Mall Shimla, also consists of two rooms, kitchen and bath room. Even assuming that he was running an office in the part of the flat it cannot be believed that he would not live on his own flat on the Mall Road and reside with his brother-in-law in cramped premises. Even in the electoral list the landlord is shown to be a resident of 31, The Mall, Shimla. Therefore, I am of the considered view that the building 31, the Mall, Shimla was also being used as a residence by the landlord.</p><p>11. Having held so, the question that arises is whether the landlord can be non-suited only on the ground that he has not made any disclosure about the residential accommodation available with him which premises were admittedly not owned by him.</p><p>12. The short question which arises for decision in this petition is whether the landlord was guilty of suppressing and withholding such relevant facts which would disentitle him from seeking eviction of the tenant. To appreciate these contentions it would be necessary to refer to relevant portion of Section 14(3) of the Act:</p><p>Section 14:</p><p>1 and 2 xxxxxxxxxxx</p><p>(3) A landlord may apply to the Controller for an order directing the tenant to put the landlord in possession-</p><p>(a) in case of residential building, if</p><p>(i) he required it for his own occupation:</p><p>Provided that he is not occupying another residential building owned by him, in the urban area concerned:</p><p>Provided further that he has not vacated such a building without sufficient cause within five years of the filing of the application, in the said urban area....</p><p>13. A perusal of the bare provisions of the Act makes it clear that there are certain essential ingredients which the landlord must satisfy before seeking eviction of the tenant under the Act. Not only must he prove that the residential building is bona fide required by him for his own use and occupation but he must also plead and prove that he is not occupying any other residential building owned by him in the urban area concerned and further that he has not vacated such a building without sufficient cause within 5 years of the filing of the application.</p><p>14. Reference may now be made to the relevant allegations made in para 18 of the eviction petition:</p><p>(ii) That the petitioner bona fide requires the premises for his own use and occupation and also for the use and occupation of his family.</p><p>The petitioner does not own or possess any other such building within the urban area of Simla nor the petitioner has vacated any such premises within five years of the filing of this petition.</p><p>The family of the petitioner presently consists of himself and his wife. Due to paucity of accommodation the petitioner has not been able to keep his wife with himself at Simla, where he is working as an Engineer and she has been residing at Chandigarh since 1991 but on account of her ill health she has been brought to Simla by the petitioner. The petitioner at present is seeking temporary shelter, from time to time, with his relations.</p><p>15. The learned Appellate Authority came to the conclusion that the landlord had falsely pleaded that he does not own or possess any other such building within the urban area of Shimla and hence rejected the eviction petition on this ground.</p><p>16. On a close analysis of the proviso to Section 14(3)(a)(i) of the Act it is clear that a landlord is not entitled to seek eviction of a tenant from residential building even in case of bona fide requirement if the landlord is occupying another residential building owned by him in the urban area concerned. One can read three essential ingredients in this proviso i.e. (i) that the landlord is in occupation of another residential building; (ii) that the said residential building is owned by him and (iii) that the said residential building is situated in the concerned urban area.</p><p>17. The question that arises is what is the impact of the landlord not making a disclosure in respect of premises which he is occupying but are not owned by him.</p><p>18. The Apex Court in Onkar Nath v. Ved Vyas ILR 1979 HP 1, held as follows:</p><p>It is common ground that there are three requirements to make out a cause of action for eviction under that provision, and indeed this is apparent from a bare reading of the sub-section. In the present case the finding is to the effect that the landlord requires the residential building for his own occupation. But, the legislation has taken care to insist upon two more conditions, namely; (a) that the landlord is not occupying any other residential building in the area concerned; and (b) that he has not vacated such a building without sufficient cause. There is not a scintilla of evidence nor indeed there is any averment in compliance with these latter conditions. The necessary consequence follows that not merely is there inadequacy of pleadings sufficient to make out a cause of action but total absence of proof of two vital requirements....</p><p>The Supreme Court also said that:.The statute benignly designed to protect tenants from unreasonable evictions has taken case to put restrictions which must be rigorously construed to fulfil the purpose of the statute.</p><p>19. Following the aforesaid judgment and other pronouncements of the Apex Court, a learned Single Judge of this Court in Tara Chand Sharma v. Baij Nath and Ors. 1992 (2) R.C.J. 323, held as follows:</p><p>16. What appears as the legislative intent, in bold relief, is that the landlord, while seeking eviction of a tenant on the ground that he needs a residential building for his own occupation, must come out clearly and honestly with facts relating to the requirement that he is not occupying another residential building owned by him, in the urban area concerned and that he had not vacated such a building without sufficient cause within five years of the filing of the application, in the said urban area. The primal burden of making a clear disclosure would lie upon the landlord, for, the true facts would be in his special knowledge. An order in his favour by the Rent Controller would depend upon the satisfaction of the Rent Controller in regard not only to the claim that the landlord requires the accommodation, from which he wishes to evict a tenant, for his own occupation but also that he was not occupying another residential building owned by him nor had he vacated such building without sufficient cause within five years of the filing of the application in the application in the urban area concerned....</p><p>It was further held as under:</p><p>18. That the landlord should make a full disclosure of the relevant facts, pertaining to the requirements of Sub-section (3)(a)(i) and the two provisos, becomes all the more necessary because the satisfaction of the Rent Controller in regard thereto is the condition precedent for the making of an order in favour of the landlord....</p><p>20. The aforesaid judgment has been followed in a number of other cases including Vijay Kapoor v. Maya Ram 1997 (2) RCR 437, wherein another learned single Judge of this Court following the aforesaid judgment held that the landlord must make complete and proper disclosure of all the material facts.</p><p>21. On the other hand Sh. Ramakant Sharma has relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in Ram Narain Arora v. Asha Rani 1998(2) RCR 268. In that case the Rent Controller came to the conclusion that the landlord had suppressed material information and had not disclosed the fact that he was already in occupation of a house in Subji Mandi. Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act reads as follows:</p><p>Section 14(1)(e). That the premises let for residential purposes are required bona fide by the landlord for occupation as a residence for himself or for any member of his family dependent on him, if he is the owner thereof, or for any person for whose benefit the premises are held and that the landlord or such person has no other reasonably suitable residential accommodation.</p><p>22. The difference between Delhi Act and the present Act is that under the Delhi Act the only requirement is that the landlord has no other reasonably suitable accommodation whereas under the Himachal Act the residential premises are required to be owned by the landlord. The Apex Court in Rama Narain Arora's case (supra) held that the nondisclosure of the fact that the landlord was in occupation of certain premises in Subji Mandi was.not a ground to non-suit the landlord in view of the facts and circumstances of the case. The Apex Court held as follows:</p><p>9. In making a claim that the suit premises is required bona fide for his own occupation as a residence for himself and other members of his family dependent on him and that he has no other reasonably suitable accommodation is a requirement of law before the Court can state whether the landlord requires the premises bona fide for his use and occupation. In doing so, the Court must also find out whether the landlord or such other person for whose benefit the premises is required has no other reasonably suitable residential accommodation. It cannot be said that the requirement of the landlord is not intermixed with the question of finding out whether he has any other reasonably suitable accommodation. If he has other reasonably suitable accommodation, ihen necessarily it would mean that he does not require the suit premises and his requirement may not be bona fide. In such circumstances further inquiry would be whether that premises is more suitable than the suit premises. Therefore, the questions raised before the Court would not necessarily depend upon only the pleadings. It could be a good defence that the landlord has other reasonably suitable residential accommodation and thereby defend the claim of the landlord.</p><p>10. There cannot be a pedantic or a dogmatic approach in the matter of analysis of pleadings or of the evidence adduced thereto. It is no doubt true that if the pleadings are clearly set out, it would be easy for the Court to decide the matters. But if the pleadings are lacking or vague and if both parties have understood what was the case pleaded and put forth with reference to requirement of law and placed such material before the Court, neither party is prejudiced. If we analyse from this angle, we do not think that the High Court was not justified in interfering with the order made by the Rent Controller.</p><p>23. From the perusal of the judgment of the Apex Court it is apparent that the Rent Controller must approach the matter in a practical manner. In case the non-disclosure is such as that it goes to the very root of the case the Rent Controller would be justified in non-suiting the landlord. However, if the non-disclosure is such that it would not prejudice the rights of the respondent then the landlord should not be non-suited only on this ground.</p><p>24. The decisions of this Court cited hereinabove were delivered prior to the judgment delivered by the Apex Court in Ram Nar'ain Arora's case. Further more both in Tara Chand Sharma's case and Vijay Kapoor's case decided by this Court, no averment had been made ixi respect of other residential buildings owned by a landlord. There was complete non-disclosure as to whether any such residential building owned by the landlord was in his possession or not. In the present case, as I have held above, the residential premises at 31, The Mall, Shimla was not owned by the landlord and hence these two earlier judgments of this Court are distinguishable on facts also.</p><p>25. In the present case, the landlord has been non-suited only on the ground that he did not disclose the fact that he was in occupation of certain premises on the Mall Road. Under law he was not required to disclose this fact. He was only required to disclose the factum of occupying another residential building owned by him in the urban area concerned. True it may be, that it would have been better if the landlord had disclosed all the facts but non-disclosure of a fact which he was not under law required to disclose could not in my opinion be a ground to dismiss his eviction petition.</p><p>26. However, what are the premises in his occupation even as a tenant can be taken into consideration while deciding the question whether he bona fide requires the demised premises for his personal use or occupation or not.</p><p>27. Lastly comes the question with regard to the bona fide requirement of the landlord. The landlord has no children. According to the landlord as well as his other witnesses i.e. his brother-in-law PW-2 and his wife PW-3, the wife now wants to come back and settle in Shimla. There is no reason to disbelieve their statements. Even according to the evidence led by the tenant the accommodation in possession of the landlord consists of two rooms, kitchen, bath room etc. Admittedly, the landlord is also having his office as an Architect in this building. The landlord belongs to the middle class of the Society. It cannot be expected of a landlord who owns sufficient property to reside in a two room set wherein he also runs his office.</p><p>28. The law by now is well settled that the landlord is the best judge of the suitability of the accommodation required by him. This suitability has however to be judged in the context of reasonable expectations. The landlord and his wife who are both well educated can reasonably be expected to entertain guests and they will have visitors to their house. They would obviously require a drawing room, a bed room and a spare bed room for guests. Even at his residence the landlord may require another room for his professional work. This is the minimum accommodation which they would require. Even if the accommodation possessed by the landlord, though not owned by him, at 31, the Mall, Shimla is taken into consideration such accommodation is not sufficient to meet his requirements since admittedly the landlord is running his profession of Architect from some portion of his these premises.</p><p>29. Keeping in view the entire facts and circumstances, I am of the considered view that the learned Appellate Authority gravely erred in rejecting the eviction petition of the landlord solely on the ground that he had not disclosed the factum of being in possession of the premises at 31, the Mall Shimla. Even though I have held that the said premises are residential premises, in view of the above discussion I hold that the landlord cannot be non-suited only on the ground of his being in possession of such premises since same were not owned by him.</p><p>30. In view of the above discussion, the Revision Petition is allowed, the order of the learned Appellate Authority dated 6.5.2003 is seaside and the order of the Rent Controller dated 22.8.2001 is restored.</p><p>31. Keeping in view the fact that the tenant has been in possession of the premises for a long period he is granted time up to 31st October, 2008 to vacate the premises.</p><p>32. No order as to costs.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '2008(2)ShimLC491',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'Shri S.L. Srivastava',
		'sub' => 'Tenancy',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'shri-arun-bhanwara-vs-s-l-srivastava'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '891084',
	(int) 1 => 'shri-arun-bhanwara-vs-s-l-srivastava'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/891084/shri-arun-bhanwara-vs-s-l-srivastava'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$caseref = 'Ram Narain Arora v. Asha Rani<br>'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>Deepak Gupta, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. This Revision Petition under Section 25(5) of the H.P. Urban Rent Control Act, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) is directed against the order of the learned Appellate Authority, Shimla in CMA No. 60-S/14 of 2001 whereby the appeal filed by the respondent (hereinafter referred to as the tenant) has been allowed, the order of the Rent Controller has been set-aside and the petition for eviction filed by the present petitioner (hereinafter referred to as the Landlord) on the ground of personal bona fide requirement has been set-aside.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. The undisputed facts are that the landlord is owner of the demised premises situated in building known as Tunnel View, Sanjauli, Shimla-6 consisting of two bed rooms with attached bath room and latrine, drawing-cum-dining room, kitchen and balcony. These premises were purchased by the landlord in the year 1986. Thereafter, the landlord had rented out the premises to one Sh. B.K. Chauhan. According to the landlord, when he got married he requested Sh. B.K. Chauhan to vacate the said premises. Sh. Chauhan vacated the said premises but admittedly the landlord did not occupy the same but rented out the same to the tenant in the year 1990.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. In the year 1997 the landlord filed a petition for eviction of the tenant on two grounds; firstly that the tenant is in arrears of rent from 1.11.1990 to 31.7.1997 and secondly that the premises are bona fide required by the landlord for the use and occupation of himself and his family.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>4. This petition was contested by the tenant. After trial, the Rent Controller ordered the eviction of the tenant on two grounds; (i) that the tenant was in arrears of rent from November, 1999 till date of order i.e. 22nd August, 2001 and (ii) that the landlord required the premises for his own use and occupation.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>5. The tenant deposited the rent within the time prescribed. He also filed an appeal challenging the finding on the issue of bona fide requirement. The learned Appellate Authority came to the conclusion that the landlord had not made a proper and full disclosure of facts as required under the provisions of the Act and had withheld material facts from the Court viz. that the landlord was in occupation of residential premises on 31, Mall Road in the urban area of Shimla and as such rejected this petition on this short ground.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>6. Aggrieved by the said order, the landlord has filed the present Revision Petition.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>7. I have heard Sh. Ramakant Sharma, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sh. Bhupinder Gupta, learned senior Counsel for the tenant.',
	(int) 8 => '<p>8. It has been urged on behalf of the landlord that the building which is alleged to be in possession of the landlord i.e. 31, the Mall Shimla is not a residential building and secondly that the building is not owned by him.',
	(int) 9 => '<p>9. On the other hand Sh. Bhupinder Gupta, learned Counsel of the tenant has strenuously urged that the landlord in para 18 has not stated anything about any building being owned by him and has only made an averment that he does not own or possess any other such building within the urban area Shimla. It is contended by Sh. Bhupinder Gupta that the landlord of his own volition did not state anything about the ownership of the building and since he has kept silent about the building which he is in occupation he has made a false averment and therefore his petition for eviction has rightly been rejected.',
	(int) 10 => '<p>10. I am not at all in agreement with the contention of the landlord that the premises known as 31, the Mall Shimla which are admittedly in the occupation of the landlord are commercial premises only and not being used by him for his residence. As pointed out above, the landlord purchased the demised premises in 1986. They fell vacant when he got married despite that he did not occupy the same and rented out the same to the tenant in the year 1990. The question that arises is where was the landlord living for this entire period. According to the landlord after the year 1994 he has been living with his brother-in-law Rajan (wife's brother) PW-2, since the year 1994. Prior to 1994 the landlord will have this Court to believe that he was living off and on with one friend or the other. This story is impossible to believe. The landlord was married in the year 1999. He is an Architect by profession. His wife is a law graduate. It is not believable that such a person would have no permanent abode and would continue to live as a guest with his friends for almost 5 years after his marriage. Even the story that he has been living with his brother-in-law after the year 1994 does not inspire confidence. It stands proved on record that the brother-in-law PW-2 Rajan lives with his own family i.e. wife and children. From the evidence it is also clear that the parents of the brother-in-law also reside with him, His flat consists of only two rooms. The flat in possession of the landlord at 31, the Mall Shimla, also consists of two rooms, kitchen and bath room. Even assuming that he was running an office in the part of the flat it cannot be believed that he would not live on his own flat on the Mall Road and reside with his brother-in-law in cramped premises. Even in the electoral list the landlord is shown to be a resident of 31, The Mall, Shimla. Therefore, I am of the considered view that the building 31, the Mall, Shimla was also being used as a residence by the landlord.',
	(int) 11 => '<p>11. Having held so, the question that arises is whether the landlord can be non-suited only on the ground that he has not made any disclosure about the residential accommodation available with him which premises were admittedly not owned by him.',
	(int) 12 => '<p>12. The short question which arises for decision in this petition is whether the landlord was guilty of suppressing and withholding such relevant facts which would disentitle him from seeking eviction of the tenant. To appreciate these contentions it would be necessary to refer to relevant portion of Section 14(3) of the Act:',
	(int) 13 => '<p>Section 14:',
	(int) 14 => '<p>1 and 2 xxxxxxxxxxx',
	(int) 15 => '<p>(3) A landlord may apply to the Controller for an order directing the tenant to put the landlord in possession-',
	(int) 16 => '<p>(a) in case of residential building, if',
	(int) 17 => '<p>(i) he required it for his own occupation:',
	(int) 18 => '<p>Provided that he is not occupying another residential building owned by him, in the urban area concerned:',
	(int) 19 => '<p>Provided further that he has not vacated such a building without sufficient cause within five years of the filing of the application, in the said urban area....',
	(int) 20 => '<p>13. A perusal of the bare provisions of the Act makes it clear that there are certain essential ingredients which the landlord must satisfy before seeking eviction of the tenant under the Act. Not only must he prove that the residential building is bona fide required by him for his own use and occupation but he must also plead and prove that he is not occupying any other residential building owned by him in the urban area concerned and further that he has not vacated such a building without sufficient cause within 5 years of the filing of the application.',
	(int) 21 => '<p>14. Reference may now be made to the relevant allegations made in para 18 of the eviction petition:',
	(int) 22 => '<p>(ii) That the petitioner bona fide requires the premises for his own use and occupation and also for the use and occupation of his family.',
	(int) 23 => '<p>The petitioner does not own or possess any other such building within the urban area of Simla nor the petitioner has vacated any such premises within five years of the filing of this petition.',
	(int) 24 => '<p>The family of the petitioner presently consists of himself and his wife. Due to paucity of accommodation the petitioner has not been able to keep his wife with himself at Simla, where he is working as an Engineer and she has been residing at Chandigarh since 1991 but on account of her ill health she has been brought to Simla by the petitioner. The petitioner at present is seeking temporary shelter, from time to time, with his relations.',
	(int) 25 => '<p>15. The learned Appellate Authority came to the conclusion that the landlord had falsely pleaded that he does not own or possess any other such building within the urban area of Shimla and hence rejected the eviction petition on this ground.',
	(int) 26 => '<p>16. On a close analysis of the proviso to Section 14(3)(a)(i) of the Act it is clear that a landlord is not entitled to seek eviction of a tenant from residential building even in case of bona fide requirement if the landlord is occupying another residential building owned by him in the urban area concerned. One can read three essential ingredients in this proviso i.e. (i) that the landlord is in occupation of another residential building; (ii) that the said residential building is owned by him and (iii) that the said residential building is situated in the concerned urban area.',
	(int) 27 => '<p>17. The question that arises is what is the impact of the landlord not making a disclosure in respect of premises which he is occupying but are not owned by him.',
	(int) 28 => '<p>18. The Apex Court in Onkar Nath v. Ved Vyas ILR 1979 HP 1, held as follows:',
	(int) 29 => '<p>It is common ground that there are three requirements to make out a cause of action for eviction under that provision, and indeed this is apparent from a bare reading of the sub-section. In the present case the finding is to the effect that the landlord requires the residential building for his own occupation. But, the legislation has taken care to insist upon two more conditions, namely; (a) that the landlord is not occupying any other residential building in the area concerned; and (b) that he has not vacated such a building without sufficient cause. There is not a scintilla of evidence nor indeed there is any averment in compliance with these latter conditions. The necessary consequence follows that not merely is there inadequacy of pleadings sufficient to make out a cause of action but total absence of proof of two vital requirements....',
	(int) 30 => '<p>The Supreme Court also said that:.The statute benignly designed to protect tenants from unreasonable evictions has taken case to put restrictions which must be rigorously construed to fulfil the purpose of the statute.',
	(int) 31 => '<p>19. Following the aforesaid judgment and other pronouncements of the Apex Court, a learned Single Judge of this Court in Tara Chand Sharma v. Baij Nath and Ors. 1992 (2) R.C.J. 323, held as follows:',
	(int) 32 => '<p>16. What appears as the legislative intent, in bold relief, is that the landlord, while seeking eviction of a tenant on the ground that he needs a residential building for his own occupation, must come out clearly and honestly with facts relating to the requirement that he is not occupying another residential building owned by him, in the urban area concerned and that he had not vacated such a building without sufficient cause within five years of the filing of the application, in the said urban area. The primal burden of making a clear disclosure would lie upon the landlord, for, the true facts would be in his special knowledge. An order in his favour by the Rent Controller would depend upon the satisfaction of the Rent Controller in regard not only to the claim that the landlord requires the accommodation, from which he wishes to evict a tenant, for his own occupation but also that he was not occupying another residential building owned by him nor had he vacated such building without sufficient cause within five years of the filing of the application in the application in the urban area concerned....',
	(int) 33 => '<p>It was further held as under:',
	(int) 34 => '<p>18. That the landlord should make a full disclosure of the relevant facts, pertaining to the requirements of Sub-section (3)(a)(i) and the two provisos, becomes all the more necessary because the satisfaction of the Rent Controller in regard thereto is the condition precedent for the making of an order in favour of the landlord....',
	(int) 35 => '<p>20. The aforesaid judgment has been followed in a number of other cases including Vijay Kapoor v. Maya Ram 1997 (2) RCR 437, wherein another learned single Judge of this Court following the aforesaid judgment held that the landlord must make complete and proper disclosure of all the material facts.',
	(int) 36 => '<p>21. On the other hand Sh. Ramakant Sharma has relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in Ram Narain Arora v. Asha Rani 1998(2) RCR 268. In that case the Rent Controller came to the conclusion that the landlord had suppressed material information and had not disclosed the fact that he was already in occupation of a house in Subji Mandi. Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act reads as follows:',
	(int) 37 => '<p>Section 14(1)(e). That the premises let for residential purposes are required bona fide by the landlord for occupation as a residence for himself or for any member of his family dependent on him, if he is the owner thereof, or for any person for whose benefit the premises are held and that the landlord or such person has no other reasonably suitable residential accommodation.',
	(int) 38 => '<p>22. The difference between Delhi Act and the present Act is that under the Delhi Act the only requirement is that the landlord has no other reasonably suitable accommodation whereas under the Himachal Act the residential premises are required to be owned by the landlord. The Apex Court in Rama Narain Arora's case (supra) held that the nondisclosure of the fact that the landlord was in occupation of certain premises in Subji Mandi was.not a ground to non-suit the landlord in view of the facts and circumstances of the case. The Apex Court held as follows:',
	(int) 39 => '<p>9. In making a claim that the suit premises is required bona fide for his own occupation as a residence for himself and other members of his family dependent on him and that he has no other reasonably suitable accommodation is a requirement of law before the Court can state whether the landlord requires the premises bona fide for his use and occupation. In doing so, the Court must also find out whether the landlord or such other person for whose benefit the premises is required has no other reasonably suitable residential accommodation. It cannot be said that the requirement of the landlord is not intermixed with the question of finding out whether he has any other reasonably suitable accommodation. If he has other reasonably suitable accommodation, ihen necessarily it would mean that he does not require the suit premises and his requirement may not be bona fide. In such circumstances further inquiry would be whether that premises is more suitable than the suit premises. Therefore, the questions raised before the Court would not necessarily depend upon only the pleadings. It could be a good defence that the landlord has other reasonably suitable residential accommodation and thereby defend the claim of the landlord.',
	(int) 40 => '<p>10. There cannot be a pedantic or a dogmatic approach in the matter of analysis of pleadings or of the evidence adduced thereto. It is no doubt true that if the pleadings are clearly set out, it would be easy for the Court to decide the matters. But if the pleadings are lacking or vague and if both parties have understood what was the case pleaded and put forth with reference to requirement of law and placed such material before the Court, neither party is prejudiced. If we analyse from this angle, we do not think that the High Court was not justified in interfering with the order made by the Rent Controller.',
	(int) 41 => '<p>23. From the perusal of the judgment of the Apex Court it is apparent that the Rent Controller must approach the matter in a practical manner. In case the non-disclosure is such as that it goes to the very root of the case the Rent Controller would be justified in non-suiting the landlord. However, if the non-disclosure is such that it would not prejudice the rights of the respondent then the landlord should not be non-suited only on this ground.',
	(int) 42 => '<p>24. The decisions of this Court cited hereinabove were delivered prior to the judgment delivered by the Apex Court in Ram Nar'ain Arora's case. Further more both in Tara Chand Sharma's case and Vijay Kapoor's case decided by this Court, no averment had been made ixi respect of other residential buildings owned by a landlord. There was complete non-disclosure as to whether any such residential building owned by the landlord was in his possession or not. In the present case, as I have held above, the residential premises at 31, The Mall, Shimla was not owned by the landlord and hence these two earlier judgments of this Court are distinguishable on facts also.',
	(int) 43 => '<p>25. In the present case, the landlord has been non-suited only on the ground that he did not disclose the fact that he was in occupation of certain premises on the Mall Road. Under law he was not required to disclose this fact. He was only required to disclose the factum of occupying another residential building owned by him in the urban area concerned. True it may be, that it would have been better if the landlord had disclosed all the facts but non-disclosure of a fact which he was not under law required to disclose could not in my opinion be a ground to dismiss his eviction petition.',
	(int) 44 => '<p>26. However, what are the premises in his occupation even as a tenant can be taken into consideration while deciding the question whether he bona fide requires the demised premises for his personal use or occupation or not.',
	(int) 45 => '<p>27. Lastly comes the question with regard to the bona fide requirement of the landlord. The landlord has no children. According to the landlord as well as his other witnesses i.e. his brother-in-law PW-2 and his wife PW-3, the wife now wants to come back and settle in Shimla. There is no reason to disbelieve their statements. Even according to the evidence led by the tenant the accommodation in possession of the landlord consists of two rooms, kitchen, bath room etc. Admittedly, the landlord is also having his office as an Architect in this building. The landlord belongs to the middle class of the Society. It cannot be expected of a landlord who owns sufficient property to reside in a two room set wherein he also runs his office.',
	(int) 46 => '<p>28. The law by now is well settled that the landlord is the best judge of the suitability of the accommodation required by him. This suitability has however to be judged in the context of reasonable expectations. The landlord and his wife who are both well educated can reasonably be expected to entertain guests and they will have visitors to their house. They would obviously require a drawing room, a bed room and a spare bed room for guests. Even at his residence the landlord may require another room for his professional work. This is the minimum accommodation which they would require. Even if the accommodation possessed by the landlord, though not owned by him, at 31, the Mall, Shimla is taken into consideration such accommodation is not sufficient to meet his requirements since admittedly the landlord is running his profession of Architect from some portion of his these premises.',
	(int) 47 => '<p>29. Keeping in view the entire facts and circumstances, I am of the considered view that the learned Appellate Authority gravely erred in rejecting the eviction petition of the landlord solely on the ground that he had not disclosed the factum of being in possession of the premises at 31, the Mall Shimla. Even though I have held that the said premises are residential premises, in view of the above discussion I hold that the landlord cannot be non-suited only on the ground of his being in possession of such premises since same were not owned by him.',
	(int) 48 => '<p>30. In view of the above discussion, the Revision Petition is allowed, the order of the learned Appellate Authority dated 6.5.2003 is seaside and the order of the Rent Controller dated 22.8.2001 is restored.',
	(int) 49 => '<p>31. Keeping in view the fact that the tenant has been in possession of the premises for a long period he is granted time up to 31st October, 2008 to vacate the premises.',
	(int) 50 => '<p>32. No order as to costs.<p>',
	(int) 51 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 52
$i = (int) 32
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

16. What appears as the legislative intent, in bold relief, is that the landlord, while seeking eviction of a tenant on the ground that he needs a residential building for his own occupation, must come out clearly and honestly with facts relating to the requirement that he is not occupying another residential building owned by him, in the urban area concerned and that he had not vacated such a building without sufficient cause within five years of the filing of the application, in the said urban area. The primal burden of making a clear disclosure would lie upon the landlord, for, the true facts would be in his special knowledge. An order in his favour by the Rent Controller would depend upon the satisfaction of the Rent Controller in regard not only to the claim that the landlord requires the accommodation, from which he wishes to evict a tenant, for his own occupation but also that he was not occupying another residential building owned by him nor had he vacated such building without sufficient cause within five years of the filing of the application in the application in the urban area concerned....

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Shri Arun Bhanwara Vs Shri S L Srivastava - Citation 891084 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '891084',
			'acts' => '',
			'appealno' => '',
			'appellant' => 'Shri Arun Bhanwara',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Shri Arun Bhanwara Vs. Shri S.L. Srivastava',
			'casenote' => ' - CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908.[C.A. No. 5/1908]. Order 14, Rule 2 [As amended by Amending Act of 1976]: [V.K. Gupta, CJ, Deepak Gupta & Surjit Singh, JJ] Preliminary issue of law and fact  Court framing all issues both of law and facts together and also  tried all the issues together, including the issue relating to jurisdiction of Court  Held, Except in situations perceived or warranted under sub-rule (2) of Rule 2 of Order 14 where a  Court in fact frames only issues of law in the first instance and postpones settlement of other issues, clearly and explicitly in situations where the Court has framed all issues together, both of law as well as facts and has also tried all these issues together, it is not open to the Court to adopt the principle of severability and proceed to decide issues of law first, without taking up simultaneously other issues for decision. This course of action is not available to a Court because sub-rule (1) does not permit the  Court to adopt any such principle of severability and to dispose of a suit only on preliminary issues, or what can be termed as issues of law. Sub-rule (1)  clearly mandates that in a situation contemplated under it, where all the issues have been together and have also been taken up for adjudication during the course of the trial, these must be decided together and the judgment in the suit as a whole must be pronounced by the Court covering all the issues framed in the suit.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => 'Ram Narain Arora v. Asha Rani;',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => '',
			'counseldef' => '',
			'court' => 'Himachal Pradesh',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2008-07-31',
			'deposition' => 'Petition allowed',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => ' Deepak Gupta, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">Deepak Gupta, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. This Revision Petition under Section 25(5) of the H.P. Urban Rent Control Act, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) is directed against the order of the learned Appellate Authority, Shimla in CMA No. 60-S/14 of 2001 whereby the appeal filed by the respondent (hereinafter referred to as the tenant) has been allowed, the order of the Rent Controller has been set-aside and the petition for eviction filed by the present petitioner (hereinafter referred to as the Landlord) on the ground of personal bona fide requirement has been set-aside.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The undisputed facts are that the landlord is owner of the demised premises situated in building known as Tunnel View, Sanjauli, Shimla-6 consisting of two bed rooms with attached bath room and latrine, drawing-cum-dining room, kitchen and balcony. These premises were purchased by the landlord in the year 1986. Thereafter, the landlord had rented out the premises to one Sh. B.K. Chauhan. According to the landlord, when he got married he requested Sh. B.K. Chauhan to vacate the said premises. Sh. Chauhan vacated the said premises but admittedly the landlord did not occupy the same but rented out the same to the tenant in the year 1990.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. In the year 1997 the landlord filed a petition for eviction of the tenant on two grounds; firstly that the tenant is in arrears of rent from 1.11.1990 to 31.7.1997 and secondly that the premises are bona fide required by the landlord for the use and occupation of himself and his family.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. This petition was contested by the tenant. After trial, the Rent Controller ordered the eviction of the tenant on two grounds; (i) that the tenant was in arrears of rent from November, 1999 till date of order i.e. 22nd August, 2001 and (ii) that the landlord required the premises for his own use and occupation.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. The tenant deposited the rent within the time prescribed. He also filed an appeal challenging the finding on the issue of bona fide requirement. The learned Appellate Authority came to the conclusion that the landlord had not made a proper and full disclosure of facts as required under the provisions of the Act and had withheld material facts from the Court viz. that the landlord was in occupation of residential premises on 31, Mall Road in the urban area of Shimla and as such rejected this petition on this short ground.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. Aggrieved by the said order, the landlord has filed the present Revision Petition.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. I have heard Sh. Ramakant Sharma, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sh. Bhupinder Gupta, learned senior Counsel for the tenant.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. It has been urged on behalf of the landlord that the building which is alleged to be in possession of the landlord i.e. 31, the Mall Shimla is not a residential building and secondly that the building is not owned by him.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. On the other hand Sh. Bhupinder Gupta, learned Counsel of the tenant has strenuously urged that the landlord in para 18 has not stated anything about any building being owned by him and has only made an averment that he does not own or possess any other such building within the urban area Shimla. It is contended by Sh. Bhupinder Gupta that the landlord of his own volition did not state anything about the ownership of the building and since he has kept silent about the building which he is in occupation he has made a false averment and therefore his petition for eviction has rightly been rejected.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. I am not at all in agreement with the contention of the landlord that the premises known as 31, the Mall Shimla which are admittedly in the occupation of the landlord are commercial premises only and not being used by him for his residence. As pointed out above, the landlord purchased the demised premises in 1986. They fell vacant when he got married despite that he did not occupy the same and rented out the same to the tenant in the year 1990. The question that arises is where was the landlord living for this entire period. According to the landlord after the year 1994 he has been living with his brother-in-law Rajan (wife's brother) PW-2, since the year 1994. Prior to 1994 the landlord will have this Court to believe that he was living off and on with one friend or the other. This story is impossible to believe. The landlord was married in the year 1999. He is an Architect by profession. His wife is a law graduate. It is not believable that such a person would have no permanent abode and would continue to live as a guest with his friends for almost 5 years after his marriage. Even the story that he has been living with his brother-in-law after the year 1994 does not inspire confidence. It stands proved on record that the brother-in-law PW-2 Rajan lives with his own family i.e. wife and children. From the evidence it is also clear that the parents of the brother-in-law also reside with him, His flat consists of only two rooms. The flat in possession of the landlord at 31, the Mall Shimla, also consists of two rooms, kitchen and bath room. Even assuming that he was running an office in the part of the flat it cannot be believed that he would not live on his own flat on the Mall Road and reside with his brother-in-law in cramped premises. Even in the electoral list the landlord is shown to be a resident of 31, The Mall, Shimla. Therefore, I am of the considered view that the building 31, the Mall, Shimla was also being used as a residence by the landlord.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. Having held so, the question that arises is whether the landlord can be non-suited only on the ground that he has not made any disclosure about the residential accommodation available with him which premises were admittedly not owned by him.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. The short question which arises for decision in this petition is whether the landlord was guilty of suppressing and withholding such relevant facts which would disentitle him from seeking eviction of the tenant. To appreciate these contentions it would be necessary to refer to relevant portion of Section 14(3) of the Act:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Section 14:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1 and 2 xxxxxxxxxxx</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(3) A landlord may apply to the Controller for an order directing the tenant to put the landlord in possession-</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(a) in case of residential building, if</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(i) he required it for his own occupation:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Provided that he is not occupying another residential building owned by him, in the urban area concerned:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Provided further that he has not vacated such a building without sufficient cause within five years of the filing of the application, in the said urban area....</p><p style="text-align: justify;">13. A perusal of the bare provisions of the Act makes it clear that there are certain essential ingredients which the landlord must satisfy before seeking eviction of the tenant under the Act. Not only must he prove that the residential building is bona fide required by him for his own use and occupation but he must also plead and prove that he is not occupying any other residential building owned by him in the urban area concerned and further that he has not vacated such a building without sufficient cause within 5 years of the filing of the application.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">14. Reference may now be made to the relevant allegations made in para 18 of the eviction petition:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(ii) That the petitioner bona fide requires the premises for his own use and occupation and also for the use and occupation of his family.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The petitioner does not own or possess any other such building within the urban area of Simla nor the petitioner has vacated any such premises within five years of the filing of this petition.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The family of the petitioner presently consists of himself and his wife. Due to paucity of accommodation the petitioner has not been able to keep his wife with himself at Simla, where he is working as an Engineer and she has been residing at Chandigarh since 1991 but on account of her ill health she has been brought to Simla by the petitioner. The petitioner at present is seeking temporary shelter, from time to time, with his relations.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">15. The learned Appellate Authority came to the conclusion that the landlord had falsely pleaded that he does not own or possess any other such building within the urban area of Shimla and hence rejected the eviction petition on this ground.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">16. On a close analysis of the proviso to Section 14(3)(a)(i) of the Act it is clear that a landlord is not entitled to seek eviction of a tenant from residential building even in case of bona fide requirement if the landlord is occupying another residential building owned by him in the urban area concerned. One can read three essential ingredients in this proviso i.e. (i) that the landlord is in occupation of another residential building; (ii) that the said residential building is owned by him and (iii) that the said residential building is situated in the concerned urban area.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">17. The question that arises is what is the impact of the landlord not making a disclosure in respect of premises which he is occupying but are not owned by him.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">18. The Apex Court in Onkar Nath v. Ved Vyas ILR 1979 HP 1, held as follows:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">It is common ground that there are three requirements to make out a cause of action for eviction under that provision, and indeed this is apparent from a bare reading of the sub-section. In the present case the finding is to the effect that the landlord requires the residential building for his own occupation. But, the legislation has taken care to insist upon two more conditions, namely; (a) that the landlord is not occupying any other residential building in the area concerned; and (b) that he has not vacated such a building without sufficient cause. There is not a scintilla of evidence nor indeed there is any averment in compliance with these latter conditions. The necessary consequence follows that not merely is there inadequacy of pleadings sufficient to make out a cause of action but total absence of proof of two vital requirements....</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The Supreme Court also said that:.The statute benignly designed to protect tenants from unreasonable evictions has taken case to put restrictions which must be rigorously construed to fulfil the purpose of the statute.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">19. Following the aforesaid judgment and other pronouncements of the Apex Court, a learned Single Judge of this Court in Tara Chand Sharma v. Baij Nath and Ors. 1992 (2) R.C.J. 323, held as follows:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">16. What appears as the legislative intent, in bold relief, is that the landlord, while seeking eviction of a tenant on the ground that he needs a residential building for his own occupation, must come out clearly and honestly with facts relating to the requirement that he is not occupying another residential building owned by him, in the urban area concerned and that he had not vacated such a building without sufficient cause within five years of the filing of the application, in the said urban area. The primal burden of making a clear disclosure would lie upon the landlord, for, the true facts would be in his special knowledge. An order in his favour by the Rent Controller would depend upon the satisfaction of the Rent Controller in regard not only to the claim that the landlord requires the accommodation, from which he wishes to evict a tenant, for his own occupation but also that he was not occupying another residential building owned by him nor had he vacated such building without sufficient cause within five years of the filing of the application in the application in the urban area concerned....</p><p style="text-align: justify;">It was further held as under:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">18. That the landlord should make a full disclosure of the relevant facts, pertaining to the requirements of Sub-section (3)(a)(i) and the two provisos, becomes all the more necessary because the satisfaction of the Rent Controller in regard thereto is the condition precedent for the making of an order in favour of the landlord....</p><p style="text-align: justify;">20. The aforesaid judgment has been followed in a number of other cases including Vijay Kapoor v. Maya Ram 1997 (2) RCR 437, wherein another learned single Judge of this Court following the aforesaid judgment held that the landlord must make complete and proper disclosure of all the material facts.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">21. On the other hand Sh. Ramakant Sharma has relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in Ram Narain Arora v. Asha Rani 1998(2) RCR 268. In that case the Rent Controller came to the conclusion that the landlord had suppressed material information and had not disclosed the fact that he was already in occupation of a house in Subji Mandi. Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act reads as follows:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Section 14(1)(e). That the premises let for residential purposes are required bona fide by the landlord for occupation as a residence for himself or for any member of his family dependent on him, if he is the owner thereof, or for any person for whose benefit the premises are held and that the landlord or such person has no other reasonably suitable residential accommodation.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">22. The difference between Delhi Act and the present Act is that under the Delhi Act the only requirement is that the landlord has no other reasonably suitable accommodation whereas under the Himachal Act the residential premises are required to be owned by the landlord. The Apex Court in Rama Narain Arora's case (supra) held that the nondisclosure of the fact that the landlord was in occupation of certain premises in Subji Mandi was.not a ground to non-suit the landlord in view of the facts and circumstances of the case. The Apex Court held as follows:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. In making a claim that the suit premises is required bona fide for his own occupation as a residence for himself and other members of his family dependent on him and that he has no other reasonably suitable accommodation is a requirement of law before the Court can state whether the landlord requires the premises bona fide for his use and occupation. In doing so, the Court must also find out whether the landlord or such other person for whose benefit the premises is required has no other reasonably suitable residential accommodation. It cannot be said that the requirement of the landlord is not intermixed with the question of finding out whether he has any other reasonably suitable accommodation. If he has other reasonably suitable accommodation, ihen necessarily it would mean that he does not require the suit premises and his requirement may not be bona fide. In such circumstances further inquiry would be whether that premises is more suitable than the suit premises. Therefore, the questions raised before the Court would not necessarily depend upon only the pleadings. It could be a good defence that the landlord has other reasonably suitable residential accommodation and thereby defend the claim of the landlord.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. There cannot be a pedantic or a dogmatic approach in the matter of analysis of pleadings or of the evidence adduced thereto. It is no doubt true that if the pleadings are clearly set out, it would be easy for the Court to decide the matters. But if the pleadings are lacking or vague and if both parties have understood what was the case pleaded and put forth with reference to requirement of law and placed such material before the Court, neither party is prejudiced. If we analyse from this angle, we do not think that the High Court was not justified in interfering with the order made by the Rent Controller.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">23. From the perusal of the judgment of the Apex Court it is apparent that the Rent Controller must approach the matter in a practical manner. In case the non-disclosure is such as that it goes to the very root of the case the Rent Controller would be justified in non-suiting the landlord. However, if the non-disclosure is such that it would not prejudice the rights of the respondent then the landlord should not be non-suited only on this ground.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">24. The decisions of this Court cited hereinabove were delivered prior to the judgment delivered by the Apex Court in Ram Nar'ain Arora's case. Further more both in Tara Chand Sharma's case and Vijay Kapoor's case decided by this Court, no averment had been made ixi respect of other residential buildings owned by a landlord. There was complete non-disclosure as to whether any such residential building owned by the landlord was in his possession or not. In the present case, as I have held above, the residential premises at 31, The Mall, Shimla was not owned by the landlord and hence these two earlier judgments of this Court are distinguishable on facts also.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">25. In the present case, the landlord has been non-suited only on the ground that he did not disclose the fact that he was in occupation of certain premises on the Mall Road. Under law he was not required to disclose this fact. He was only required to disclose the factum of occupying another residential building owned by him in the urban area concerned. True it may be, that it would have been better if the landlord had disclosed all the facts but non-disclosure of a fact which he was not under law required to disclose could not in my opinion be a ground to dismiss his eviction petition.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">26. However, what are the premises in his occupation even as a tenant can be taken into consideration while deciding the question whether he bona fide requires the demised premises for his personal use or occupation or not.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">27. Lastly comes the question with regard to the bona fide requirement of the landlord. The landlord has no children. According to the landlord as well as his other witnesses i.e. his brother-in-law PW-2 and his wife PW-3, the wife now wants to come back and settle in Shimla. There is no reason to disbelieve their statements. Even according to the evidence led by the tenant the accommodation in possession of the landlord consists of two rooms, kitchen, bath room etc. Admittedly, the landlord is also having his office as an Architect in this building. The landlord belongs to the middle class of the Society. It cannot be expected of a landlord who owns sufficient property to reside in a two room set wherein he also runs his office.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">28. The law by now is well settled that the landlord is the best judge of the suitability of the accommodation required by him. This suitability has however to be judged in the context of reasonable expectations. The landlord and his wife who are both well educated can reasonably be expected to entertain guests and they will have visitors to their house. They would obviously require a drawing room, a bed room and a spare bed room for guests. Even at his residence the landlord may require another room for his professional work. This is the minimum accommodation which they would require. Even if the accommodation possessed by the landlord, though not owned by him, at 31, the Mall, Shimla is taken into consideration such accommodation is not sufficient to meet his requirements since admittedly the landlord is running his profession of Architect from some portion of his these premises.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">29. Keeping in view the entire facts and circumstances, I am of the considered view that the learned Appellate Authority gravely erred in rejecting the eviction petition of the landlord solely on the ground that he had not disclosed the factum of being in possession of the premises at 31, the Mall Shimla. Even though I have held that the said premises are residential premises, in view of the above discussion I hold that the landlord cannot be non-suited only on the ground of his being in possession of such premises since same were not owned by him.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">30. In view of the above discussion, the Revision Petition is allowed, the order of the learned Appellate Authority dated 6.5.2003 is seaside and the order of the Rent Controller dated 22.8.2001 is restored.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">31. Keeping in view the fact that the tenant has been in possession of the premises for a long period he is granted time up to 31st October, 2008 to vacate the premises.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">32. No order as to costs.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '2008(2)ShimLC491',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'Shri S.L. Srivastava',
			'sub' => 'Tenancy',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'shri-arun-bhanwara-vs-s-l-srivastava',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '891084',
		(int) 1 => 'shri-arun-bhanwara-vs-s-l-srivastava'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Shri Arun Bhanwara Vs Shri S L Srivastava - Citation 891084 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '891084',
		'acts' => '',
		'appealno' => '',
		'appellant' => 'Shri Arun Bhanwara',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Shri Arun Bhanwara Vs. Shri S.L. Srivastava',
		'casenote' => ' - CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908.[C.A. No. 5/1908]. Order 14, Rule 2 [As amended by Amending Act of 1976]: [V.K. Gupta, CJ, Deepak Gupta & Surjit Singh, JJ] Preliminary issue of law and fact  Court framing all issues both of law and facts together and also  tried all the issues together, including the issue relating to jurisdiction of Court  Held, Except in situations perceived or warranted under sub-rule (2) of Rule 2 of Order 14 where a  Court in fact frames only issues of law in the first instance and postpones settlement of other issues, clearly and explicitly in situations where the Court has framed all issues together, both of law as well as facts and has also tried all these issues together, it is not open to the Court to adopt the principle of severability and proceed to decide issues of law first, without taking up simultaneously other issues for decision. This course of action is not available to a Court because sub-rule (1) does not permit the  Court to adopt any such principle of severability and to dispose of a suit only on preliminary issues, or what can be termed as issues of law. Sub-rule (1)  clearly mandates that in a situation contemplated under it, where all the issues have been together and have also been taken up for adjudication during the course of the trial, these must be decided together and the judgment in the suit as a whole must be pronounced by the Court covering all the issues framed in the suit.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => 'Ram Narain Arora v. Asha Rani;',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => '',
		'counseldef' => '',
		'court' => 'Himachal Pradesh',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2008-07-31',
		'deposition' => 'Petition allowed',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => ' Deepak Gupta, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>Deepak Gupta, J.</p><p>1. This Revision Petition under Section 25(5) of the H.P. Urban Rent Control Act, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) is directed against the order of the learned Appellate Authority, Shimla in CMA No. 60-S/14 of 2001 whereby the appeal filed by the respondent (hereinafter referred to as the tenant) has been allowed, the order of the Rent Controller has been set-aside and the petition for eviction filed by the present petitioner (hereinafter referred to as the Landlord) on the ground of personal bona fide requirement has been set-aside.</p><p>2. The undisputed facts are that the landlord is owner of the demised premises situated in building known as Tunnel View, Sanjauli, Shimla-6 consisting of two bed rooms with attached bath room and latrine, drawing-cum-dining room, kitchen and balcony. These premises were purchased by the landlord in the year 1986. Thereafter, the landlord had rented out the premises to one Sh. B.K. Chauhan. According to the landlord, when he got married he requested Sh. B.K. Chauhan to vacate the said premises. Sh. Chauhan vacated the said premises but admittedly the landlord did not occupy the same but rented out the same to the tenant in the year 1990.</p><p>3. In the year 1997 the landlord filed a petition for eviction of the tenant on two grounds; firstly that the tenant is in arrears of rent from 1.11.1990 to 31.7.1997 and secondly that the premises are bona fide required by the landlord for the use and occupation of himself and his family.</p><p>4. This petition was contested by the tenant. After trial, the Rent Controller ordered the eviction of the tenant on two grounds; (i) that the tenant was in arrears of rent from November, 1999 till date of order i.e. 22nd August, 2001 and (ii) that the landlord required the premises for his own use and occupation.</p><p>5. The tenant deposited the rent within the time prescribed. He also filed an appeal challenging the finding on the issue of bona fide requirement. The learned Appellate Authority came to the conclusion that the landlord had not made a proper and full disclosure of facts as required under the provisions of the Act and had withheld material facts from the Court viz. that the landlord was in occupation of residential premises on 31, Mall Road in the urban area of Shimla and as such rejected this petition on this short ground.</p><p>6. Aggrieved by the said order, the landlord has filed the present Revision Petition.</p><p>7. I have heard Sh. Ramakant Sharma, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sh. Bhupinder Gupta, learned senior Counsel for the tenant.</p><p>8. It has been urged on behalf of the landlord that the building which is alleged to be in possession of the landlord i.e. 31, the Mall Shimla is not a residential building and secondly that the building is not owned by him.</p><p>9. On the other hand Sh. Bhupinder Gupta, learned Counsel of the tenant has strenuously urged that the landlord in para 18 has not stated anything about any building being owned by him and has only made an averment that he does not own or possess any other such building within the urban area Shimla. It is contended by Sh. Bhupinder Gupta that the landlord of his own volition did not state anything about the ownership of the building and since he has kept silent about the building which he is in occupation he has made a false averment and therefore his petition for eviction has rightly been rejected.</p><p>10. I am not at all in agreement with the contention of the landlord that the premises known as 31, the Mall Shimla which are admittedly in the occupation of the landlord are commercial premises only and not being used by him for his residence. As pointed out above, the landlord purchased the demised premises in 1986. They fell vacant when he got married despite that he did not occupy the same and rented out the same to the tenant in the year 1990. The question that arises is where was the landlord living for this entire period. According to the landlord after the year 1994 he has been living with his brother-in-law Rajan (wife's brother) PW-2, since the year 1994. Prior to 1994 the landlord will have this Court to believe that he was living off and on with one friend or the other. This story is impossible to believe. The landlord was married in the year 1999. He is an Architect by profession. His wife is a law graduate. It is not believable that such a person would have no permanent abode and would continue to live as a guest with his friends for almost 5 years after his marriage. Even the story that he has been living with his brother-in-law after the year 1994 does not inspire confidence. It stands proved on record that the brother-in-law PW-2 Rajan lives with his own family i.e. wife and children. From the evidence it is also clear that the parents of the brother-in-law also reside with him, His flat consists of only two rooms. The flat in possession of the landlord at 31, the Mall Shimla, also consists of two rooms, kitchen and bath room. Even assuming that he was running an office in the part of the flat it cannot be believed that he would not live on his own flat on the Mall Road and reside with his brother-in-law in cramped premises. Even in the electoral list the landlord is shown to be a resident of 31, The Mall, Shimla. Therefore, I am of the considered view that the building 31, the Mall, Shimla was also being used as a residence by the landlord.</p><p>11. Having held so, the question that arises is whether the landlord can be non-suited only on the ground that he has not made any disclosure about the residential accommodation available with him which premises were admittedly not owned by him.</p><p>12. The short question which arises for decision in this petition is whether the landlord was guilty of suppressing and withholding such relevant facts which would disentitle him from seeking eviction of the tenant. To appreciate these contentions it would be necessary to refer to relevant portion of Section 14(3) of the Act:</p><p>Section 14:</p><p>1 and 2 xxxxxxxxxxx</p><p>(3) A landlord may apply to the Controller for an order directing the tenant to put the landlord in possession-</p><p>(a) in case of residential building, if</p><p>(i) he required it for his own occupation:</p><p>Provided that he is not occupying another residential building owned by him, in the urban area concerned:</p><p>Provided further that he has not vacated such a building without sufficient cause within five years of the filing of the application, in the said urban area....</p><p>13. A perusal of the bare provisions of the Act makes it clear that there are certain essential ingredients which the landlord must satisfy before seeking eviction of the tenant under the Act. Not only must he prove that the residential building is bona fide required by him for his own use and occupation but he must also plead and prove that he is not occupying any other residential building owned by him in the urban area concerned and further that he has not vacated such a building without sufficient cause within 5 years of the filing of the application.</p><p>14. Reference may now be made to the relevant allegations made in para 18 of the eviction petition:</p><p>(ii) That the petitioner bona fide requires the premises for his own use and occupation and also for the use and occupation of his family.</p><p>The petitioner does not own or possess any other such building within the urban area of Simla nor the petitioner has vacated any such premises within five years of the filing of this petition.</p><p>The family of the petitioner presently consists of himself and his wife. Due to paucity of accommodation the petitioner has not been able to keep his wife with himself at Simla, where he is working as an Engineer and she has been residing at Chandigarh since 1991 but on account of her ill health she has been brought to Simla by the petitioner. The petitioner at present is seeking temporary shelter, from time to time, with his relations.</p><p>15. The learned Appellate Authority came to the conclusion that the landlord had falsely pleaded that he does not own or possess any other such building within the urban area of Shimla and hence rejected the eviction petition on this ground.</p><p>16. On a close analysis of the proviso to Section 14(3)(a)(i) of the Act it is clear that a landlord is not entitled to seek eviction of a tenant from residential building even in case of bona fide requirement if the landlord is occupying another residential building owned by him in the urban area concerned. One can read three essential ingredients in this proviso i.e. (i) that the landlord is in occupation of another residential building; (ii) that the said residential building is owned by him and (iii) that the said residential building is situated in the concerned urban area.</p><p>17. The question that arises is what is the impact of the landlord not making a disclosure in respect of premises which he is occupying but are not owned by him.</p><p>18. The Apex Court in Onkar Nath v. Ved Vyas ILR 1979 HP 1, held as follows:</p><p>It is common ground that there are three requirements to make out a cause of action for eviction under that provision, and indeed this is apparent from a bare reading of the sub-section. In the present case the finding is to the effect that the landlord requires the residential building for his own occupation. But, the legislation has taken care to insist upon two more conditions, namely; (a) that the landlord is not occupying any other residential building in the area concerned; and (b) that he has not vacated such a building without sufficient cause. There is not a scintilla of evidence nor indeed there is any averment in compliance with these latter conditions. The necessary consequence follows that not merely is there inadequacy of pleadings sufficient to make out a cause of action but total absence of proof of two vital requirements....</p><p>The Supreme Court also said that:.The statute benignly designed to protect tenants from unreasonable evictions has taken case to put restrictions which must be rigorously construed to fulfil the purpose of the statute.</p><p>19. Following the aforesaid judgment and other pronouncements of the Apex Court, a learned Single Judge of this Court in Tara Chand Sharma v. Baij Nath and Ors. 1992 (2) R.C.J. 323, held as follows:</p><p>16. What appears as the legislative intent, in bold relief, is that the landlord, while seeking eviction of a tenant on the ground that he needs a residential building for his own occupation, must come out clearly and honestly with facts relating to the requirement that he is not occupying another residential building owned by him, in the urban area concerned and that he had not vacated such a building without sufficient cause within five years of the filing of the application, in the said urban area. The primal burden of making a clear disclosure would lie upon the landlord, for, the true facts would be in his special knowledge. An order in his favour by the Rent Controller would depend upon the satisfaction of the Rent Controller in regard not only to the claim that the landlord requires the accommodation, from which he wishes to evict a tenant, for his own occupation but also that he was not occupying another residential building owned by him nor had he vacated such building without sufficient cause within five years of the filing of the application in the application in the urban area concerned....</p><p>It was further held as under:</p><p>18. That the landlord should make a full disclosure of the relevant facts, pertaining to the requirements of Sub-section (3)(a)(i) and the two provisos, becomes all the more necessary because the satisfaction of the Rent Controller in regard thereto is the condition precedent for the making of an order in favour of the landlord....</p><p>20. The aforesaid judgment has been followed in a number of other cases including Vijay Kapoor v. Maya Ram 1997 (2) RCR 437, wherein another learned single Judge of this Court following the aforesaid judgment held that the landlord must make complete and proper disclosure of all the material facts.</p><p>21. On the other hand Sh. Ramakant Sharma has relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in Ram Narain Arora v. Asha Rani 1998(2) RCR 268. In that case the Rent Controller came to the conclusion that the landlord had suppressed material information and had not disclosed the fact that he was already in occupation of a house in Subji Mandi. Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act reads as follows:</p><p>Section 14(1)(e). That the premises let for residential purposes are required bona fide by the landlord for occupation as a residence for himself or for any member of his family dependent on him, if he is the owner thereof, or for any person for whose benefit the premises are held and that the landlord or such person has no other reasonably suitable residential accommodation.</p><p>22. The difference between Delhi Act and the present Act is that under the Delhi Act the only requirement is that the landlord has no other reasonably suitable accommodation whereas under the Himachal Act the residential premises are required to be owned by the landlord. The Apex Court in Rama Narain Arora's case (supra) held that the nondisclosure of the fact that the landlord was in occupation of certain premises in Subji Mandi was.not a ground to non-suit the landlord in view of the facts and circumstances of the case. The Apex Court held as follows:</p><p>9. In making a claim that the suit premises is required bona fide for his own occupation as a residence for himself and other members of his family dependent on him and that he has no other reasonably suitable accommodation is a requirement of law before the Court can state whether the landlord requires the premises bona fide for his use and occupation. In doing so, the Court must also find out whether the landlord or such other person for whose benefit the premises is required has no other reasonably suitable residential accommodation. It cannot be said that the requirement of the landlord is not intermixed with the question of finding out whether he has any other reasonably suitable accommodation. If he has other reasonably suitable accommodation, ihen necessarily it would mean that he does not require the suit premises and his requirement may not be bona fide. In such circumstances further inquiry would be whether that premises is more suitable than the suit premises. Therefore, the questions raised before the Court would not necessarily depend upon only the pleadings. It could be a good defence that the landlord has other reasonably suitable residential accommodation and thereby defend the claim of the landlord.</p><p>10. There cannot be a pedantic or a dogmatic approach in the matter of analysis of pleadings or of the evidence adduced thereto. It is no doubt true that if the pleadings are clearly set out, it would be easy for the Court to decide the matters. But if the pleadings are lacking or vague and if both parties have understood what was the case pleaded and put forth with reference to requirement of law and placed such material before the Court, neither party is prejudiced. If we analyse from this angle, we do not think that the High Court was not justified in interfering with the order made by the Rent Controller.</p><p>23. From the perusal of the judgment of the Apex Court it is apparent that the Rent Controller must approach the matter in a practical manner. In case the non-disclosure is such as that it goes to the very root of the case the Rent Controller would be justified in non-suiting the landlord. However, if the non-disclosure is such that it would not prejudice the rights of the respondent then the landlord should not be non-suited only on this ground.</p><p>24. The decisions of this Court cited hereinabove were delivered prior to the judgment delivered by the Apex Court in Ram Nar'ain Arora's case. Further more both in Tara Chand Sharma's case and Vijay Kapoor's case decided by this Court, no averment had been made ixi respect of other residential buildings owned by a landlord. There was complete non-disclosure as to whether any such residential building owned by the landlord was in his possession or not. In the present case, as I have held above, the residential premises at 31, The Mall, Shimla was not owned by the landlord and hence these two earlier judgments of this Court are distinguishable on facts also.</p><p>25. In the present case, the landlord has been non-suited only on the ground that he did not disclose the fact that he was in occupation of certain premises on the Mall Road. Under law he was not required to disclose this fact. He was only required to disclose the factum of occupying another residential building owned by him in the urban area concerned. True it may be, that it would have been better if the landlord had disclosed all the facts but non-disclosure of a fact which he was not under law required to disclose could not in my opinion be a ground to dismiss his eviction petition.</p><p>26. However, what are the premises in his occupation even as a tenant can be taken into consideration while deciding the question whether he bona fide requires the demised premises for his personal use or occupation or not.</p><p>27. Lastly comes the question with regard to the bona fide requirement of the landlord. The landlord has no children. According to the landlord as well as his other witnesses i.e. his brother-in-law PW-2 and his wife PW-3, the wife now wants to come back and settle in Shimla. There is no reason to disbelieve their statements. Even according to the evidence led by the tenant the accommodation in possession of the landlord consists of two rooms, kitchen, bath room etc. Admittedly, the landlord is also having his office as an Architect in this building. The landlord belongs to the middle class of the Society. It cannot be expected of a landlord who owns sufficient property to reside in a two room set wherein he also runs his office.</p><p>28. The law by now is well settled that the landlord is the best judge of the suitability of the accommodation required by him. This suitability has however to be judged in the context of reasonable expectations. The landlord and his wife who are both well educated can reasonably be expected to entertain guests and they will have visitors to their house. They would obviously require a drawing room, a bed room and a spare bed room for guests. Even at his residence the landlord may require another room for his professional work. This is the minimum accommodation which they would require. Even if the accommodation possessed by the landlord, though not owned by him, at 31, the Mall, Shimla is taken into consideration such accommodation is not sufficient to meet his requirements since admittedly the landlord is running his profession of Architect from some portion of his these premises.</p><p>29. Keeping in view the entire facts and circumstances, I am of the considered view that the learned Appellate Authority gravely erred in rejecting the eviction petition of the landlord solely on the ground that he had not disclosed the factum of being in possession of the premises at 31, the Mall Shimla. Even though I have held that the said premises are residential premises, in view of the above discussion I hold that the landlord cannot be non-suited only on the ground of his being in possession of such premises since same were not owned by him.</p><p>30. In view of the above discussion, the Revision Petition is allowed, the order of the learned Appellate Authority dated 6.5.2003 is seaside and the order of the Rent Controller dated 22.8.2001 is restored.</p><p>31. Keeping in view the fact that the tenant has been in possession of the premises for a long period he is granted time up to 31st October, 2008 to vacate the premises.</p><p>32. No order as to costs.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '2008(2)ShimLC491',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'Shri S.L. Srivastava',
		'sub' => 'Tenancy',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'shri-arun-bhanwara-vs-s-l-srivastava'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '891084',
	(int) 1 => 'shri-arun-bhanwara-vs-s-l-srivastava'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/891084/shri-arun-bhanwara-vs-s-l-srivastava'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$caseref = 'Ram Narain Arora v. Asha Rani<br>'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>Deepak Gupta, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. This Revision Petition under Section 25(5) of the H.P. Urban Rent Control Act, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) is directed against the order of the learned Appellate Authority, Shimla in CMA No. 60-S/14 of 2001 whereby the appeal filed by the respondent (hereinafter referred to as the tenant) has been allowed, the order of the Rent Controller has been set-aside and the petition for eviction filed by the present petitioner (hereinafter referred to as the Landlord) on the ground of personal bona fide requirement has been set-aside.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. The undisputed facts are that the landlord is owner of the demised premises situated in building known as Tunnel View, Sanjauli, Shimla-6 consisting of two bed rooms with attached bath room and latrine, drawing-cum-dining room, kitchen and balcony. These premises were purchased by the landlord in the year 1986. Thereafter, the landlord had rented out the premises to one Sh. B.K. Chauhan. According to the landlord, when he got married he requested Sh. B.K. Chauhan to vacate the said premises. Sh. Chauhan vacated the said premises but admittedly the landlord did not occupy the same but rented out the same to the tenant in the year 1990.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. In the year 1997 the landlord filed a petition for eviction of the tenant on two grounds; firstly that the tenant is in arrears of rent from 1.11.1990 to 31.7.1997 and secondly that the premises are bona fide required by the landlord for the use and occupation of himself and his family.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>4. This petition was contested by the tenant. After trial, the Rent Controller ordered the eviction of the tenant on two grounds; (i) that the tenant was in arrears of rent from November, 1999 till date of order i.e. 22nd August, 2001 and (ii) that the landlord required the premises for his own use and occupation.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>5. The tenant deposited the rent within the time prescribed. He also filed an appeal challenging the finding on the issue of bona fide requirement. The learned Appellate Authority came to the conclusion that the landlord had not made a proper and full disclosure of facts as required under the provisions of the Act and had withheld material facts from the Court viz. that the landlord was in occupation of residential premises on 31, Mall Road in the urban area of Shimla and as such rejected this petition on this short ground.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>6. Aggrieved by the said order, the landlord has filed the present Revision Petition.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>7. I have heard Sh. Ramakant Sharma, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sh. Bhupinder Gupta, learned senior Counsel for the tenant.',
	(int) 8 => '<p>8. It has been urged on behalf of the landlord that the building which is alleged to be in possession of the landlord i.e. 31, the Mall Shimla is not a residential building and secondly that the building is not owned by him.',
	(int) 9 => '<p>9. On the other hand Sh. Bhupinder Gupta, learned Counsel of the tenant has strenuously urged that the landlord in para 18 has not stated anything about any building being owned by him and has only made an averment that he does not own or possess any other such building within the urban area Shimla. It is contended by Sh. Bhupinder Gupta that the landlord of his own volition did not state anything about the ownership of the building and since he has kept silent about the building which he is in occupation he has made a false averment and therefore his petition for eviction has rightly been rejected.',
	(int) 10 => '<p>10. I am not at all in agreement with the contention of the landlord that the premises known as 31, the Mall Shimla which are admittedly in the occupation of the landlord are commercial premises only and not being used by him for his residence. As pointed out above, the landlord purchased the demised premises in 1986. They fell vacant when he got married despite that he did not occupy the same and rented out the same to the tenant in the year 1990. The question that arises is where was the landlord living for this entire period. According to the landlord after the year 1994 he has been living with his brother-in-law Rajan (wife's brother) PW-2, since the year 1994. Prior to 1994 the landlord will have this Court to believe that he was living off and on with one friend or the other. This story is impossible to believe. The landlord was married in the year 1999. He is an Architect by profession. His wife is a law graduate. It is not believable that such a person would have no permanent abode and would continue to live as a guest with his friends for almost 5 years after his marriage. Even the story that he has been living with his brother-in-law after the year 1994 does not inspire confidence. It stands proved on record that the brother-in-law PW-2 Rajan lives with his own family i.e. wife and children. From the evidence it is also clear that the parents of the brother-in-law also reside with him, His flat consists of only two rooms. The flat in possession of the landlord at 31, the Mall Shimla, also consists of two rooms, kitchen and bath room. Even assuming that he was running an office in the part of the flat it cannot be believed that he would not live on his own flat on the Mall Road and reside with his brother-in-law in cramped premises. Even in the electoral list the landlord is shown to be a resident of 31, The Mall, Shimla. Therefore, I am of the considered view that the building 31, the Mall, Shimla was also being used as a residence by the landlord.',
	(int) 11 => '<p>11. Having held so, the question that arises is whether the landlord can be non-suited only on the ground that he has not made any disclosure about the residential accommodation available with him which premises were admittedly not owned by him.',
	(int) 12 => '<p>12. The short question which arises for decision in this petition is whether the landlord was guilty of suppressing and withholding such relevant facts which would disentitle him from seeking eviction of the tenant. To appreciate these contentions it would be necessary to refer to relevant portion of Section 14(3) of the Act:',
	(int) 13 => '<p>Section 14:',
	(int) 14 => '<p>1 and 2 xxxxxxxxxxx',
	(int) 15 => '<p>(3) A landlord may apply to the Controller for an order directing the tenant to put the landlord in possession-',
	(int) 16 => '<p>(a) in case of residential building, if',
	(int) 17 => '<p>(i) he required it for his own occupation:',
	(int) 18 => '<p>Provided that he is not occupying another residential building owned by him, in the urban area concerned:',
	(int) 19 => '<p>Provided further that he has not vacated such a building without sufficient cause within five years of the filing of the application, in the said urban area....',
	(int) 20 => '<p>13. A perusal of the bare provisions of the Act makes it clear that there are certain essential ingredients which the landlord must satisfy before seeking eviction of the tenant under the Act. Not only must he prove that the residential building is bona fide required by him for his own use and occupation but he must also plead and prove that he is not occupying any other residential building owned by him in the urban area concerned and further that he has not vacated such a building without sufficient cause within 5 years of the filing of the application.',
	(int) 21 => '<p>14. Reference may now be made to the relevant allegations made in para 18 of the eviction petition:',
	(int) 22 => '<p>(ii) That the petitioner bona fide requires the premises for his own use and occupation and also for the use and occupation of his family.',
	(int) 23 => '<p>The petitioner does not own or possess any other such building within the urban area of Simla nor the petitioner has vacated any such premises within five years of the filing of this petition.',
	(int) 24 => '<p>The family of the petitioner presently consists of himself and his wife. Due to paucity of accommodation the petitioner has not been able to keep his wife with himself at Simla, where he is working as an Engineer and she has been residing at Chandigarh since 1991 but on account of her ill health she has been brought to Simla by the petitioner. The petitioner at present is seeking temporary shelter, from time to time, with his relations.',
	(int) 25 => '<p>15. The learned Appellate Authority came to the conclusion that the landlord had falsely pleaded that he does not own or possess any other such building within the urban area of Shimla and hence rejected the eviction petition on this ground.',
	(int) 26 => '<p>16. On a close analysis of the proviso to Section 14(3)(a)(i) of the Act it is clear that a landlord is not entitled to seek eviction of a tenant from residential building even in case of bona fide requirement if the landlord is occupying another residential building owned by him in the urban area concerned. One can read three essential ingredients in this proviso i.e. (i) that the landlord is in occupation of another residential building; (ii) that the said residential building is owned by him and (iii) that the said residential building is situated in the concerned urban area.',
	(int) 27 => '<p>17. The question that arises is what is the impact of the landlord not making a disclosure in respect of premises which he is occupying but are not owned by him.',
	(int) 28 => '<p>18. The Apex Court in Onkar Nath v. Ved Vyas ILR 1979 HP 1, held as follows:',
	(int) 29 => '<p>It is common ground that there are three requirements to make out a cause of action for eviction under that provision, and indeed this is apparent from a bare reading of the sub-section. In the present case the finding is to the effect that the landlord requires the residential building for his own occupation. But, the legislation has taken care to insist upon two more conditions, namely; (a) that the landlord is not occupying any other residential building in the area concerned; and (b) that he has not vacated such a building without sufficient cause. There is not a scintilla of evidence nor indeed there is any averment in compliance with these latter conditions. The necessary consequence follows that not merely is there inadequacy of pleadings sufficient to make out a cause of action but total absence of proof of two vital requirements....',
	(int) 30 => '<p>The Supreme Court also said that:.The statute benignly designed to protect tenants from unreasonable evictions has taken case to put restrictions which must be rigorously construed to fulfil the purpose of the statute.',
	(int) 31 => '<p>19. Following the aforesaid judgment and other pronouncements of the Apex Court, a learned Single Judge of this Court in Tara Chand Sharma v. Baij Nath and Ors. 1992 (2) R.C.J. 323, held as follows:',
	(int) 32 => '<p>16. What appears as the legislative intent, in bold relief, is that the landlord, while seeking eviction of a tenant on the ground that he needs a residential building for his own occupation, must come out clearly and honestly with facts relating to the requirement that he is not occupying another residential building owned by him, in the urban area concerned and that he had not vacated such a building without sufficient cause within five years of the filing of the application, in the said urban area. The primal burden of making a clear disclosure would lie upon the landlord, for, the true facts would be in his special knowledge. An order in his favour by the Rent Controller would depend upon the satisfaction of the Rent Controller in regard not only to the claim that the landlord requires the accommodation, from which he wishes to evict a tenant, for his own occupation but also that he was not occupying another residential building owned by him nor had he vacated such building without sufficient cause within five years of the filing of the application in the application in the urban area concerned....',
	(int) 33 => '<p>It was further held as under:',
	(int) 34 => '<p>18. That the landlord should make a full disclosure of the relevant facts, pertaining to the requirements of Sub-section (3)(a)(i) and the two provisos, becomes all the more necessary because the satisfaction of the Rent Controller in regard thereto is the condition precedent for the making of an order in favour of the landlord....',
	(int) 35 => '<p>20. The aforesaid judgment has been followed in a number of other cases including Vijay Kapoor v. Maya Ram 1997 (2) RCR 437, wherein another learned single Judge of this Court following the aforesaid judgment held that the landlord must make complete and proper disclosure of all the material facts.',
	(int) 36 => '<p>21. On the other hand Sh. Ramakant Sharma has relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in Ram Narain Arora v. Asha Rani 1998(2) RCR 268. In that case the Rent Controller came to the conclusion that the landlord had suppressed material information and had not disclosed the fact that he was already in occupation of a house in Subji Mandi. Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act reads as follows:',
	(int) 37 => '<p>Section 14(1)(e). That the premises let for residential purposes are required bona fide by the landlord for occupation as a residence for himself or for any member of his family dependent on him, if he is the owner thereof, or for any person for whose benefit the premises are held and that the landlord or such person has no other reasonably suitable residential accommodation.',
	(int) 38 => '<p>22. The difference between Delhi Act and the present Act is that under the Delhi Act the only requirement is that the landlord has no other reasonably suitable accommodation whereas under the Himachal Act the residential premises are required to be owned by the landlord. The Apex Court in Rama Narain Arora's case (supra) held that the nondisclosure of the fact that the landlord was in occupation of certain premises in Subji Mandi was.not a ground to non-suit the landlord in view of the facts and circumstances of the case. The Apex Court held as follows:',
	(int) 39 => '<p>9. In making a claim that the suit premises is required bona fide for his own occupation as a residence for himself and other members of his family dependent on him and that he has no other reasonably suitable accommodation is a requirement of law before the Court can state whether the landlord requires the premises bona fide for his use and occupation. In doing so, the Court must also find out whether the landlord or such other person for whose benefit the premises is required has no other reasonably suitable residential accommodation. It cannot be said that the requirement of the landlord is not intermixed with the question of finding out whether he has any other reasonably suitable accommodation. If he has other reasonably suitable accommodation, ihen necessarily it would mean that he does not require the suit premises and his requirement may not be bona fide. In such circumstances further inquiry would be whether that premises is more suitable than the suit premises. Therefore, the questions raised before the Court would not necessarily depend upon only the pleadings. It could be a good defence that the landlord has other reasonably suitable residential accommodation and thereby defend the claim of the landlord.',
	(int) 40 => '<p>10. There cannot be a pedantic or a dogmatic approach in the matter of analysis of pleadings or of the evidence adduced thereto. It is no doubt true that if the pleadings are clearly set out, it would be easy for the Court to decide the matters. But if the pleadings are lacking or vague and if both parties have understood what was the case pleaded and put forth with reference to requirement of law and placed such material before the Court, neither party is prejudiced. If we analyse from this angle, we do not think that the High Court was not justified in interfering with the order made by the Rent Controller.',
	(int) 41 => '<p>23. From the perusal of the judgment of the Apex Court it is apparent that the Rent Controller must approach the matter in a practical manner. In case the non-disclosure is such as that it goes to the very root of the case the Rent Controller would be justified in non-suiting the landlord. However, if the non-disclosure is such that it would not prejudice the rights of the respondent then the landlord should not be non-suited only on this ground.',
	(int) 42 => '<p>24. The decisions of this Court cited hereinabove were delivered prior to the judgment delivered by the Apex Court in Ram Nar'ain Arora's case. Further more both in Tara Chand Sharma's case and Vijay Kapoor's case decided by this Court, no averment had been made ixi respect of other residential buildings owned by a landlord. There was complete non-disclosure as to whether any such residential building owned by the landlord was in his possession or not. In the present case, as I have held above, the residential premises at 31, The Mall, Shimla was not owned by the landlord and hence these two earlier judgments of this Court are distinguishable on facts also.',
	(int) 43 => '<p>25. In the present case, the landlord has been non-suited only on the ground that he did not disclose the fact that he was in occupation of certain premises on the Mall Road. Under law he was not required to disclose this fact. He was only required to disclose the factum of occupying another residential building owned by him in the urban area concerned. True it may be, that it would have been better if the landlord had disclosed all the facts but non-disclosure of a fact which he was not under law required to disclose could not in my opinion be a ground to dismiss his eviction petition.',
	(int) 44 => '<p>26. However, what are the premises in his occupation even as a tenant can be taken into consideration while deciding the question whether he bona fide requires the demised premises for his personal use or occupation or not.',
	(int) 45 => '<p>27. Lastly comes the question with regard to the bona fide requirement of the landlord. The landlord has no children. According to the landlord as well as his other witnesses i.e. his brother-in-law PW-2 and his wife PW-3, the wife now wants to come back and settle in Shimla. There is no reason to disbelieve their statements. Even according to the evidence led by the tenant the accommodation in possession of the landlord consists of two rooms, kitchen, bath room etc. Admittedly, the landlord is also having his office as an Architect in this building. The landlord belongs to the middle class of the Society. It cannot be expected of a landlord who owns sufficient property to reside in a two room set wherein he also runs his office.',
	(int) 46 => '<p>28. The law by now is well settled that the landlord is the best judge of the suitability of the accommodation required by him. This suitability has however to be judged in the context of reasonable expectations. The landlord and his wife who are both well educated can reasonably be expected to entertain guests and they will have visitors to their house. They would obviously require a drawing room, a bed room and a spare bed room for guests. Even at his residence the landlord may require another room for his professional work. This is the minimum accommodation which they would require. Even if the accommodation possessed by the landlord, though not owned by him, at 31, the Mall, Shimla is taken into consideration such accommodation is not sufficient to meet his requirements since admittedly the landlord is running his profession of Architect from some portion of his these premises.',
	(int) 47 => '<p>29. Keeping in view the entire facts and circumstances, I am of the considered view that the learned Appellate Authority gravely erred in rejecting the eviction petition of the landlord solely on the ground that he had not disclosed the factum of being in possession of the premises at 31, the Mall Shimla. Even though I have held that the said premises are residential premises, in view of the above discussion I hold that the landlord cannot be non-suited only on the ground of his being in possession of such premises since same were not owned by him.',
	(int) 48 => '<p>30. In view of the above discussion, the Revision Petition is allowed, the order of the learned Appellate Authority dated 6.5.2003 is seaside and the order of the Rent Controller dated 22.8.2001 is restored.',
	(int) 49 => '<p>31. Keeping in view the fact that the tenant has been in possession of the premises for a long period he is granted time up to 31st October, 2008 to vacate the premises.',
	(int) 50 => '<p>32. No order as to costs.<p>',
	(int) 51 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 52
$i = (int) 33
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

It was further held as under:

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Shri Arun Bhanwara Vs Shri S L Srivastava - Citation 891084 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '891084',
			'acts' => '',
			'appealno' => '',
			'appellant' => 'Shri Arun Bhanwara',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Shri Arun Bhanwara Vs. Shri S.L. Srivastava',
			'casenote' => ' - CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908.[C.A. No. 5/1908]. Order 14, Rule 2 [As amended by Amending Act of 1976]: [V.K. Gupta, CJ, Deepak Gupta & Surjit Singh, JJ] Preliminary issue of law and fact  Court framing all issues both of law and facts together and also  tried all the issues together, including the issue relating to jurisdiction of Court  Held, Except in situations perceived or warranted under sub-rule (2) of Rule 2 of Order 14 where a  Court in fact frames only issues of law in the first instance and postpones settlement of other issues, clearly and explicitly in situations where the Court has framed all issues together, both of law as well as facts and has also tried all these issues together, it is not open to the Court to adopt the principle of severability and proceed to decide issues of law first, without taking up simultaneously other issues for decision. This course of action is not available to a Court because sub-rule (1) does not permit the  Court to adopt any such principle of severability and to dispose of a suit only on preliminary issues, or what can be termed as issues of law. Sub-rule (1)  clearly mandates that in a situation contemplated under it, where all the issues have been together and have also been taken up for adjudication during the course of the trial, these must be decided together and the judgment in the suit as a whole must be pronounced by the Court covering all the issues framed in the suit.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => 'Ram Narain Arora v. Asha Rani;',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => '',
			'counseldef' => '',
			'court' => 'Himachal Pradesh',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2008-07-31',
			'deposition' => 'Petition allowed',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => ' Deepak Gupta, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">Deepak Gupta, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. This Revision Petition under Section 25(5) of the H.P. Urban Rent Control Act, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) is directed against the order of the learned Appellate Authority, Shimla in CMA No. 60-S/14 of 2001 whereby the appeal filed by the respondent (hereinafter referred to as the tenant) has been allowed, the order of the Rent Controller has been set-aside and the petition for eviction filed by the present petitioner (hereinafter referred to as the Landlord) on the ground of personal bona fide requirement has been set-aside.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The undisputed facts are that the landlord is owner of the demised premises situated in building known as Tunnel View, Sanjauli, Shimla-6 consisting of two bed rooms with attached bath room and latrine, drawing-cum-dining room, kitchen and balcony. These premises were purchased by the landlord in the year 1986. Thereafter, the landlord had rented out the premises to one Sh. B.K. Chauhan. According to the landlord, when he got married he requested Sh. B.K. Chauhan to vacate the said premises. Sh. Chauhan vacated the said premises but admittedly the landlord did not occupy the same but rented out the same to the tenant in the year 1990.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. In the year 1997 the landlord filed a petition for eviction of the tenant on two grounds; firstly that the tenant is in arrears of rent from 1.11.1990 to 31.7.1997 and secondly that the premises are bona fide required by the landlord for the use and occupation of himself and his family.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. This petition was contested by the tenant. After trial, the Rent Controller ordered the eviction of the tenant on two grounds; (i) that the tenant was in arrears of rent from November, 1999 till date of order i.e. 22nd August, 2001 and (ii) that the landlord required the premises for his own use and occupation.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. The tenant deposited the rent within the time prescribed. He also filed an appeal challenging the finding on the issue of bona fide requirement. The learned Appellate Authority came to the conclusion that the landlord had not made a proper and full disclosure of facts as required under the provisions of the Act and had withheld material facts from the Court viz. that the landlord was in occupation of residential premises on 31, Mall Road in the urban area of Shimla and as such rejected this petition on this short ground.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. Aggrieved by the said order, the landlord has filed the present Revision Petition.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. I have heard Sh. Ramakant Sharma, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sh. Bhupinder Gupta, learned senior Counsel for the tenant.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. It has been urged on behalf of the landlord that the building which is alleged to be in possession of the landlord i.e. 31, the Mall Shimla is not a residential building and secondly that the building is not owned by him.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. On the other hand Sh. Bhupinder Gupta, learned Counsel of the tenant has strenuously urged that the landlord in para 18 has not stated anything about any building being owned by him and has only made an averment that he does not own or possess any other such building within the urban area Shimla. It is contended by Sh. Bhupinder Gupta that the landlord of his own volition did not state anything about the ownership of the building and since he has kept silent about the building which he is in occupation he has made a false averment and therefore his petition for eviction has rightly been rejected.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. I am not at all in agreement with the contention of the landlord that the premises known as 31, the Mall Shimla which are admittedly in the occupation of the landlord are commercial premises only and not being used by him for his residence. As pointed out above, the landlord purchased the demised premises in 1986. They fell vacant when he got married despite that he did not occupy the same and rented out the same to the tenant in the year 1990. The question that arises is where was the landlord living for this entire period. According to the landlord after the year 1994 he has been living with his brother-in-law Rajan (wife's brother) PW-2, since the year 1994. Prior to 1994 the landlord will have this Court to believe that he was living off and on with one friend or the other. This story is impossible to believe. The landlord was married in the year 1999. He is an Architect by profession. His wife is a law graduate. It is not believable that such a person would have no permanent abode and would continue to live as a guest with his friends for almost 5 years after his marriage. Even the story that he has been living with his brother-in-law after the year 1994 does not inspire confidence. It stands proved on record that the brother-in-law PW-2 Rajan lives with his own family i.e. wife and children. From the evidence it is also clear that the parents of the brother-in-law also reside with him, His flat consists of only two rooms. The flat in possession of the landlord at 31, the Mall Shimla, also consists of two rooms, kitchen and bath room. Even assuming that he was running an office in the part of the flat it cannot be believed that he would not live on his own flat on the Mall Road and reside with his brother-in-law in cramped premises. Even in the electoral list the landlord is shown to be a resident of 31, The Mall, Shimla. Therefore, I am of the considered view that the building 31, the Mall, Shimla was also being used as a residence by the landlord.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. Having held so, the question that arises is whether the landlord can be non-suited only on the ground that he has not made any disclosure about the residential accommodation available with him which premises were admittedly not owned by him.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. The short question which arises for decision in this petition is whether the landlord was guilty of suppressing and withholding such relevant facts which would disentitle him from seeking eviction of the tenant. To appreciate these contentions it would be necessary to refer to relevant portion of Section 14(3) of the Act:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Section 14:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1 and 2 xxxxxxxxxxx</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(3) A landlord may apply to the Controller for an order directing the tenant to put the landlord in possession-</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(a) in case of residential building, if</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(i) he required it for his own occupation:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Provided that he is not occupying another residential building owned by him, in the urban area concerned:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Provided further that he has not vacated such a building without sufficient cause within five years of the filing of the application, in the said urban area....</p><p style="text-align: justify;">13. A perusal of the bare provisions of the Act makes it clear that there are certain essential ingredients which the landlord must satisfy before seeking eviction of the tenant under the Act. Not only must he prove that the residential building is bona fide required by him for his own use and occupation but he must also plead and prove that he is not occupying any other residential building owned by him in the urban area concerned and further that he has not vacated such a building without sufficient cause within 5 years of the filing of the application.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">14. Reference may now be made to the relevant allegations made in para 18 of the eviction petition:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(ii) That the petitioner bona fide requires the premises for his own use and occupation and also for the use and occupation of his family.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The petitioner does not own or possess any other such building within the urban area of Simla nor the petitioner has vacated any such premises within five years of the filing of this petition.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The family of the petitioner presently consists of himself and his wife. Due to paucity of accommodation the petitioner has not been able to keep his wife with himself at Simla, where he is working as an Engineer and she has been residing at Chandigarh since 1991 but on account of her ill health she has been brought to Simla by the petitioner. The petitioner at present is seeking temporary shelter, from time to time, with his relations.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">15. The learned Appellate Authority came to the conclusion that the landlord had falsely pleaded that he does not own or possess any other such building within the urban area of Shimla and hence rejected the eviction petition on this ground.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">16. On a close analysis of the proviso to Section 14(3)(a)(i) of the Act it is clear that a landlord is not entitled to seek eviction of a tenant from residential building even in case of bona fide requirement if the landlord is occupying another residential building owned by him in the urban area concerned. One can read three essential ingredients in this proviso i.e. (i) that the landlord is in occupation of another residential building; (ii) that the said residential building is owned by him and (iii) that the said residential building is situated in the concerned urban area.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">17. The question that arises is what is the impact of the landlord not making a disclosure in respect of premises which he is occupying but are not owned by him.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">18. The Apex Court in Onkar Nath v. Ved Vyas ILR 1979 HP 1, held as follows:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">It is common ground that there are three requirements to make out a cause of action for eviction under that provision, and indeed this is apparent from a bare reading of the sub-section. In the present case the finding is to the effect that the landlord requires the residential building for his own occupation. But, the legislation has taken care to insist upon two more conditions, namely; (a) that the landlord is not occupying any other residential building in the area concerned; and (b) that he has not vacated such a building without sufficient cause. There is not a scintilla of evidence nor indeed there is any averment in compliance with these latter conditions. The necessary consequence follows that not merely is there inadequacy of pleadings sufficient to make out a cause of action but total absence of proof of two vital requirements....</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The Supreme Court also said that:.The statute benignly designed to protect tenants from unreasonable evictions has taken case to put restrictions which must be rigorously construed to fulfil the purpose of the statute.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">19. Following the aforesaid judgment and other pronouncements of the Apex Court, a learned Single Judge of this Court in Tara Chand Sharma v. Baij Nath and Ors. 1992 (2) R.C.J. 323, held as follows:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">16. What appears as the legislative intent, in bold relief, is that the landlord, while seeking eviction of a tenant on the ground that he needs a residential building for his own occupation, must come out clearly and honestly with facts relating to the requirement that he is not occupying another residential building owned by him, in the urban area concerned and that he had not vacated such a building without sufficient cause within five years of the filing of the application, in the said urban area. The primal burden of making a clear disclosure would lie upon the landlord, for, the true facts would be in his special knowledge. An order in his favour by the Rent Controller would depend upon the satisfaction of the Rent Controller in regard not only to the claim that the landlord requires the accommodation, from which he wishes to evict a tenant, for his own occupation but also that he was not occupying another residential building owned by him nor had he vacated such building without sufficient cause within five years of the filing of the application in the application in the urban area concerned....</p><p style="text-align: justify;">It was further held as under:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">18. That the landlord should make a full disclosure of the relevant facts, pertaining to the requirements of Sub-section (3)(a)(i) and the two provisos, becomes all the more necessary because the satisfaction of the Rent Controller in regard thereto is the condition precedent for the making of an order in favour of the landlord....</p><p style="text-align: justify;">20. The aforesaid judgment has been followed in a number of other cases including Vijay Kapoor v. Maya Ram 1997 (2) RCR 437, wherein another learned single Judge of this Court following the aforesaid judgment held that the landlord must make complete and proper disclosure of all the material facts.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">21. On the other hand Sh. Ramakant Sharma has relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in Ram Narain Arora v. Asha Rani 1998(2) RCR 268. In that case the Rent Controller came to the conclusion that the landlord had suppressed material information and had not disclosed the fact that he was already in occupation of a house in Subji Mandi. Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act reads as follows:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Section 14(1)(e). That the premises let for residential purposes are required bona fide by the landlord for occupation as a residence for himself or for any member of his family dependent on him, if he is the owner thereof, or for any person for whose benefit the premises are held and that the landlord or such person has no other reasonably suitable residential accommodation.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">22. The difference between Delhi Act and the present Act is that under the Delhi Act the only requirement is that the landlord has no other reasonably suitable accommodation whereas under the Himachal Act the residential premises are required to be owned by the landlord. The Apex Court in Rama Narain Arora's case (supra) held that the nondisclosure of the fact that the landlord was in occupation of certain premises in Subji Mandi was.not a ground to non-suit the landlord in view of the facts and circumstances of the case. The Apex Court held as follows:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. In making a claim that the suit premises is required bona fide for his own occupation as a residence for himself and other members of his family dependent on him and that he has no other reasonably suitable accommodation is a requirement of law before the Court can state whether the landlord requires the premises bona fide for his use and occupation. In doing so, the Court must also find out whether the landlord or such other person for whose benefit the premises is required has no other reasonably suitable residential accommodation. It cannot be said that the requirement of the landlord is not intermixed with the question of finding out whether he has any other reasonably suitable accommodation. If he has other reasonably suitable accommodation, ihen necessarily it would mean that he does not require the suit premises and his requirement may not be bona fide. In such circumstances further inquiry would be whether that premises is more suitable than the suit premises. Therefore, the questions raised before the Court would not necessarily depend upon only the pleadings. It could be a good defence that the landlord has other reasonably suitable residential accommodation and thereby defend the claim of the landlord.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. There cannot be a pedantic or a dogmatic approach in the matter of analysis of pleadings or of the evidence adduced thereto. It is no doubt true that if the pleadings are clearly set out, it would be easy for the Court to decide the matters. But if the pleadings are lacking or vague and if both parties have understood what was the case pleaded and put forth with reference to requirement of law and placed such material before the Court, neither party is prejudiced. If we analyse from this angle, we do not think that the High Court was not justified in interfering with the order made by the Rent Controller.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">23. From the perusal of the judgment of the Apex Court it is apparent that the Rent Controller must approach the matter in a practical manner. In case the non-disclosure is such as that it goes to the very root of the case the Rent Controller would be justified in non-suiting the landlord. However, if the non-disclosure is such that it would not prejudice the rights of the respondent then the landlord should not be non-suited only on this ground.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">24. The decisions of this Court cited hereinabove were delivered prior to the judgment delivered by the Apex Court in Ram Nar'ain Arora's case. Further more both in Tara Chand Sharma's case and Vijay Kapoor's case decided by this Court, no averment had been made ixi respect of other residential buildings owned by a landlord. There was complete non-disclosure as to whether any such residential building owned by the landlord was in his possession or not. In the present case, as I have held above, the residential premises at 31, The Mall, Shimla was not owned by the landlord and hence these two earlier judgments of this Court are distinguishable on facts also.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">25. In the present case, the landlord has been non-suited only on the ground that he did not disclose the fact that he was in occupation of certain premises on the Mall Road. Under law he was not required to disclose this fact. He was only required to disclose the factum of occupying another residential building owned by him in the urban area concerned. True it may be, that it would have been better if the landlord had disclosed all the facts but non-disclosure of a fact which he was not under law required to disclose could not in my opinion be a ground to dismiss his eviction petition.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">26. However, what are the premises in his occupation even as a tenant can be taken into consideration while deciding the question whether he bona fide requires the demised premises for his personal use or occupation or not.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">27. Lastly comes the question with regard to the bona fide requirement of the landlord. The landlord has no children. According to the landlord as well as his other witnesses i.e. his brother-in-law PW-2 and his wife PW-3, the wife now wants to come back and settle in Shimla. There is no reason to disbelieve their statements. Even according to the evidence led by the tenant the accommodation in possession of the landlord consists of two rooms, kitchen, bath room etc. Admittedly, the landlord is also having his office as an Architect in this building. The landlord belongs to the middle class of the Society. It cannot be expected of a landlord who owns sufficient property to reside in a two room set wherein he also runs his office.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">28. The law by now is well settled that the landlord is the best judge of the suitability of the accommodation required by him. This suitability has however to be judged in the context of reasonable expectations. The landlord and his wife who are both well educated can reasonably be expected to entertain guests and they will have visitors to their house. They would obviously require a drawing room, a bed room and a spare bed room for guests. Even at his residence the landlord may require another room for his professional work. This is the minimum accommodation which they would require. Even if the accommodation possessed by the landlord, though not owned by him, at 31, the Mall, Shimla is taken into consideration such accommodation is not sufficient to meet his requirements since admittedly the landlord is running his profession of Architect from some portion of his these premises.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">29. Keeping in view the entire facts and circumstances, I am of the considered view that the learned Appellate Authority gravely erred in rejecting the eviction petition of the landlord solely on the ground that he had not disclosed the factum of being in possession of the premises at 31, the Mall Shimla. Even though I have held that the said premises are residential premises, in view of the above discussion I hold that the landlord cannot be non-suited only on the ground of his being in possession of such premises since same were not owned by him.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">30. In view of the above discussion, the Revision Petition is allowed, the order of the learned Appellate Authority dated 6.5.2003 is seaside and the order of the Rent Controller dated 22.8.2001 is restored.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">31. Keeping in view the fact that the tenant has been in possession of the premises for a long period he is granted time up to 31st October, 2008 to vacate the premises.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">32. No order as to costs.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '2008(2)ShimLC491',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'Shri S.L. Srivastava',
			'sub' => 'Tenancy',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'shri-arun-bhanwara-vs-s-l-srivastava',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '891084',
		(int) 1 => 'shri-arun-bhanwara-vs-s-l-srivastava'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Shri Arun Bhanwara Vs Shri S L Srivastava - Citation 891084 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '891084',
		'acts' => '',
		'appealno' => '',
		'appellant' => 'Shri Arun Bhanwara',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Shri Arun Bhanwara Vs. Shri S.L. Srivastava',
		'casenote' => ' - CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908.[C.A. No. 5/1908]. Order 14, Rule 2 [As amended by Amending Act of 1976]: [V.K. Gupta, CJ, Deepak Gupta & Surjit Singh, JJ] Preliminary issue of law and fact  Court framing all issues both of law and facts together and also  tried all the issues together, including the issue relating to jurisdiction of Court  Held, Except in situations perceived or warranted under sub-rule (2) of Rule 2 of Order 14 where a  Court in fact frames only issues of law in the first instance and postpones settlement of other issues, clearly and explicitly in situations where the Court has framed all issues together, both of law as well as facts and has also tried all these issues together, it is not open to the Court to adopt the principle of severability and proceed to decide issues of law first, without taking up simultaneously other issues for decision. This course of action is not available to a Court because sub-rule (1) does not permit the  Court to adopt any such principle of severability and to dispose of a suit only on preliminary issues, or what can be termed as issues of law. Sub-rule (1)  clearly mandates that in a situation contemplated under it, where all the issues have been together and have also been taken up for adjudication during the course of the trial, these must be decided together and the judgment in the suit as a whole must be pronounced by the Court covering all the issues framed in the suit.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => 'Ram Narain Arora v. Asha Rani;',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => '',
		'counseldef' => '',
		'court' => 'Himachal Pradesh',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2008-07-31',
		'deposition' => 'Petition allowed',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => ' Deepak Gupta, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>Deepak Gupta, J.</p><p>1. This Revision Petition under Section 25(5) of the H.P. Urban Rent Control Act, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) is directed against the order of the learned Appellate Authority, Shimla in CMA No. 60-S/14 of 2001 whereby the appeal filed by the respondent (hereinafter referred to as the tenant) has been allowed, the order of the Rent Controller has been set-aside and the petition for eviction filed by the present petitioner (hereinafter referred to as the Landlord) on the ground of personal bona fide requirement has been set-aside.</p><p>2. The undisputed facts are that the landlord is owner of the demised premises situated in building known as Tunnel View, Sanjauli, Shimla-6 consisting of two bed rooms with attached bath room and latrine, drawing-cum-dining room, kitchen and balcony. These premises were purchased by the landlord in the year 1986. Thereafter, the landlord had rented out the premises to one Sh. B.K. Chauhan. According to the landlord, when he got married he requested Sh. B.K. Chauhan to vacate the said premises. Sh. Chauhan vacated the said premises but admittedly the landlord did not occupy the same but rented out the same to the tenant in the year 1990.</p><p>3. In the year 1997 the landlord filed a petition for eviction of the tenant on two grounds; firstly that the tenant is in arrears of rent from 1.11.1990 to 31.7.1997 and secondly that the premises are bona fide required by the landlord for the use and occupation of himself and his family.</p><p>4. This petition was contested by the tenant. After trial, the Rent Controller ordered the eviction of the tenant on two grounds; (i) that the tenant was in arrears of rent from November, 1999 till date of order i.e. 22nd August, 2001 and (ii) that the landlord required the premises for his own use and occupation.</p><p>5. The tenant deposited the rent within the time prescribed. He also filed an appeal challenging the finding on the issue of bona fide requirement. The learned Appellate Authority came to the conclusion that the landlord had not made a proper and full disclosure of facts as required under the provisions of the Act and had withheld material facts from the Court viz. that the landlord was in occupation of residential premises on 31, Mall Road in the urban area of Shimla and as such rejected this petition on this short ground.</p><p>6. Aggrieved by the said order, the landlord has filed the present Revision Petition.</p><p>7. I have heard Sh. Ramakant Sharma, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sh. Bhupinder Gupta, learned senior Counsel for the tenant.</p><p>8. It has been urged on behalf of the landlord that the building which is alleged to be in possession of the landlord i.e. 31, the Mall Shimla is not a residential building and secondly that the building is not owned by him.</p><p>9. On the other hand Sh. Bhupinder Gupta, learned Counsel of the tenant has strenuously urged that the landlord in para 18 has not stated anything about any building being owned by him and has only made an averment that he does not own or possess any other such building within the urban area Shimla. It is contended by Sh. Bhupinder Gupta that the landlord of his own volition did not state anything about the ownership of the building and since he has kept silent about the building which he is in occupation he has made a false averment and therefore his petition for eviction has rightly been rejected.</p><p>10. I am not at all in agreement with the contention of the landlord that the premises known as 31, the Mall Shimla which are admittedly in the occupation of the landlord are commercial premises only and not being used by him for his residence. As pointed out above, the landlord purchased the demised premises in 1986. They fell vacant when he got married despite that he did not occupy the same and rented out the same to the tenant in the year 1990. The question that arises is where was the landlord living for this entire period. According to the landlord after the year 1994 he has been living with his brother-in-law Rajan (wife's brother) PW-2, since the year 1994. Prior to 1994 the landlord will have this Court to believe that he was living off and on with one friend or the other. This story is impossible to believe. The landlord was married in the year 1999. He is an Architect by profession. His wife is a law graduate. It is not believable that such a person would have no permanent abode and would continue to live as a guest with his friends for almost 5 years after his marriage. Even the story that he has been living with his brother-in-law after the year 1994 does not inspire confidence. It stands proved on record that the brother-in-law PW-2 Rajan lives with his own family i.e. wife and children. From the evidence it is also clear that the parents of the brother-in-law also reside with him, His flat consists of only two rooms. The flat in possession of the landlord at 31, the Mall Shimla, also consists of two rooms, kitchen and bath room. Even assuming that he was running an office in the part of the flat it cannot be believed that he would not live on his own flat on the Mall Road and reside with his brother-in-law in cramped premises. Even in the electoral list the landlord is shown to be a resident of 31, The Mall, Shimla. Therefore, I am of the considered view that the building 31, the Mall, Shimla was also being used as a residence by the landlord.</p><p>11. Having held so, the question that arises is whether the landlord can be non-suited only on the ground that he has not made any disclosure about the residential accommodation available with him which premises were admittedly not owned by him.</p><p>12. The short question which arises for decision in this petition is whether the landlord was guilty of suppressing and withholding such relevant facts which would disentitle him from seeking eviction of the tenant. To appreciate these contentions it would be necessary to refer to relevant portion of Section 14(3) of the Act:</p><p>Section 14:</p><p>1 and 2 xxxxxxxxxxx</p><p>(3) A landlord may apply to the Controller for an order directing the tenant to put the landlord in possession-</p><p>(a) in case of residential building, if</p><p>(i) he required it for his own occupation:</p><p>Provided that he is not occupying another residential building owned by him, in the urban area concerned:</p><p>Provided further that he has not vacated such a building without sufficient cause within five years of the filing of the application, in the said urban area....</p><p>13. A perusal of the bare provisions of the Act makes it clear that there are certain essential ingredients which the landlord must satisfy before seeking eviction of the tenant under the Act. Not only must he prove that the residential building is bona fide required by him for his own use and occupation but he must also plead and prove that he is not occupying any other residential building owned by him in the urban area concerned and further that he has not vacated such a building without sufficient cause within 5 years of the filing of the application.</p><p>14. Reference may now be made to the relevant allegations made in para 18 of the eviction petition:</p><p>(ii) That the petitioner bona fide requires the premises for his own use and occupation and also for the use and occupation of his family.</p><p>The petitioner does not own or possess any other such building within the urban area of Simla nor the petitioner has vacated any such premises within five years of the filing of this petition.</p><p>The family of the petitioner presently consists of himself and his wife. Due to paucity of accommodation the petitioner has not been able to keep his wife with himself at Simla, where he is working as an Engineer and she has been residing at Chandigarh since 1991 but on account of her ill health she has been brought to Simla by the petitioner. The petitioner at present is seeking temporary shelter, from time to time, with his relations.</p><p>15. The learned Appellate Authority came to the conclusion that the landlord had falsely pleaded that he does not own or possess any other such building within the urban area of Shimla and hence rejected the eviction petition on this ground.</p><p>16. On a close analysis of the proviso to Section 14(3)(a)(i) of the Act it is clear that a landlord is not entitled to seek eviction of a tenant from residential building even in case of bona fide requirement if the landlord is occupying another residential building owned by him in the urban area concerned. One can read three essential ingredients in this proviso i.e. (i) that the landlord is in occupation of another residential building; (ii) that the said residential building is owned by him and (iii) that the said residential building is situated in the concerned urban area.</p><p>17. The question that arises is what is the impact of the landlord not making a disclosure in respect of premises which he is occupying but are not owned by him.</p><p>18. The Apex Court in Onkar Nath v. Ved Vyas ILR 1979 HP 1, held as follows:</p><p>It is common ground that there are three requirements to make out a cause of action for eviction under that provision, and indeed this is apparent from a bare reading of the sub-section. In the present case the finding is to the effect that the landlord requires the residential building for his own occupation. But, the legislation has taken care to insist upon two more conditions, namely; (a) that the landlord is not occupying any other residential building in the area concerned; and (b) that he has not vacated such a building without sufficient cause. There is not a scintilla of evidence nor indeed there is any averment in compliance with these latter conditions. The necessary consequence follows that not merely is there inadequacy of pleadings sufficient to make out a cause of action but total absence of proof of two vital requirements....</p><p>The Supreme Court also said that:.The statute benignly designed to protect tenants from unreasonable evictions has taken case to put restrictions which must be rigorously construed to fulfil the purpose of the statute.</p><p>19. Following the aforesaid judgment and other pronouncements of the Apex Court, a learned Single Judge of this Court in Tara Chand Sharma v. Baij Nath and Ors. 1992 (2) R.C.J. 323, held as follows:</p><p>16. What appears as the legislative intent, in bold relief, is that the landlord, while seeking eviction of a tenant on the ground that he needs a residential building for his own occupation, must come out clearly and honestly with facts relating to the requirement that he is not occupying another residential building owned by him, in the urban area concerned and that he had not vacated such a building without sufficient cause within five years of the filing of the application, in the said urban area. The primal burden of making a clear disclosure would lie upon the landlord, for, the true facts would be in his special knowledge. An order in his favour by the Rent Controller would depend upon the satisfaction of the Rent Controller in regard not only to the claim that the landlord requires the accommodation, from which he wishes to evict a tenant, for his own occupation but also that he was not occupying another residential building owned by him nor had he vacated such building without sufficient cause within five years of the filing of the application in the application in the urban area concerned....</p><p>It was further held as under:</p><p>18. That the landlord should make a full disclosure of the relevant facts, pertaining to the requirements of Sub-section (3)(a)(i) and the two provisos, becomes all the more necessary because the satisfaction of the Rent Controller in regard thereto is the condition precedent for the making of an order in favour of the landlord....</p><p>20. The aforesaid judgment has been followed in a number of other cases including Vijay Kapoor v. Maya Ram 1997 (2) RCR 437, wherein another learned single Judge of this Court following the aforesaid judgment held that the landlord must make complete and proper disclosure of all the material facts.</p><p>21. On the other hand Sh. Ramakant Sharma has relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in Ram Narain Arora v. Asha Rani 1998(2) RCR 268. In that case the Rent Controller came to the conclusion that the landlord had suppressed material information and had not disclosed the fact that he was already in occupation of a house in Subji Mandi. Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act reads as follows:</p><p>Section 14(1)(e). That the premises let for residential purposes are required bona fide by the landlord for occupation as a residence for himself or for any member of his family dependent on him, if he is the owner thereof, or for any person for whose benefit the premises are held and that the landlord or such person has no other reasonably suitable residential accommodation.</p><p>22. The difference between Delhi Act and the present Act is that under the Delhi Act the only requirement is that the landlord has no other reasonably suitable accommodation whereas under the Himachal Act the residential premises are required to be owned by the landlord. The Apex Court in Rama Narain Arora's case (supra) held that the nondisclosure of the fact that the landlord was in occupation of certain premises in Subji Mandi was.not a ground to non-suit the landlord in view of the facts and circumstances of the case. The Apex Court held as follows:</p><p>9. In making a claim that the suit premises is required bona fide for his own occupation as a residence for himself and other members of his family dependent on him and that he has no other reasonably suitable accommodation is a requirement of law before the Court can state whether the landlord requires the premises bona fide for his use and occupation. In doing so, the Court must also find out whether the landlord or such other person for whose benefit the premises is required has no other reasonably suitable residential accommodation. It cannot be said that the requirement of the landlord is not intermixed with the question of finding out whether he has any other reasonably suitable accommodation. If he has other reasonably suitable accommodation, ihen necessarily it would mean that he does not require the suit premises and his requirement may not be bona fide. In such circumstances further inquiry would be whether that premises is more suitable than the suit premises. Therefore, the questions raised before the Court would not necessarily depend upon only the pleadings. It could be a good defence that the landlord has other reasonably suitable residential accommodation and thereby defend the claim of the landlord.</p><p>10. There cannot be a pedantic or a dogmatic approach in the matter of analysis of pleadings or of the evidence adduced thereto. It is no doubt true that if the pleadings are clearly set out, it would be easy for the Court to decide the matters. But if the pleadings are lacking or vague and if both parties have understood what was the case pleaded and put forth with reference to requirement of law and placed such material before the Court, neither party is prejudiced. If we analyse from this angle, we do not think that the High Court was not justified in interfering with the order made by the Rent Controller.</p><p>23. From the perusal of the judgment of the Apex Court it is apparent that the Rent Controller must approach the matter in a practical manner. In case the non-disclosure is such as that it goes to the very root of the case the Rent Controller would be justified in non-suiting the landlord. However, if the non-disclosure is such that it would not prejudice the rights of the respondent then the landlord should not be non-suited only on this ground.</p><p>24. The decisions of this Court cited hereinabove were delivered prior to the judgment delivered by the Apex Court in Ram Nar'ain Arora's case. Further more both in Tara Chand Sharma's case and Vijay Kapoor's case decided by this Court, no averment had been made ixi respect of other residential buildings owned by a landlord. There was complete non-disclosure as to whether any such residential building owned by the landlord was in his possession or not. In the present case, as I have held above, the residential premises at 31, The Mall, Shimla was not owned by the landlord and hence these two earlier judgments of this Court are distinguishable on facts also.</p><p>25. In the present case, the landlord has been non-suited only on the ground that he did not disclose the fact that he was in occupation of certain premises on the Mall Road. Under law he was not required to disclose this fact. He was only required to disclose the factum of occupying another residential building owned by him in the urban area concerned. True it may be, that it would have been better if the landlord had disclosed all the facts but non-disclosure of a fact which he was not under law required to disclose could not in my opinion be a ground to dismiss his eviction petition.</p><p>26. However, what are the premises in his occupation even as a tenant can be taken into consideration while deciding the question whether he bona fide requires the demised premises for his personal use or occupation or not.</p><p>27. Lastly comes the question with regard to the bona fide requirement of the landlord. The landlord has no children. According to the landlord as well as his other witnesses i.e. his brother-in-law PW-2 and his wife PW-3, the wife now wants to come back and settle in Shimla. There is no reason to disbelieve their statements. Even according to the evidence led by the tenant the accommodation in possession of the landlord consists of two rooms, kitchen, bath room etc. Admittedly, the landlord is also having his office as an Architect in this building. The landlord belongs to the middle class of the Society. It cannot be expected of a landlord who owns sufficient property to reside in a two room set wherein he also runs his office.</p><p>28. The law by now is well settled that the landlord is the best judge of the suitability of the accommodation required by him. This suitability has however to be judged in the context of reasonable expectations. The landlord and his wife who are both well educated can reasonably be expected to entertain guests and they will have visitors to their house. They would obviously require a drawing room, a bed room and a spare bed room for guests. Even at his residence the landlord may require another room for his professional work. This is the minimum accommodation which they would require. Even if the accommodation possessed by the landlord, though not owned by him, at 31, the Mall, Shimla is taken into consideration such accommodation is not sufficient to meet his requirements since admittedly the landlord is running his profession of Architect from some portion of his these premises.</p><p>29. Keeping in view the entire facts and circumstances, I am of the considered view that the learned Appellate Authority gravely erred in rejecting the eviction petition of the landlord solely on the ground that he had not disclosed the factum of being in possession of the premises at 31, the Mall Shimla. Even though I have held that the said premises are residential premises, in view of the above discussion I hold that the landlord cannot be non-suited only on the ground of his being in possession of such premises since same were not owned by him.</p><p>30. In view of the above discussion, the Revision Petition is allowed, the order of the learned Appellate Authority dated 6.5.2003 is seaside and the order of the Rent Controller dated 22.8.2001 is restored.</p><p>31. Keeping in view the fact that the tenant has been in possession of the premises for a long period he is granted time up to 31st October, 2008 to vacate the premises.</p><p>32. No order as to costs.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '2008(2)ShimLC491',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'Shri S.L. Srivastava',
		'sub' => 'Tenancy',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'shri-arun-bhanwara-vs-s-l-srivastava'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '891084',
	(int) 1 => 'shri-arun-bhanwara-vs-s-l-srivastava'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/891084/shri-arun-bhanwara-vs-s-l-srivastava'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$caseref = 'Ram Narain Arora v. Asha Rani<br>'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>Deepak Gupta, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. This Revision Petition under Section 25(5) of the H.P. Urban Rent Control Act, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) is directed against the order of the learned Appellate Authority, Shimla in CMA No. 60-S/14 of 2001 whereby the appeal filed by the respondent (hereinafter referred to as the tenant) has been allowed, the order of the Rent Controller has been set-aside and the petition for eviction filed by the present petitioner (hereinafter referred to as the Landlord) on the ground of personal bona fide requirement has been set-aside.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. The undisputed facts are that the landlord is owner of the demised premises situated in building known as Tunnel View, Sanjauli, Shimla-6 consisting of two bed rooms with attached bath room and latrine, drawing-cum-dining room, kitchen and balcony. These premises were purchased by the landlord in the year 1986. Thereafter, the landlord had rented out the premises to one Sh. B.K. Chauhan. According to the landlord, when he got married he requested Sh. B.K. Chauhan to vacate the said premises. Sh. Chauhan vacated the said premises but admittedly the landlord did not occupy the same but rented out the same to the tenant in the year 1990.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. In the year 1997 the landlord filed a petition for eviction of the tenant on two grounds; firstly that the tenant is in arrears of rent from 1.11.1990 to 31.7.1997 and secondly that the premises are bona fide required by the landlord for the use and occupation of himself and his family.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>4. This petition was contested by the tenant. After trial, the Rent Controller ordered the eviction of the tenant on two grounds; (i) that the tenant was in arrears of rent from November, 1999 till date of order i.e. 22nd August, 2001 and (ii) that the landlord required the premises for his own use and occupation.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>5. The tenant deposited the rent within the time prescribed. He also filed an appeal challenging the finding on the issue of bona fide requirement. The learned Appellate Authority came to the conclusion that the landlord had not made a proper and full disclosure of facts as required under the provisions of the Act and had withheld material facts from the Court viz. that the landlord was in occupation of residential premises on 31, Mall Road in the urban area of Shimla and as such rejected this petition on this short ground.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>6. Aggrieved by the said order, the landlord has filed the present Revision Petition.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>7. I have heard Sh. Ramakant Sharma, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sh. Bhupinder Gupta, learned senior Counsel for the tenant.',
	(int) 8 => '<p>8. It has been urged on behalf of the landlord that the building which is alleged to be in possession of the landlord i.e. 31, the Mall Shimla is not a residential building and secondly that the building is not owned by him.',
	(int) 9 => '<p>9. On the other hand Sh. Bhupinder Gupta, learned Counsel of the tenant has strenuously urged that the landlord in para 18 has not stated anything about any building being owned by him and has only made an averment that he does not own or possess any other such building within the urban area Shimla. It is contended by Sh. Bhupinder Gupta that the landlord of his own volition did not state anything about the ownership of the building and since he has kept silent about the building which he is in occupation he has made a false averment and therefore his petition for eviction has rightly been rejected.',
	(int) 10 => '<p>10. I am not at all in agreement with the contention of the landlord that the premises known as 31, the Mall Shimla which are admittedly in the occupation of the landlord are commercial premises only and not being used by him for his residence. As pointed out above, the landlord purchased the demised premises in 1986. They fell vacant when he got married despite that he did not occupy the same and rented out the same to the tenant in the year 1990. The question that arises is where was the landlord living for this entire period. According to the landlord after the year 1994 he has been living with his brother-in-law Rajan (wife's brother) PW-2, since the year 1994. Prior to 1994 the landlord will have this Court to believe that he was living off and on with one friend or the other. This story is impossible to believe. The landlord was married in the year 1999. He is an Architect by profession. His wife is a law graduate. It is not believable that such a person would have no permanent abode and would continue to live as a guest with his friends for almost 5 years after his marriage. Even the story that he has been living with his brother-in-law after the year 1994 does not inspire confidence. It stands proved on record that the brother-in-law PW-2 Rajan lives with his own family i.e. wife and children. From the evidence it is also clear that the parents of the brother-in-law also reside with him, His flat consists of only two rooms. The flat in possession of the landlord at 31, the Mall Shimla, also consists of two rooms, kitchen and bath room. Even assuming that he was running an office in the part of the flat it cannot be believed that he would not live on his own flat on the Mall Road and reside with his brother-in-law in cramped premises. Even in the electoral list the landlord is shown to be a resident of 31, The Mall, Shimla. Therefore, I am of the considered view that the building 31, the Mall, Shimla was also being used as a residence by the landlord.',
	(int) 11 => '<p>11. Having held so, the question that arises is whether the landlord can be non-suited only on the ground that he has not made any disclosure about the residential accommodation available with him which premises were admittedly not owned by him.',
	(int) 12 => '<p>12. The short question which arises for decision in this petition is whether the landlord was guilty of suppressing and withholding such relevant facts which would disentitle him from seeking eviction of the tenant. To appreciate these contentions it would be necessary to refer to relevant portion of Section 14(3) of the Act:',
	(int) 13 => '<p>Section 14:',
	(int) 14 => '<p>1 and 2 xxxxxxxxxxx',
	(int) 15 => '<p>(3) A landlord may apply to the Controller for an order directing the tenant to put the landlord in possession-',
	(int) 16 => '<p>(a) in case of residential building, if',
	(int) 17 => '<p>(i) he required it for his own occupation:',
	(int) 18 => '<p>Provided that he is not occupying another residential building owned by him, in the urban area concerned:',
	(int) 19 => '<p>Provided further that he has not vacated such a building without sufficient cause within five years of the filing of the application, in the said urban area....',
	(int) 20 => '<p>13. A perusal of the bare provisions of the Act makes it clear that there are certain essential ingredients which the landlord must satisfy before seeking eviction of the tenant under the Act. Not only must he prove that the residential building is bona fide required by him for his own use and occupation but he must also plead and prove that he is not occupying any other residential building owned by him in the urban area concerned and further that he has not vacated such a building without sufficient cause within 5 years of the filing of the application.',
	(int) 21 => '<p>14. Reference may now be made to the relevant allegations made in para 18 of the eviction petition:',
	(int) 22 => '<p>(ii) That the petitioner bona fide requires the premises for his own use and occupation and also for the use and occupation of his family.',
	(int) 23 => '<p>The petitioner does not own or possess any other such building within the urban area of Simla nor the petitioner has vacated any such premises within five years of the filing of this petition.',
	(int) 24 => '<p>The family of the petitioner presently consists of himself and his wife. Due to paucity of accommodation the petitioner has not been able to keep his wife with himself at Simla, where he is working as an Engineer and she has been residing at Chandigarh since 1991 but on account of her ill health she has been brought to Simla by the petitioner. The petitioner at present is seeking temporary shelter, from time to time, with his relations.',
	(int) 25 => '<p>15. The learned Appellate Authority came to the conclusion that the landlord had falsely pleaded that he does not own or possess any other such building within the urban area of Shimla and hence rejected the eviction petition on this ground.',
	(int) 26 => '<p>16. On a close analysis of the proviso to Section 14(3)(a)(i) of the Act it is clear that a landlord is not entitled to seek eviction of a tenant from residential building even in case of bona fide requirement if the landlord is occupying another residential building owned by him in the urban area concerned. One can read three essential ingredients in this proviso i.e. (i) that the landlord is in occupation of another residential building; (ii) that the said residential building is owned by him and (iii) that the said residential building is situated in the concerned urban area.',
	(int) 27 => '<p>17. The question that arises is what is the impact of the landlord not making a disclosure in respect of premises which he is occupying but are not owned by him.',
	(int) 28 => '<p>18. The Apex Court in Onkar Nath v. Ved Vyas ILR 1979 HP 1, held as follows:',
	(int) 29 => '<p>It is common ground that there are three requirements to make out a cause of action for eviction under that provision, and indeed this is apparent from a bare reading of the sub-section. In the present case the finding is to the effect that the landlord requires the residential building for his own occupation. But, the legislation has taken care to insist upon two more conditions, namely; (a) that the landlord is not occupying any other residential building in the area concerned; and (b) that he has not vacated such a building without sufficient cause. There is not a scintilla of evidence nor indeed there is any averment in compliance with these latter conditions. The necessary consequence follows that not merely is there inadequacy of pleadings sufficient to make out a cause of action but total absence of proof of two vital requirements....',
	(int) 30 => '<p>The Supreme Court also said that:.The statute benignly designed to protect tenants from unreasonable evictions has taken case to put restrictions which must be rigorously construed to fulfil the purpose of the statute.',
	(int) 31 => '<p>19. Following the aforesaid judgment and other pronouncements of the Apex Court, a learned Single Judge of this Court in Tara Chand Sharma v. Baij Nath and Ors. 1992 (2) R.C.J. 323, held as follows:',
	(int) 32 => '<p>16. What appears as the legislative intent, in bold relief, is that the landlord, while seeking eviction of a tenant on the ground that he needs a residential building for his own occupation, must come out clearly and honestly with facts relating to the requirement that he is not occupying another residential building owned by him, in the urban area concerned and that he had not vacated such a building without sufficient cause within five years of the filing of the application, in the said urban area. The primal burden of making a clear disclosure would lie upon the landlord, for, the true facts would be in his special knowledge. An order in his favour by the Rent Controller would depend upon the satisfaction of the Rent Controller in regard not only to the claim that the landlord requires the accommodation, from which he wishes to evict a tenant, for his own occupation but also that he was not occupying another residential building owned by him nor had he vacated such building without sufficient cause within five years of the filing of the application in the application in the urban area concerned....',
	(int) 33 => '<p>It was further held as under:',
	(int) 34 => '<p>18. That the landlord should make a full disclosure of the relevant facts, pertaining to the requirements of Sub-section (3)(a)(i) and the two provisos, becomes all the more necessary because the satisfaction of the Rent Controller in regard thereto is the condition precedent for the making of an order in favour of the landlord....',
	(int) 35 => '<p>20. The aforesaid judgment has been followed in a number of other cases including Vijay Kapoor v. Maya Ram 1997 (2) RCR 437, wherein another learned single Judge of this Court following the aforesaid judgment held that the landlord must make complete and proper disclosure of all the material facts.',
	(int) 36 => '<p>21. On the other hand Sh. Ramakant Sharma has relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in Ram Narain Arora v. Asha Rani 1998(2) RCR 268. In that case the Rent Controller came to the conclusion that the landlord had suppressed material information and had not disclosed the fact that he was already in occupation of a house in Subji Mandi. Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act reads as follows:',
	(int) 37 => '<p>Section 14(1)(e). That the premises let for residential purposes are required bona fide by the landlord for occupation as a residence for himself or for any member of his family dependent on him, if he is the owner thereof, or for any person for whose benefit the premises are held and that the landlord or such person has no other reasonably suitable residential accommodation.',
	(int) 38 => '<p>22. The difference between Delhi Act and the present Act is that under the Delhi Act the only requirement is that the landlord has no other reasonably suitable accommodation whereas under the Himachal Act the residential premises are required to be owned by the landlord. The Apex Court in Rama Narain Arora's case (supra) held that the nondisclosure of the fact that the landlord was in occupation of certain premises in Subji Mandi was.not a ground to non-suit the landlord in view of the facts and circumstances of the case. The Apex Court held as follows:',
	(int) 39 => '<p>9. In making a claim that the suit premises is required bona fide for his own occupation as a residence for himself and other members of his family dependent on him and that he has no other reasonably suitable accommodation is a requirement of law before the Court can state whether the landlord requires the premises bona fide for his use and occupation. In doing so, the Court must also find out whether the landlord or such other person for whose benefit the premises is required has no other reasonably suitable residential accommodation. It cannot be said that the requirement of the landlord is not intermixed with the question of finding out whether he has any other reasonably suitable accommodation. If he has other reasonably suitable accommodation, ihen necessarily it would mean that he does not require the suit premises and his requirement may not be bona fide. In such circumstances further inquiry would be whether that premises is more suitable than the suit premises. Therefore, the questions raised before the Court would not necessarily depend upon only the pleadings. It could be a good defence that the landlord has other reasonably suitable residential accommodation and thereby defend the claim of the landlord.',
	(int) 40 => '<p>10. There cannot be a pedantic or a dogmatic approach in the matter of analysis of pleadings or of the evidence adduced thereto. It is no doubt true that if the pleadings are clearly set out, it would be easy for the Court to decide the matters. But if the pleadings are lacking or vague and if both parties have understood what was the case pleaded and put forth with reference to requirement of law and placed such material before the Court, neither party is prejudiced. If we analyse from this angle, we do not think that the High Court was not justified in interfering with the order made by the Rent Controller.',
	(int) 41 => '<p>23. From the perusal of the judgment of the Apex Court it is apparent that the Rent Controller must approach the matter in a practical manner. In case the non-disclosure is such as that it goes to the very root of the case the Rent Controller would be justified in non-suiting the landlord. However, if the non-disclosure is such that it would not prejudice the rights of the respondent then the landlord should not be non-suited only on this ground.',
	(int) 42 => '<p>24. The decisions of this Court cited hereinabove were delivered prior to the judgment delivered by the Apex Court in Ram Nar'ain Arora's case. Further more both in Tara Chand Sharma's case and Vijay Kapoor's case decided by this Court, no averment had been made ixi respect of other residential buildings owned by a landlord. There was complete non-disclosure as to whether any such residential building owned by the landlord was in his possession or not. In the present case, as I have held above, the residential premises at 31, The Mall, Shimla was not owned by the landlord and hence these two earlier judgments of this Court are distinguishable on facts also.',
	(int) 43 => '<p>25. In the present case, the landlord has been non-suited only on the ground that he did not disclose the fact that he was in occupation of certain premises on the Mall Road. Under law he was not required to disclose this fact. He was only required to disclose the factum of occupying another residential building owned by him in the urban area concerned. True it may be, that it would have been better if the landlord had disclosed all the facts but non-disclosure of a fact which he was not under law required to disclose could not in my opinion be a ground to dismiss his eviction petition.',
	(int) 44 => '<p>26. However, what are the premises in his occupation even as a tenant can be taken into consideration while deciding the question whether he bona fide requires the demised premises for his personal use or occupation or not.',
	(int) 45 => '<p>27. Lastly comes the question with regard to the bona fide requirement of the landlord. The landlord has no children. According to the landlord as well as his other witnesses i.e. his brother-in-law PW-2 and his wife PW-3, the wife now wants to come back and settle in Shimla. There is no reason to disbelieve their statements. Even according to the evidence led by the tenant the accommodation in possession of the landlord consists of two rooms, kitchen, bath room etc. Admittedly, the landlord is also having his office as an Architect in this building. The landlord belongs to the middle class of the Society. It cannot be expected of a landlord who owns sufficient property to reside in a two room set wherein he also runs his office.',
	(int) 46 => '<p>28. The law by now is well settled that the landlord is the best judge of the suitability of the accommodation required by him. This suitability has however to be judged in the context of reasonable expectations. The landlord and his wife who are both well educated can reasonably be expected to entertain guests and they will have visitors to their house. They would obviously require a drawing room, a bed room and a spare bed room for guests. Even at his residence the landlord may require another room for his professional work. This is the minimum accommodation which they would require. Even if the accommodation possessed by the landlord, though not owned by him, at 31, the Mall, Shimla is taken into consideration such accommodation is not sufficient to meet his requirements since admittedly the landlord is running his profession of Architect from some portion of his these premises.',
	(int) 47 => '<p>29. Keeping in view the entire facts and circumstances, I am of the considered view that the learned Appellate Authority gravely erred in rejecting the eviction petition of the landlord solely on the ground that he had not disclosed the factum of being in possession of the premises at 31, the Mall Shimla. Even though I have held that the said premises are residential premises, in view of the above discussion I hold that the landlord cannot be non-suited only on the ground of his being in possession of such premises since same were not owned by him.',
	(int) 48 => '<p>30. In view of the above discussion, the Revision Petition is allowed, the order of the learned Appellate Authority dated 6.5.2003 is seaside and the order of the Rent Controller dated 22.8.2001 is restored.',
	(int) 49 => '<p>31. Keeping in view the fact that the tenant has been in possession of the premises for a long period he is granted time up to 31st October, 2008 to vacate the premises.',
	(int) 50 => '<p>32. No order as to costs.<p>',
	(int) 51 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 52
$i = (int) 34
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

18. That the landlord should make a full disclosure of the relevant facts, pertaining to the requirements of Sub-section (3)(a)(i) and the two provisos, becomes all the more necessary because the satisfaction of the Rent Controller in regard thereto is the condition precedent for the making of an order in favour of the landlord....

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Shri Arun Bhanwara Vs Shri S L Srivastava - Citation 891084 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '891084',
			'acts' => '',
			'appealno' => '',
			'appellant' => 'Shri Arun Bhanwara',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Shri Arun Bhanwara Vs. Shri S.L. Srivastava',
			'casenote' => ' - CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908.[C.A. No. 5/1908]. Order 14, Rule 2 [As amended by Amending Act of 1976]: [V.K. Gupta, CJ, Deepak Gupta & Surjit Singh, JJ] Preliminary issue of law and fact  Court framing all issues both of law and facts together and also  tried all the issues together, including the issue relating to jurisdiction of Court  Held, Except in situations perceived or warranted under sub-rule (2) of Rule 2 of Order 14 where a  Court in fact frames only issues of law in the first instance and postpones settlement of other issues, clearly and explicitly in situations where the Court has framed all issues together, both of law as well as facts and has also tried all these issues together, it is not open to the Court to adopt the principle of severability and proceed to decide issues of law first, without taking up simultaneously other issues for decision. This course of action is not available to a Court because sub-rule (1) does not permit the  Court to adopt any such principle of severability and to dispose of a suit only on preliminary issues, or what can be termed as issues of law. Sub-rule (1)  clearly mandates that in a situation contemplated under it, where all the issues have been together and have also been taken up for adjudication during the course of the trial, these must be decided together and the judgment in the suit as a whole must be pronounced by the Court covering all the issues framed in the suit.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => 'Ram Narain Arora v. Asha Rani;',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => '',
			'counseldef' => '',
			'court' => 'Himachal Pradesh',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2008-07-31',
			'deposition' => 'Petition allowed',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => ' Deepak Gupta, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">Deepak Gupta, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. This Revision Petition under Section 25(5) of the H.P. Urban Rent Control Act, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) is directed against the order of the learned Appellate Authority, Shimla in CMA No. 60-S/14 of 2001 whereby the appeal filed by the respondent (hereinafter referred to as the tenant) has been allowed, the order of the Rent Controller has been set-aside and the petition for eviction filed by the present petitioner (hereinafter referred to as the Landlord) on the ground of personal bona fide requirement has been set-aside.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The undisputed facts are that the landlord is owner of the demised premises situated in building known as Tunnel View, Sanjauli, Shimla-6 consisting of two bed rooms with attached bath room and latrine, drawing-cum-dining room, kitchen and balcony. These premises were purchased by the landlord in the year 1986. Thereafter, the landlord had rented out the premises to one Sh. B.K. Chauhan. According to the landlord, when he got married he requested Sh. B.K. Chauhan to vacate the said premises. Sh. Chauhan vacated the said premises but admittedly the landlord did not occupy the same but rented out the same to the tenant in the year 1990.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. In the year 1997 the landlord filed a petition for eviction of the tenant on two grounds; firstly that the tenant is in arrears of rent from 1.11.1990 to 31.7.1997 and secondly that the premises are bona fide required by the landlord for the use and occupation of himself and his family.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. This petition was contested by the tenant. After trial, the Rent Controller ordered the eviction of the tenant on two grounds; (i) that the tenant was in arrears of rent from November, 1999 till date of order i.e. 22nd August, 2001 and (ii) that the landlord required the premises for his own use and occupation.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. The tenant deposited the rent within the time prescribed. He also filed an appeal challenging the finding on the issue of bona fide requirement. The learned Appellate Authority came to the conclusion that the landlord had not made a proper and full disclosure of facts as required under the provisions of the Act and had withheld material facts from the Court viz. that the landlord was in occupation of residential premises on 31, Mall Road in the urban area of Shimla and as such rejected this petition on this short ground.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. Aggrieved by the said order, the landlord has filed the present Revision Petition.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. I have heard Sh. Ramakant Sharma, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sh. Bhupinder Gupta, learned senior Counsel for the tenant.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. It has been urged on behalf of the landlord that the building which is alleged to be in possession of the landlord i.e. 31, the Mall Shimla is not a residential building and secondly that the building is not owned by him.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. On the other hand Sh. Bhupinder Gupta, learned Counsel of the tenant has strenuously urged that the landlord in para 18 has not stated anything about any building being owned by him and has only made an averment that he does not own or possess any other such building within the urban area Shimla. It is contended by Sh. Bhupinder Gupta that the landlord of his own volition did not state anything about the ownership of the building and since he has kept silent about the building which he is in occupation he has made a false averment and therefore his petition for eviction has rightly been rejected.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. I am not at all in agreement with the contention of the landlord that the premises known as 31, the Mall Shimla which are admittedly in the occupation of the landlord are commercial premises only and not being used by him for his residence. As pointed out above, the landlord purchased the demised premises in 1986. They fell vacant when he got married despite that he did not occupy the same and rented out the same to the tenant in the year 1990. The question that arises is where was the landlord living for this entire period. According to the landlord after the year 1994 he has been living with his brother-in-law Rajan (wife's brother) PW-2, since the year 1994. Prior to 1994 the landlord will have this Court to believe that he was living off and on with one friend or the other. This story is impossible to believe. The landlord was married in the year 1999. He is an Architect by profession. His wife is a law graduate. It is not believable that such a person would have no permanent abode and would continue to live as a guest with his friends for almost 5 years after his marriage. Even the story that he has been living with his brother-in-law after the year 1994 does not inspire confidence. It stands proved on record that the brother-in-law PW-2 Rajan lives with his own family i.e. wife and children. From the evidence it is also clear that the parents of the brother-in-law also reside with him, His flat consists of only two rooms. The flat in possession of the landlord at 31, the Mall Shimla, also consists of two rooms, kitchen and bath room. Even assuming that he was running an office in the part of the flat it cannot be believed that he would not live on his own flat on the Mall Road and reside with his brother-in-law in cramped premises. Even in the electoral list the landlord is shown to be a resident of 31, The Mall, Shimla. Therefore, I am of the considered view that the building 31, the Mall, Shimla was also being used as a residence by the landlord.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. Having held so, the question that arises is whether the landlord can be non-suited only on the ground that he has not made any disclosure about the residential accommodation available with him which premises were admittedly not owned by him.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. The short question which arises for decision in this petition is whether the landlord was guilty of suppressing and withholding such relevant facts which would disentitle him from seeking eviction of the tenant. To appreciate these contentions it would be necessary to refer to relevant portion of Section 14(3) of the Act:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Section 14:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1 and 2 xxxxxxxxxxx</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(3) A landlord may apply to the Controller for an order directing the tenant to put the landlord in possession-</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(a) in case of residential building, if</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(i) he required it for his own occupation:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Provided that he is not occupying another residential building owned by him, in the urban area concerned:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Provided further that he has not vacated such a building without sufficient cause within five years of the filing of the application, in the said urban area....</p><p style="text-align: justify;">13. A perusal of the bare provisions of the Act makes it clear that there are certain essential ingredients which the landlord must satisfy before seeking eviction of the tenant under the Act. Not only must he prove that the residential building is bona fide required by him for his own use and occupation but he must also plead and prove that he is not occupying any other residential building owned by him in the urban area concerned and further that he has not vacated such a building without sufficient cause within 5 years of the filing of the application.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">14. Reference may now be made to the relevant allegations made in para 18 of the eviction petition:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(ii) That the petitioner bona fide requires the premises for his own use and occupation and also for the use and occupation of his family.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The petitioner does not own or possess any other such building within the urban area of Simla nor the petitioner has vacated any such premises within five years of the filing of this petition.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The family of the petitioner presently consists of himself and his wife. Due to paucity of accommodation the petitioner has not been able to keep his wife with himself at Simla, where he is working as an Engineer and she has been residing at Chandigarh since 1991 but on account of her ill health she has been brought to Simla by the petitioner. The petitioner at present is seeking temporary shelter, from time to time, with his relations.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">15. The learned Appellate Authority came to the conclusion that the landlord had falsely pleaded that he does not own or possess any other such building within the urban area of Shimla and hence rejected the eviction petition on this ground.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">16. On a close analysis of the proviso to Section 14(3)(a)(i) of the Act it is clear that a landlord is not entitled to seek eviction of a tenant from residential building even in case of bona fide requirement if the landlord is occupying another residential building owned by him in the urban area concerned. One can read three essential ingredients in this proviso i.e. (i) that the landlord is in occupation of another residential building; (ii) that the said residential building is owned by him and (iii) that the said residential building is situated in the concerned urban area.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">17. The question that arises is what is the impact of the landlord not making a disclosure in respect of premises which he is occupying but are not owned by him.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">18. The Apex Court in Onkar Nath v. Ved Vyas ILR 1979 HP 1, held as follows:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">It is common ground that there are three requirements to make out a cause of action for eviction under that provision, and indeed this is apparent from a bare reading of the sub-section. In the present case the finding is to the effect that the landlord requires the residential building for his own occupation. But, the legislation has taken care to insist upon two more conditions, namely; (a) that the landlord is not occupying any other residential building in the area concerned; and (b) that he has not vacated such a building without sufficient cause. There is not a scintilla of evidence nor indeed there is any averment in compliance with these latter conditions. The necessary consequence follows that not merely is there inadequacy of pleadings sufficient to make out a cause of action but total absence of proof of two vital requirements....</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The Supreme Court also said that:.The statute benignly designed to protect tenants from unreasonable evictions has taken case to put restrictions which must be rigorously construed to fulfil the purpose of the statute.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">19. Following the aforesaid judgment and other pronouncements of the Apex Court, a learned Single Judge of this Court in Tara Chand Sharma v. Baij Nath and Ors. 1992 (2) R.C.J. 323, held as follows:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">16. What appears as the legislative intent, in bold relief, is that the landlord, while seeking eviction of a tenant on the ground that he needs a residential building for his own occupation, must come out clearly and honestly with facts relating to the requirement that he is not occupying another residential building owned by him, in the urban area concerned and that he had not vacated such a building without sufficient cause within five years of the filing of the application, in the said urban area. The primal burden of making a clear disclosure would lie upon the landlord, for, the true facts would be in his special knowledge. An order in his favour by the Rent Controller would depend upon the satisfaction of the Rent Controller in regard not only to the claim that the landlord requires the accommodation, from which he wishes to evict a tenant, for his own occupation but also that he was not occupying another residential building owned by him nor had he vacated such building without sufficient cause within five years of the filing of the application in the application in the urban area concerned....</p><p style="text-align: justify;">It was further held as under:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">18. That the landlord should make a full disclosure of the relevant facts, pertaining to the requirements of Sub-section (3)(a)(i) and the two provisos, becomes all the more necessary because the satisfaction of the Rent Controller in regard thereto is the condition precedent for the making of an order in favour of the landlord....</p><p style="text-align: justify;">20. The aforesaid judgment has been followed in a number of other cases including Vijay Kapoor v. Maya Ram 1997 (2) RCR 437, wherein another learned single Judge of this Court following the aforesaid judgment held that the landlord must make complete and proper disclosure of all the material facts.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">21. On the other hand Sh. Ramakant Sharma has relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in Ram Narain Arora v. Asha Rani 1998(2) RCR 268. In that case the Rent Controller came to the conclusion that the landlord had suppressed material information and had not disclosed the fact that he was already in occupation of a house in Subji Mandi. Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act reads as follows:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Section 14(1)(e). That the premises let for residential purposes are required bona fide by the landlord for occupation as a residence for himself or for any member of his family dependent on him, if he is the owner thereof, or for any person for whose benefit the premises are held and that the landlord or such person has no other reasonably suitable residential accommodation.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">22. The difference between Delhi Act and the present Act is that under the Delhi Act the only requirement is that the landlord has no other reasonably suitable accommodation whereas under the Himachal Act the residential premises are required to be owned by the landlord. The Apex Court in Rama Narain Arora's case (supra) held that the nondisclosure of the fact that the landlord was in occupation of certain premises in Subji Mandi was.not a ground to non-suit the landlord in view of the facts and circumstances of the case. The Apex Court held as follows:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. In making a claim that the suit premises is required bona fide for his own occupation as a residence for himself and other members of his family dependent on him and that he has no other reasonably suitable accommodation is a requirement of law before the Court can state whether the landlord requires the premises bona fide for his use and occupation. In doing so, the Court must also find out whether the landlord or such other person for whose benefit the premises is required has no other reasonably suitable residential accommodation. It cannot be said that the requirement of the landlord is not intermixed with the question of finding out whether he has any other reasonably suitable accommodation. If he has other reasonably suitable accommodation, ihen necessarily it would mean that he does not require the suit premises and his requirement may not be bona fide. In such circumstances further inquiry would be whether that premises is more suitable than the suit premises. Therefore, the questions raised before the Court would not necessarily depend upon only the pleadings. It could be a good defence that the landlord has other reasonably suitable residential accommodation and thereby defend the claim of the landlord.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. There cannot be a pedantic or a dogmatic approach in the matter of analysis of pleadings or of the evidence adduced thereto. It is no doubt true that if the pleadings are clearly set out, it would be easy for the Court to decide the matters. But if the pleadings are lacking or vague and if both parties have understood what was the case pleaded and put forth with reference to requirement of law and placed such material before the Court, neither party is prejudiced. If we analyse from this angle, we do not think that the High Court was not justified in interfering with the order made by the Rent Controller.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">23. From the perusal of the judgment of the Apex Court it is apparent that the Rent Controller must approach the matter in a practical manner. In case the non-disclosure is such as that it goes to the very root of the case the Rent Controller would be justified in non-suiting the landlord. However, if the non-disclosure is such that it would not prejudice the rights of the respondent then the landlord should not be non-suited only on this ground.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">24. The decisions of this Court cited hereinabove were delivered prior to the judgment delivered by the Apex Court in Ram Nar'ain Arora's case. Further more both in Tara Chand Sharma's case and Vijay Kapoor's case decided by this Court, no averment had been made ixi respect of other residential buildings owned by a landlord. There was complete non-disclosure as to whether any such residential building owned by the landlord was in his possession or not. In the present case, as I have held above, the residential premises at 31, The Mall, Shimla was not owned by the landlord and hence these two earlier judgments of this Court are distinguishable on facts also.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">25. In the present case, the landlord has been non-suited only on the ground that he did not disclose the fact that he was in occupation of certain premises on the Mall Road. Under law he was not required to disclose this fact. He was only required to disclose the factum of occupying another residential building owned by him in the urban area concerned. True it may be, that it would have been better if the landlord had disclosed all the facts but non-disclosure of a fact which he was not under law required to disclose could not in my opinion be a ground to dismiss his eviction petition.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">26. However, what are the premises in his occupation even as a tenant can be taken into consideration while deciding the question whether he bona fide requires the demised premises for his personal use or occupation or not.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">27. Lastly comes the question with regard to the bona fide requirement of the landlord. The landlord has no children. According to the landlord as well as his other witnesses i.e. his brother-in-law PW-2 and his wife PW-3, the wife now wants to come back and settle in Shimla. There is no reason to disbelieve their statements. Even according to the evidence led by the tenant the accommodation in possession of the landlord consists of two rooms, kitchen, bath room etc. Admittedly, the landlord is also having his office as an Architect in this building. The landlord belongs to the middle class of the Society. It cannot be expected of a landlord who owns sufficient property to reside in a two room set wherein he also runs his office.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">28. The law by now is well settled that the landlord is the best judge of the suitability of the accommodation required by him. This suitability has however to be judged in the context of reasonable expectations. The landlord and his wife who are both well educated can reasonably be expected to entertain guests and they will have visitors to their house. They would obviously require a drawing room, a bed room and a spare bed room for guests. Even at his residence the landlord may require another room for his professional work. This is the minimum accommodation which they would require. Even if the accommodation possessed by the landlord, though not owned by him, at 31, the Mall, Shimla is taken into consideration such accommodation is not sufficient to meet his requirements since admittedly the landlord is running his profession of Architect from some portion of his these premises.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">29. Keeping in view the entire facts and circumstances, I am of the considered view that the learned Appellate Authority gravely erred in rejecting the eviction petition of the landlord solely on the ground that he had not disclosed the factum of being in possession of the premises at 31, the Mall Shimla. Even though I have held that the said premises are residential premises, in view of the above discussion I hold that the landlord cannot be non-suited only on the ground of his being in possession of such premises since same were not owned by him.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">30. In view of the above discussion, the Revision Petition is allowed, the order of the learned Appellate Authority dated 6.5.2003 is seaside and the order of the Rent Controller dated 22.8.2001 is restored.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">31. Keeping in view the fact that the tenant has been in possession of the premises for a long period he is granted time up to 31st October, 2008 to vacate the premises.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">32. No order as to costs.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '2008(2)ShimLC491',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'Shri S.L. Srivastava',
			'sub' => 'Tenancy',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'shri-arun-bhanwara-vs-s-l-srivastava',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '891084',
		(int) 1 => 'shri-arun-bhanwara-vs-s-l-srivastava'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Shri Arun Bhanwara Vs Shri S L Srivastava - Citation 891084 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '891084',
		'acts' => '',
		'appealno' => '',
		'appellant' => 'Shri Arun Bhanwara',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Shri Arun Bhanwara Vs. Shri S.L. Srivastava',
		'casenote' => ' - CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908.[C.A. No. 5/1908]. Order 14, Rule 2 [As amended by Amending Act of 1976]: [V.K. Gupta, CJ, Deepak Gupta & Surjit Singh, JJ] Preliminary issue of law and fact  Court framing all issues both of law and facts together and also  tried all the issues together, including the issue relating to jurisdiction of Court  Held, Except in situations perceived or warranted under sub-rule (2) of Rule 2 of Order 14 where a  Court in fact frames only issues of law in the first instance and postpones settlement of other issues, clearly and explicitly in situations where the Court has framed all issues together, both of law as well as facts and has also tried all these issues together, it is not open to the Court to adopt the principle of severability and proceed to decide issues of law first, without taking up simultaneously other issues for decision. This course of action is not available to a Court because sub-rule (1) does not permit the  Court to adopt any such principle of severability and to dispose of a suit only on preliminary issues, or what can be termed as issues of law. Sub-rule (1)  clearly mandates that in a situation contemplated under it, where all the issues have been together and have also been taken up for adjudication during the course of the trial, these must be decided together and the judgment in the suit as a whole must be pronounced by the Court covering all the issues framed in the suit.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => 'Ram Narain Arora v. Asha Rani;',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => '',
		'counseldef' => '',
		'court' => 'Himachal Pradesh',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2008-07-31',
		'deposition' => 'Petition allowed',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => ' Deepak Gupta, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>Deepak Gupta, J.</p><p>1. This Revision Petition under Section 25(5) of the H.P. Urban Rent Control Act, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) is directed against the order of the learned Appellate Authority, Shimla in CMA No. 60-S/14 of 2001 whereby the appeal filed by the respondent (hereinafter referred to as the tenant) has been allowed, the order of the Rent Controller has been set-aside and the petition for eviction filed by the present petitioner (hereinafter referred to as the Landlord) on the ground of personal bona fide requirement has been set-aside.</p><p>2. The undisputed facts are that the landlord is owner of the demised premises situated in building known as Tunnel View, Sanjauli, Shimla-6 consisting of two bed rooms with attached bath room and latrine, drawing-cum-dining room, kitchen and balcony. These premises were purchased by the landlord in the year 1986. Thereafter, the landlord had rented out the premises to one Sh. B.K. Chauhan. According to the landlord, when he got married he requested Sh. B.K. Chauhan to vacate the said premises. Sh. Chauhan vacated the said premises but admittedly the landlord did not occupy the same but rented out the same to the tenant in the year 1990.</p><p>3. In the year 1997 the landlord filed a petition for eviction of the tenant on two grounds; firstly that the tenant is in arrears of rent from 1.11.1990 to 31.7.1997 and secondly that the premises are bona fide required by the landlord for the use and occupation of himself and his family.</p><p>4. This petition was contested by the tenant. After trial, the Rent Controller ordered the eviction of the tenant on two grounds; (i) that the tenant was in arrears of rent from November, 1999 till date of order i.e. 22nd August, 2001 and (ii) that the landlord required the premises for his own use and occupation.</p><p>5. The tenant deposited the rent within the time prescribed. He also filed an appeal challenging the finding on the issue of bona fide requirement. The learned Appellate Authority came to the conclusion that the landlord had not made a proper and full disclosure of facts as required under the provisions of the Act and had withheld material facts from the Court viz. that the landlord was in occupation of residential premises on 31, Mall Road in the urban area of Shimla and as such rejected this petition on this short ground.</p><p>6. Aggrieved by the said order, the landlord has filed the present Revision Petition.</p><p>7. I have heard Sh. Ramakant Sharma, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sh. Bhupinder Gupta, learned senior Counsel for the tenant.</p><p>8. It has been urged on behalf of the landlord that the building which is alleged to be in possession of the landlord i.e. 31, the Mall Shimla is not a residential building and secondly that the building is not owned by him.</p><p>9. On the other hand Sh. Bhupinder Gupta, learned Counsel of the tenant has strenuously urged that the landlord in para 18 has not stated anything about any building being owned by him and has only made an averment that he does not own or possess any other such building within the urban area Shimla. It is contended by Sh. Bhupinder Gupta that the landlord of his own volition did not state anything about the ownership of the building and since he has kept silent about the building which he is in occupation he has made a false averment and therefore his petition for eviction has rightly been rejected.</p><p>10. I am not at all in agreement with the contention of the landlord that the premises known as 31, the Mall Shimla which are admittedly in the occupation of the landlord are commercial premises only and not being used by him for his residence. As pointed out above, the landlord purchased the demised premises in 1986. They fell vacant when he got married despite that he did not occupy the same and rented out the same to the tenant in the year 1990. The question that arises is where was the landlord living for this entire period. According to the landlord after the year 1994 he has been living with his brother-in-law Rajan (wife's brother) PW-2, since the year 1994. Prior to 1994 the landlord will have this Court to believe that he was living off and on with one friend or the other. This story is impossible to believe. The landlord was married in the year 1999. He is an Architect by profession. His wife is a law graduate. It is not believable that such a person would have no permanent abode and would continue to live as a guest with his friends for almost 5 years after his marriage. Even the story that he has been living with his brother-in-law after the year 1994 does not inspire confidence. It stands proved on record that the brother-in-law PW-2 Rajan lives with his own family i.e. wife and children. From the evidence it is also clear that the parents of the brother-in-law also reside with him, His flat consists of only two rooms. The flat in possession of the landlord at 31, the Mall Shimla, also consists of two rooms, kitchen and bath room. Even assuming that he was running an office in the part of the flat it cannot be believed that he would not live on his own flat on the Mall Road and reside with his brother-in-law in cramped premises. Even in the electoral list the landlord is shown to be a resident of 31, The Mall, Shimla. Therefore, I am of the considered view that the building 31, the Mall, Shimla was also being used as a residence by the landlord.</p><p>11. Having held so, the question that arises is whether the landlord can be non-suited only on the ground that he has not made any disclosure about the residential accommodation available with him which premises were admittedly not owned by him.</p><p>12. The short question which arises for decision in this petition is whether the landlord was guilty of suppressing and withholding such relevant facts which would disentitle him from seeking eviction of the tenant. To appreciate these contentions it would be necessary to refer to relevant portion of Section 14(3) of the Act:</p><p>Section 14:</p><p>1 and 2 xxxxxxxxxxx</p><p>(3) A landlord may apply to the Controller for an order directing the tenant to put the landlord in possession-</p><p>(a) in case of residential building, if</p><p>(i) he required it for his own occupation:</p><p>Provided that he is not occupying another residential building owned by him, in the urban area concerned:</p><p>Provided further that he has not vacated such a building without sufficient cause within five years of the filing of the application, in the said urban area....</p><p>13. A perusal of the bare provisions of the Act makes it clear that there are certain essential ingredients which the landlord must satisfy before seeking eviction of the tenant under the Act. Not only must he prove that the residential building is bona fide required by him for his own use and occupation but he must also plead and prove that he is not occupying any other residential building owned by him in the urban area concerned and further that he has not vacated such a building without sufficient cause within 5 years of the filing of the application.</p><p>14. Reference may now be made to the relevant allegations made in para 18 of the eviction petition:</p><p>(ii) That the petitioner bona fide requires the premises for his own use and occupation and also for the use and occupation of his family.</p><p>The petitioner does not own or possess any other such building within the urban area of Simla nor the petitioner has vacated any such premises within five years of the filing of this petition.</p><p>The family of the petitioner presently consists of himself and his wife. Due to paucity of accommodation the petitioner has not been able to keep his wife with himself at Simla, where he is working as an Engineer and she has been residing at Chandigarh since 1991 but on account of her ill health she has been brought to Simla by the petitioner. The petitioner at present is seeking temporary shelter, from time to time, with his relations.</p><p>15. The learned Appellate Authority came to the conclusion that the landlord had falsely pleaded that he does not own or possess any other such building within the urban area of Shimla and hence rejected the eviction petition on this ground.</p><p>16. On a close analysis of the proviso to Section 14(3)(a)(i) of the Act it is clear that a landlord is not entitled to seek eviction of a tenant from residential building even in case of bona fide requirement if the landlord is occupying another residential building owned by him in the urban area concerned. One can read three essential ingredients in this proviso i.e. (i) that the landlord is in occupation of another residential building; (ii) that the said residential building is owned by him and (iii) that the said residential building is situated in the concerned urban area.</p><p>17. The question that arises is what is the impact of the landlord not making a disclosure in respect of premises which he is occupying but are not owned by him.</p><p>18. The Apex Court in Onkar Nath v. Ved Vyas ILR 1979 HP 1, held as follows:</p><p>It is common ground that there are three requirements to make out a cause of action for eviction under that provision, and indeed this is apparent from a bare reading of the sub-section. In the present case the finding is to the effect that the landlord requires the residential building for his own occupation. But, the legislation has taken care to insist upon two more conditions, namely; (a) that the landlord is not occupying any other residential building in the area concerned; and (b) that he has not vacated such a building without sufficient cause. There is not a scintilla of evidence nor indeed there is any averment in compliance with these latter conditions. The necessary consequence follows that not merely is there inadequacy of pleadings sufficient to make out a cause of action but total absence of proof of two vital requirements....</p><p>The Supreme Court also said that:.The statute benignly designed to protect tenants from unreasonable evictions has taken case to put restrictions which must be rigorously construed to fulfil the purpose of the statute.</p><p>19. Following the aforesaid judgment and other pronouncements of the Apex Court, a learned Single Judge of this Court in Tara Chand Sharma v. Baij Nath and Ors. 1992 (2) R.C.J. 323, held as follows:</p><p>16. What appears as the legislative intent, in bold relief, is that the landlord, while seeking eviction of a tenant on the ground that he needs a residential building for his own occupation, must come out clearly and honestly with facts relating to the requirement that he is not occupying another residential building owned by him, in the urban area concerned and that he had not vacated such a building without sufficient cause within five years of the filing of the application, in the said urban area. The primal burden of making a clear disclosure would lie upon the landlord, for, the true facts would be in his special knowledge. An order in his favour by the Rent Controller would depend upon the satisfaction of the Rent Controller in regard not only to the claim that the landlord requires the accommodation, from which he wishes to evict a tenant, for his own occupation but also that he was not occupying another residential building owned by him nor had he vacated such building without sufficient cause within five years of the filing of the application in the application in the urban area concerned....</p><p>It was further held as under:</p><p>18. That the landlord should make a full disclosure of the relevant facts, pertaining to the requirements of Sub-section (3)(a)(i) and the two provisos, becomes all the more necessary because the satisfaction of the Rent Controller in regard thereto is the condition precedent for the making of an order in favour of the landlord....</p><p>20. The aforesaid judgment has been followed in a number of other cases including Vijay Kapoor v. Maya Ram 1997 (2) RCR 437, wherein another learned single Judge of this Court following the aforesaid judgment held that the landlord must make complete and proper disclosure of all the material facts.</p><p>21. On the other hand Sh. Ramakant Sharma has relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in Ram Narain Arora v. Asha Rani 1998(2) RCR 268. In that case the Rent Controller came to the conclusion that the landlord had suppressed material information and had not disclosed the fact that he was already in occupation of a house in Subji Mandi. Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act reads as follows:</p><p>Section 14(1)(e). That the premises let for residential purposes are required bona fide by the landlord for occupation as a residence for himself or for any member of his family dependent on him, if he is the owner thereof, or for any person for whose benefit the premises are held and that the landlord or such person has no other reasonably suitable residential accommodation.</p><p>22. The difference between Delhi Act and the present Act is that under the Delhi Act the only requirement is that the landlord has no other reasonably suitable accommodation whereas under the Himachal Act the residential premises are required to be owned by the landlord. The Apex Court in Rama Narain Arora's case (supra) held that the nondisclosure of the fact that the landlord was in occupation of certain premises in Subji Mandi was.not a ground to non-suit the landlord in view of the facts and circumstances of the case. The Apex Court held as follows:</p><p>9. In making a claim that the suit premises is required bona fide for his own occupation as a residence for himself and other members of his family dependent on him and that he has no other reasonably suitable accommodation is a requirement of law before the Court can state whether the landlord requires the premises bona fide for his use and occupation. In doing so, the Court must also find out whether the landlord or such other person for whose benefit the premises is required has no other reasonably suitable residential accommodation. It cannot be said that the requirement of the landlord is not intermixed with the question of finding out whether he has any other reasonably suitable accommodation. If he has other reasonably suitable accommodation, ihen necessarily it would mean that he does not require the suit premises and his requirement may not be bona fide. In such circumstances further inquiry would be whether that premises is more suitable than the suit premises. Therefore, the questions raised before the Court would not necessarily depend upon only the pleadings. It could be a good defence that the landlord has other reasonably suitable residential accommodation and thereby defend the claim of the landlord.</p><p>10. There cannot be a pedantic or a dogmatic approach in the matter of analysis of pleadings or of the evidence adduced thereto. It is no doubt true that if the pleadings are clearly set out, it would be easy for the Court to decide the matters. But if the pleadings are lacking or vague and if both parties have understood what was the case pleaded and put forth with reference to requirement of law and placed such material before the Court, neither party is prejudiced. If we analyse from this angle, we do not think that the High Court was not justified in interfering with the order made by the Rent Controller.</p><p>23. From the perusal of the judgment of the Apex Court it is apparent that the Rent Controller must approach the matter in a practical manner. In case the non-disclosure is such as that it goes to the very root of the case the Rent Controller would be justified in non-suiting the landlord. However, if the non-disclosure is such that it would not prejudice the rights of the respondent then the landlord should not be non-suited only on this ground.</p><p>24. The decisions of this Court cited hereinabove were delivered prior to the judgment delivered by the Apex Court in Ram Nar'ain Arora's case. Further more both in Tara Chand Sharma's case and Vijay Kapoor's case decided by this Court, no averment had been made ixi respect of other residential buildings owned by a landlord. There was complete non-disclosure as to whether any such residential building owned by the landlord was in his possession or not. In the present case, as I have held above, the residential premises at 31, The Mall, Shimla was not owned by the landlord and hence these two earlier judgments of this Court are distinguishable on facts also.</p><p>25. In the present case, the landlord has been non-suited only on the ground that he did not disclose the fact that he was in occupation of certain premises on the Mall Road. Under law he was not required to disclose this fact. He was only required to disclose the factum of occupying another residential building owned by him in the urban area concerned. True it may be, that it would have been better if the landlord had disclosed all the facts but non-disclosure of a fact which he was not under law required to disclose could not in my opinion be a ground to dismiss his eviction petition.</p><p>26. However, what are the premises in his occupation even as a tenant can be taken into consideration while deciding the question whether he bona fide requires the demised premises for his personal use or occupation or not.</p><p>27. Lastly comes the question with regard to the bona fide requirement of the landlord. The landlord has no children. According to the landlord as well as his other witnesses i.e. his brother-in-law PW-2 and his wife PW-3, the wife now wants to come back and settle in Shimla. There is no reason to disbelieve their statements. Even according to the evidence led by the tenant the accommodation in possession of the landlord consists of two rooms, kitchen, bath room etc. Admittedly, the landlord is also having his office as an Architect in this building. The landlord belongs to the middle class of the Society. It cannot be expected of a landlord who owns sufficient property to reside in a two room set wherein he also runs his office.</p><p>28. The law by now is well settled that the landlord is the best judge of the suitability of the accommodation required by him. This suitability has however to be judged in the context of reasonable expectations. The landlord and his wife who are both well educated can reasonably be expected to entertain guests and they will have visitors to their house. They would obviously require a drawing room, a bed room and a spare bed room for guests. Even at his residence the landlord may require another room for his professional work. This is the minimum accommodation which they would require. Even if the accommodation possessed by the landlord, though not owned by him, at 31, the Mall, Shimla is taken into consideration such accommodation is not sufficient to meet his requirements since admittedly the landlord is running his profession of Architect from some portion of his these premises.</p><p>29. Keeping in view the entire facts and circumstances, I am of the considered view that the learned Appellate Authority gravely erred in rejecting the eviction petition of the landlord solely on the ground that he had not disclosed the factum of being in possession of the premises at 31, the Mall Shimla. Even though I have held that the said premises are residential premises, in view of the above discussion I hold that the landlord cannot be non-suited only on the ground of his being in possession of such premises since same were not owned by him.</p><p>30. In view of the above discussion, the Revision Petition is allowed, the order of the learned Appellate Authority dated 6.5.2003 is seaside and the order of the Rent Controller dated 22.8.2001 is restored.</p><p>31. Keeping in view the fact that the tenant has been in possession of the premises for a long period he is granted time up to 31st October, 2008 to vacate the premises.</p><p>32. No order as to costs.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '2008(2)ShimLC491',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'Shri S.L. Srivastava',
		'sub' => 'Tenancy',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'shri-arun-bhanwara-vs-s-l-srivastava'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '891084',
	(int) 1 => 'shri-arun-bhanwara-vs-s-l-srivastava'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/891084/shri-arun-bhanwara-vs-s-l-srivastava'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$caseref = 'Ram Narain Arora v. Asha Rani<br>'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>Deepak Gupta, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. This Revision Petition under Section 25(5) of the H.P. Urban Rent Control Act, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) is directed against the order of the learned Appellate Authority, Shimla in CMA No. 60-S/14 of 2001 whereby the appeal filed by the respondent (hereinafter referred to as the tenant) has been allowed, the order of the Rent Controller has been set-aside and the petition for eviction filed by the present petitioner (hereinafter referred to as the Landlord) on the ground of personal bona fide requirement has been set-aside.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. The undisputed facts are that the landlord is owner of the demised premises situated in building known as Tunnel View, Sanjauli, Shimla-6 consisting of two bed rooms with attached bath room and latrine, drawing-cum-dining room, kitchen and balcony. These premises were purchased by the landlord in the year 1986. Thereafter, the landlord had rented out the premises to one Sh. B.K. Chauhan. According to the landlord, when he got married he requested Sh. B.K. Chauhan to vacate the said premises. Sh. Chauhan vacated the said premises but admittedly the landlord did not occupy the same but rented out the same to the tenant in the year 1990.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. In the year 1997 the landlord filed a petition for eviction of the tenant on two grounds; firstly that the tenant is in arrears of rent from 1.11.1990 to 31.7.1997 and secondly that the premises are bona fide required by the landlord for the use and occupation of himself and his family.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>4. This petition was contested by the tenant. After trial, the Rent Controller ordered the eviction of the tenant on two grounds; (i) that the tenant was in arrears of rent from November, 1999 till date of order i.e. 22nd August, 2001 and (ii) that the landlord required the premises for his own use and occupation.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>5. The tenant deposited the rent within the time prescribed. He also filed an appeal challenging the finding on the issue of bona fide requirement. The learned Appellate Authority came to the conclusion that the landlord had not made a proper and full disclosure of facts as required under the provisions of the Act and had withheld material facts from the Court viz. that the landlord was in occupation of residential premises on 31, Mall Road in the urban area of Shimla and as such rejected this petition on this short ground.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>6. Aggrieved by the said order, the landlord has filed the present Revision Petition.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>7. I have heard Sh. Ramakant Sharma, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sh. Bhupinder Gupta, learned senior Counsel for the tenant.',
	(int) 8 => '<p>8. It has been urged on behalf of the landlord that the building which is alleged to be in possession of the landlord i.e. 31, the Mall Shimla is not a residential building and secondly that the building is not owned by him.',
	(int) 9 => '<p>9. On the other hand Sh. Bhupinder Gupta, learned Counsel of the tenant has strenuously urged that the landlord in para 18 has not stated anything about any building being owned by him and has only made an averment that he does not own or possess any other such building within the urban area Shimla. It is contended by Sh. Bhupinder Gupta that the landlord of his own volition did not state anything about the ownership of the building and since he has kept silent about the building which he is in occupation he has made a false averment and therefore his petition for eviction has rightly been rejected.',
	(int) 10 => '<p>10. I am not at all in agreement with the contention of the landlord that the premises known as 31, the Mall Shimla which are admittedly in the occupation of the landlord are commercial premises only and not being used by him for his residence. As pointed out above, the landlord purchased the demised premises in 1986. They fell vacant when he got married despite that he did not occupy the same and rented out the same to the tenant in the year 1990. The question that arises is where was the landlord living for this entire period. According to the landlord after the year 1994 he has been living with his brother-in-law Rajan (wife's brother) PW-2, since the year 1994. Prior to 1994 the landlord will have this Court to believe that he was living off and on with one friend or the other. This story is impossible to believe. The landlord was married in the year 1999. He is an Architect by profession. His wife is a law graduate. It is not believable that such a person would have no permanent abode and would continue to live as a guest with his friends for almost 5 years after his marriage. Even the story that he has been living with his brother-in-law after the year 1994 does not inspire confidence. It stands proved on record that the brother-in-law PW-2 Rajan lives with his own family i.e. wife and children. From the evidence it is also clear that the parents of the brother-in-law also reside with him, His flat consists of only two rooms. The flat in possession of the landlord at 31, the Mall Shimla, also consists of two rooms, kitchen and bath room. Even assuming that he was running an office in the part of the flat it cannot be believed that he would not live on his own flat on the Mall Road and reside with his brother-in-law in cramped premises. Even in the electoral list the landlord is shown to be a resident of 31, The Mall, Shimla. Therefore, I am of the considered view that the building 31, the Mall, Shimla was also being used as a residence by the landlord.',
	(int) 11 => '<p>11. Having held so, the question that arises is whether the landlord can be non-suited only on the ground that he has not made any disclosure about the residential accommodation available with him which premises were admittedly not owned by him.',
	(int) 12 => '<p>12. The short question which arises for decision in this petition is whether the landlord was guilty of suppressing and withholding such relevant facts which would disentitle him from seeking eviction of the tenant. To appreciate these contentions it would be necessary to refer to relevant portion of Section 14(3) of the Act:',
	(int) 13 => '<p>Section 14:',
	(int) 14 => '<p>1 and 2 xxxxxxxxxxx',
	(int) 15 => '<p>(3) A landlord may apply to the Controller for an order directing the tenant to put the landlord in possession-',
	(int) 16 => '<p>(a) in case of residential building, if',
	(int) 17 => '<p>(i) he required it for his own occupation:',
	(int) 18 => '<p>Provided that he is not occupying another residential building owned by him, in the urban area concerned:',
	(int) 19 => '<p>Provided further that he has not vacated such a building without sufficient cause within five years of the filing of the application, in the said urban area....',
	(int) 20 => '<p>13. A perusal of the bare provisions of the Act makes it clear that there are certain essential ingredients which the landlord must satisfy before seeking eviction of the tenant under the Act. Not only must he prove that the residential building is bona fide required by him for his own use and occupation but he must also plead and prove that he is not occupying any other residential building owned by him in the urban area concerned and further that he has not vacated such a building without sufficient cause within 5 years of the filing of the application.',
	(int) 21 => '<p>14. Reference may now be made to the relevant allegations made in para 18 of the eviction petition:',
	(int) 22 => '<p>(ii) That the petitioner bona fide requires the premises for his own use and occupation and also for the use and occupation of his family.',
	(int) 23 => '<p>The petitioner does not own or possess any other such building within the urban area of Simla nor the petitioner has vacated any such premises within five years of the filing of this petition.',
	(int) 24 => '<p>The family of the petitioner presently consists of himself and his wife. Due to paucity of accommodation the petitioner has not been able to keep his wife with himself at Simla, where he is working as an Engineer and she has been residing at Chandigarh since 1991 but on account of her ill health she has been brought to Simla by the petitioner. The petitioner at present is seeking temporary shelter, from time to time, with his relations.',
	(int) 25 => '<p>15. The learned Appellate Authority came to the conclusion that the landlord had falsely pleaded that he does not own or possess any other such building within the urban area of Shimla and hence rejected the eviction petition on this ground.',
	(int) 26 => '<p>16. On a close analysis of the proviso to Section 14(3)(a)(i) of the Act it is clear that a landlord is not entitled to seek eviction of a tenant from residential building even in case of bona fide requirement if the landlord is occupying another residential building owned by him in the urban area concerned. One can read three essential ingredients in this proviso i.e. (i) that the landlord is in occupation of another residential building; (ii) that the said residential building is owned by him and (iii) that the said residential building is situated in the concerned urban area.',
	(int) 27 => '<p>17. The question that arises is what is the impact of the landlord not making a disclosure in respect of premises which he is occupying but are not owned by him.',
	(int) 28 => '<p>18. The Apex Court in Onkar Nath v. Ved Vyas ILR 1979 HP 1, held as follows:',
	(int) 29 => '<p>It is common ground that there are three requirements to make out a cause of action for eviction under that provision, and indeed this is apparent from a bare reading of the sub-section. In the present case the finding is to the effect that the landlord requires the residential building for his own occupation. But, the legislation has taken care to insist upon two more conditions, namely; (a) that the landlord is not occupying any other residential building in the area concerned; and (b) that he has not vacated such a building without sufficient cause. There is not a scintilla of evidence nor indeed there is any averment in compliance with these latter conditions. The necessary consequence follows that not merely is there inadequacy of pleadings sufficient to make out a cause of action but total absence of proof of two vital requirements....',
	(int) 30 => '<p>The Supreme Court also said that:.The statute benignly designed to protect tenants from unreasonable evictions has taken case to put restrictions which must be rigorously construed to fulfil the purpose of the statute.',
	(int) 31 => '<p>19. Following the aforesaid judgment and other pronouncements of the Apex Court, a learned Single Judge of this Court in Tara Chand Sharma v. Baij Nath and Ors. 1992 (2) R.C.J. 323, held as follows:',
	(int) 32 => '<p>16. What appears as the legislative intent, in bold relief, is that the landlord, while seeking eviction of a tenant on the ground that he needs a residential building for his own occupation, must come out clearly and honestly with facts relating to the requirement that he is not occupying another residential building owned by him, in the urban area concerned and that he had not vacated such a building without sufficient cause within five years of the filing of the application, in the said urban area. The primal burden of making a clear disclosure would lie upon the landlord, for, the true facts would be in his special knowledge. An order in his favour by the Rent Controller would depend upon the satisfaction of the Rent Controller in regard not only to the claim that the landlord requires the accommodation, from which he wishes to evict a tenant, for his own occupation but also that he was not occupying another residential building owned by him nor had he vacated such building without sufficient cause within five years of the filing of the application in the application in the urban area concerned....',
	(int) 33 => '<p>It was further held as under:',
	(int) 34 => '<p>18. That the landlord should make a full disclosure of the relevant facts, pertaining to the requirements of Sub-section (3)(a)(i) and the two provisos, becomes all the more necessary because the satisfaction of the Rent Controller in regard thereto is the condition precedent for the making of an order in favour of the landlord....',
	(int) 35 => '<p>20. The aforesaid judgment has been followed in a number of other cases including Vijay Kapoor v. Maya Ram 1997 (2) RCR 437, wherein another learned single Judge of this Court following the aforesaid judgment held that the landlord must make complete and proper disclosure of all the material facts.',
	(int) 36 => '<p>21. On the other hand Sh. Ramakant Sharma has relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in Ram Narain Arora v. Asha Rani 1998(2) RCR 268. In that case the Rent Controller came to the conclusion that the landlord had suppressed material information and had not disclosed the fact that he was already in occupation of a house in Subji Mandi. Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act reads as follows:',
	(int) 37 => '<p>Section 14(1)(e). That the premises let for residential purposes are required bona fide by the landlord for occupation as a residence for himself or for any member of his family dependent on him, if he is the owner thereof, or for any person for whose benefit the premises are held and that the landlord or such person has no other reasonably suitable residential accommodation.',
	(int) 38 => '<p>22. The difference between Delhi Act and the present Act is that under the Delhi Act the only requirement is that the landlord has no other reasonably suitable accommodation whereas under the Himachal Act the residential premises are required to be owned by the landlord. The Apex Court in Rama Narain Arora's case (supra) held that the nondisclosure of the fact that the landlord was in occupation of certain premises in Subji Mandi was.not a ground to non-suit the landlord in view of the facts and circumstances of the case. The Apex Court held as follows:',
	(int) 39 => '<p>9. In making a claim that the suit premises is required bona fide for his own occupation as a residence for himself and other members of his family dependent on him and that he has no other reasonably suitable accommodation is a requirement of law before the Court can state whether the landlord requires the premises bona fide for his use and occupation. In doing so, the Court must also find out whether the landlord or such other person for whose benefit the premises is required has no other reasonably suitable residential accommodation. It cannot be said that the requirement of the landlord is not intermixed with the question of finding out whether he has any other reasonably suitable accommodation. If he has other reasonably suitable accommodation, ihen necessarily it would mean that he does not require the suit premises and his requirement may not be bona fide. In such circumstances further inquiry would be whether that premises is more suitable than the suit premises. Therefore, the questions raised before the Court would not necessarily depend upon only the pleadings. It could be a good defence that the landlord has other reasonably suitable residential accommodation and thereby defend the claim of the landlord.',
	(int) 40 => '<p>10. There cannot be a pedantic or a dogmatic approach in the matter of analysis of pleadings or of the evidence adduced thereto. It is no doubt true that if the pleadings are clearly set out, it would be easy for the Court to decide the matters. But if the pleadings are lacking or vague and if both parties have understood what was the case pleaded and put forth with reference to requirement of law and placed such material before the Court, neither party is prejudiced. If we analyse from this angle, we do not think that the High Court was not justified in interfering with the order made by the Rent Controller.',
	(int) 41 => '<p>23. From the perusal of the judgment of the Apex Court it is apparent that the Rent Controller must approach the matter in a practical manner. In case the non-disclosure is such as that it goes to the very root of the case the Rent Controller would be justified in non-suiting the landlord. However, if the non-disclosure is such that it would not prejudice the rights of the respondent then the landlord should not be non-suited only on this ground.',
	(int) 42 => '<p>24. The decisions of this Court cited hereinabove were delivered prior to the judgment delivered by the Apex Court in Ram Nar'ain Arora's case. Further more both in Tara Chand Sharma's case and Vijay Kapoor's case decided by this Court, no averment had been made ixi respect of other residential buildings owned by a landlord. There was complete non-disclosure as to whether any such residential building owned by the landlord was in his possession or not. In the present case, as I have held above, the residential premises at 31, The Mall, Shimla was not owned by the landlord and hence these two earlier judgments of this Court are distinguishable on facts also.',
	(int) 43 => '<p>25. In the present case, the landlord has been non-suited only on the ground that he did not disclose the fact that he was in occupation of certain premises on the Mall Road. Under law he was not required to disclose this fact. He was only required to disclose the factum of occupying another residential building owned by him in the urban area concerned. True it may be, that it would have been better if the landlord had disclosed all the facts but non-disclosure of a fact which he was not under law required to disclose could not in my opinion be a ground to dismiss his eviction petition.',
	(int) 44 => '<p>26. However, what are the premises in his occupation even as a tenant can be taken into consideration while deciding the question whether he bona fide requires the demised premises for his personal use or occupation or not.',
	(int) 45 => '<p>27. Lastly comes the question with regard to the bona fide requirement of the landlord. The landlord has no children. According to the landlord as well as his other witnesses i.e. his brother-in-law PW-2 and his wife PW-3, the wife now wants to come back and settle in Shimla. There is no reason to disbelieve their statements. Even according to the evidence led by the tenant the accommodation in possession of the landlord consists of two rooms, kitchen, bath room etc. Admittedly, the landlord is also having his office as an Architect in this building. The landlord belongs to the middle class of the Society. It cannot be expected of a landlord who owns sufficient property to reside in a two room set wherein he also runs his office.',
	(int) 46 => '<p>28. The law by now is well settled that the landlord is the best judge of the suitability of the accommodation required by him. This suitability has however to be judged in the context of reasonable expectations. The landlord and his wife who are both well educated can reasonably be expected to entertain guests and they will have visitors to their house. They would obviously require a drawing room, a bed room and a spare bed room for guests. Even at his residence the landlord may require another room for his professional work. This is the minimum accommodation which they would require. Even if the accommodation possessed by the landlord, though not owned by him, at 31, the Mall, Shimla is taken into consideration such accommodation is not sufficient to meet his requirements since admittedly the landlord is running his profession of Architect from some portion of his these premises.',
	(int) 47 => '<p>29. Keeping in view the entire facts and circumstances, I am of the considered view that the learned Appellate Authority gravely erred in rejecting the eviction petition of the landlord solely on the ground that he had not disclosed the factum of being in possession of the premises at 31, the Mall Shimla. Even though I have held that the said premises are residential premises, in view of the above discussion I hold that the landlord cannot be non-suited only on the ground of his being in possession of such premises since same were not owned by him.',
	(int) 48 => '<p>30. In view of the above discussion, the Revision Petition is allowed, the order of the learned Appellate Authority dated 6.5.2003 is seaside and the order of the Rent Controller dated 22.8.2001 is restored.',
	(int) 49 => '<p>31. Keeping in view the fact that the tenant has been in possession of the premises for a long period he is granted time up to 31st October, 2008 to vacate the premises.',
	(int) 50 => '<p>32. No order as to costs.<p>',
	(int) 51 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 52
$i = (int) 35
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

20. The aforesaid judgment has been followed in a number of other cases including Vijay Kapoor v. Maya Ram 1997 (2) RCR 437, wherein another learned single Judge of this Court following the aforesaid judgment held that the landlord must make complete and proper disclosure of all the material facts.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Shri Arun Bhanwara Vs Shri S L Srivastava - Citation 891084 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '891084',
			'acts' => '',
			'appealno' => '',
			'appellant' => 'Shri Arun Bhanwara',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Shri Arun Bhanwara Vs. Shri S.L. Srivastava',
			'casenote' => ' - CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908.[C.A. No. 5/1908]. Order 14, Rule 2 [As amended by Amending Act of 1976]: [V.K. Gupta, CJ, Deepak Gupta & Surjit Singh, JJ] Preliminary issue of law and fact  Court framing all issues both of law and facts together and also  tried all the issues together, including the issue relating to jurisdiction of Court  Held, Except in situations perceived or warranted under sub-rule (2) of Rule 2 of Order 14 where a  Court in fact frames only issues of law in the first instance and postpones settlement of other issues, clearly and explicitly in situations where the Court has framed all issues together, both of law as well as facts and has also tried all these issues together, it is not open to the Court to adopt the principle of severability and proceed to decide issues of law first, without taking up simultaneously other issues for decision. This course of action is not available to a Court because sub-rule (1) does not permit the  Court to adopt any such principle of severability and to dispose of a suit only on preliminary issues, or what can be termed as issues of law. Sub-rule (1)  clearly mandates that in a situation contemplated under it, where all the issues have been together and have also been taken up for adjudication during the course of the trial, these must be decided together and the judgment in the suit as a whole must be pronounced by the Court covering all the issues framed in the suit.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => 'Ram Narain Arora v. Asha Rani;',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => '',
			'counseldef' => '',
			'court' => 'Himachal Pradesh',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2008-07-31',
			'deposition' => 'Petition allowed',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => ' Deepak Gupta, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">Deepak Gupta, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. This Revision Petition under Section 25(5) of the H.P. Urban Rent Control Act, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) is directed against the order of the learned Appellate Authority, Shimla in CMA No. 60-S/14 of 2001 whereby the appeal filed by the respondent (hereinafter referred to as the tenant) has been allowed, the order of the Rent Controller has been set-aside and the petition for eviction filed by the present petitioner (hereinafter referred to as the Landlord) on the ground of personal bona fide requirement has been set-aside.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The undisputed facts are that the landlord is owner of the demised premises situated in building known as Tunnel View, Sanjauli, Shimla-6 consisting of two bed rooms with attached bath room and latrine, drawing-cum-dining room, kitchen and balcony. These premises were purchased by the landlord in the year 1986. Thereafter, the landlord had rented out the premises to one Sh. B.K. Chauhan. According to the landlord, when he got married he requested Sh. B.K. Chauhan to vacate the said premises. Sh. Chauhan vacated the said premises but admittedly the landlord did not occupy the same but rented out the same to the tenant in the year 1990.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. In the year 1997 the landlord filed a petition for eviction of the tenant on two grounds; firstly that the tenant is in arrears of rent from 1.11.1990 to 31.7.1997 and secondly that the premises are bona fide required by the landlord for the use and occupation of himself and his family.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. This petition was contested by the tenant. After trial, the Rent Controller ordered the eviction of the tenant on two grounds; (i) that the tenant was in arrears of rent from November, 1999 till date of order i.e. 22nd August, 2001 and (ii) that the landlord required the premises for his own use and occupation.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. The tenant deposited the rent within the time prescribed. He also filed an appeal challenging the finding on the issue of bona fide requirement. The learned Appellate Authority came to the conclusion that the landlord had not made a proper and full disclosure of facts as required under the provisions of the Act and had withheld material facts from the Court viz. that the landlord was in occupation of residential premises on 31, Mall Road in the urban area of Shimla and as such rejected this petition on this short ground.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. Aggrieved by the said order, the landlord has filed the present Revision Petition.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. I have heard Sh. Ramakant Sharma, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sh. Bhupinder Gupta, learned senior Counsel for the tenant.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. It has been urged on behalf of the landlord that the building which is alleged to be in possession of the landlord i.e. 31, the Mall Shimla is not a residential building and secondly that the building is not owned by him.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. On the other hand Sh. Bhupinder Gupta, learned Counsel of the tenant has strenuously urged that the landlord in para 18 has not stated anything about any building being owned by him and has only made an averment that he does not own or possess any other such building within the urban area Shimla. It is contended by Sh. Bhupinder Gupta that the landlord of his own volition did not state anything about the ownership of the building and since he has kept silent about the building which he is in occupation he has made a false averment and therefore his petition for eviction has rightly been rejected.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. I am not at all in agreement with the contention of the landlord that the premises known as 31, the Mall Shimla which are admittedly in the occupation of the landlord are commercial premises only and not being used by him for his residence. As pointed out above, the landlord purchased the demised premises in 1986. They fell vacant when he got married despite that he did not occupy the same and rented out the same to the tenant in the year 1990. The question that arises is where was the landlord living for this entire period. According to the landlord after the year 1994 he has been living with his brother-in-law Rajan (wife's brother) PW-2, since the year 1994. Prior to 1994 the landlord will have this Court to believe that he was living off and on with one friend or the other. This story is impossible to believe. The landlord was married in the year 1999. He is an Architect by profession. His wife is a law graduate. It is not believable that such a person would have no permanent abode and would continue to live as a guest with his friends for almost 5 years after his marriage. Even the story that he has been living with his brother-in-law after the year 1994 does not inspire confidence. It stands proved on record that the brother-in-law PW-2 Rajan lives with his own family i.e. wife and children. From the evidence it is also clear that the parents of the brother-in-law also reside with him, His flat consists of only two rooms. The flat in possession of the landlord at 31, the Mall Shimla, also consists of two rooms, kitchen and bath room. Even assuming that he was running an office in the part of the flat it cannot be believed that he would not live on his own flat on the Mall Road and reside with his brother-in-law in cramped premises. Even in the electoral list the landlord is shown to be a resident of 31, The Mall, Shimla. Therefore, I am of the considered view that the building 31, the Mall, Shimla was also being used as a residence by the landlord.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. Having held so, the question that arises is whether the landlord can be non-suited only on the ground that he has not made any disclosure about the residential accommodation available with him which premises were admittedly not owned by him.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. The short question which arises for decision in this petition is whether the landlord was guilty of suppressing and withholding such relevant facts which would disentitle him from seeking eviction of the tenant. To appreciate these contentions it would be necessary to refer to relevant portion of Section 14(3) of the Act:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Section 14:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1 and 2 xxxxxxxxxxx</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(3) A landlord may apply to the Controller for an order directing the tenant to put the landlord in possession-</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(a) in case of residential building, if</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(i) he required it for his own occupation:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Provided that he is not occupying another residential building owned by him, in the urban area concerned:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Provided further that he has not vacated such a building without sufficient cause within five years of the filing of the application, in the said urban area....</p><p style="text-align: justify;">13. A perusal of the bare provisions of the Act makes it clear that there are certain essential ingredients which the landlord must satisfy before seeking eviction of the tenant under the Act. Not only must he prove that the residential building is bona fide required by him for his own use and occupation but he must also plead and prove that he is not occupying any other residential building owned by him in the urban area concerned and further that he has not vacated such a building without sufficient cause within 5 years of the filing of the application.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">14. Reference may now be made to the relevant allegations made in para 18 of the eviction petition:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(ii) That the petitioner bona fide requires the premises for his own use and occupation and also for the use and occupation of his family.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The petitioner does not own or possess any other such building within the urban area of Simla nor the petitioner has vacated any such premises within five years of the filing of this petition.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The family of the petitioner presently consists of himself and his wife. Due to paucity of accommodation the petitioner has not been able to keep his wife with himself at Simla, where he is working as an Engineer and she has been residing at Chandigarh since 1991 but on account of her ill health she has been brought to Simla by the petitioner. The petitioner at present is seeking temporary shelter, from time to time, with his relations.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">15. The learned Appellate Authority came to the conclusion that the landlord had falsely pleaded that he does not own or possess any other such building within the urban area of Shimla and hence rejected the eviction petition on this ground.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">16. On a close analysis of the proviso to Section 14(3)(a)(i) of the Act it is clear that a landlord is not entitled to seek eviction of a tenant from residential building even in case of bona fide requirement if the landlord is occupying another residential building owned by him in the urban area concerned. One can read three essential ingredients in this proviso i.e. (i) that the landlord is in occupation of another residential building; (ii) that the said residential building is owned by him and (iii) that the said residential building is situated in the concerned urban area.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">17. The question that arises is what is the impact of the landlord not making a disclosure in respect of premises which he is occupying but are not owned by him.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">18. The Apex Court in Onkar Nath v. Ved Vyas ILR 1979 HP 1, held as follows:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">It is common ground that there are three requirements to make out a cause of action for eviction under that provision, and indeed this is apparent from a bare reading of the sub-section. In the present case the finding is to the effect that the landlord requires the residential building for his own occupation. But, the legislation has taken care to insist upon two more conditions, namely; (a) that the landlord is not occupying any other residential building in the area concerned; and (b) that he has not vacated such a building without sufficient cause. There is not a scintilla of evidence nor indeed there is any averment in compliance with these latter conditions. The necessary consequence follows that not merely is there inadequacy of pleadings sufficient to make out a cause of action but total absence of proof of two vital requirements....</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The Supreme Court also said that:.The statute benignly designed to protect tenants from unreasonable evictions has taken case to put restrictions which must be rigorously construed to fulfil the purpose of the statute.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">19. Following the aforesaid judgment and other pronouncements of the Apex Court, a learned Single Judge of this Court in Tara Chand Sharma v. Baij Nath and Ors. 1992 (2) R.C.J. 323, held as follows:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">16. What appears as the legislative intent, in bold relief, is that the landlord, while seeking eviction of a tenant on the ground that he needs a residential building for his own occupation, must come out clearly and honestly with facts relating to the requirement that he is not occupying another residential building owned by him, in the urban area concerned and that he had not vacated such a building without sufficient cause within five years of the filing of the application, in the said urban area. The primal burden of making a clear disclosure would lie upon the landlord, for, the true facts would be in his special knowledge. An order in his favour by the Rent Controller would depend upon the satisfaction of the Rent Controller in regard not only to the claim that the landlord requires the accommodation, from which he wishes to evict a tenant, for his own occupation but also that he was not occupying another residential building owned by him nor had he vacated such building without sufficient cause within five years of the filing of the application in the application in the urban area concerned....</p><p style="text-align: justify;">It was further held as under:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">18. That the landlord should make a full disclosure of the relevant facts, pertaining to the requirements of Sub-section (3)(a)(i) and the two provisos, becomes all the more necessary because the satisfaction of the Rent Controller in regard thereto is the condition precedent for the making of an order in favour of the landlord....</p><p style="text-align: justify;">20. The aforesaid judgment has been followed in a number of other cases including Vijay Kapoor v. Maya Ram 1997 (2) RCR 437, wherein another learned single Judge of this Court following the aforesaid judgment held that the landlord must make complete and proper disclosure of all the material facts.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">21. On the other hand Sh. Ramakant Sharma has relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in Ram Narain Arora v. Asha Rani 1998(2) RCR 268. In that case the Rent Controller came to the conclusion that the landlord had suppressed material information and had not disclosed the fact that he was already in occupation of a house in Subji Mandi. Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act reads as follows:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Section 14(1)(e). That the premises let for residential purposes are required bona fide by the landlord for occupation as a residence for himself or for any member of his family dependent on him, if he is the owner thereof, or for any person for whose benefit the premises are held and that the landlord or such person has no other reasonably suitable residential accommodation.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">22. The difference between Delhi Act and the present Act is that under the Delhi Act the only requirement is that the landlord has no other reasonably suitable accommodation whereas under the Himachal Act the residential premises are required to be owned by the landlord. The Apex Court in Rama Narain Arora's case (supra) held that the nondisclosure of the fact that the landlord was in occupation of certain premises in Subji Mandi was.not a ground to non-suit the landlord in view of the facts and circumstances of the case. The Apex Court held as follows:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. In making a claim that the suit premises is required bona fide for his own occupation as a residence for himself and other members of his family dependent on him and that he has no other reasonably suitable accommodation is a requirement of law before the Court can state whether the landlord requires the premises bona fide for his use and occupation. In doing so, the Court must also find out whether the landlord or such other person for whose benefit the premises is required has no other reasonably suitable residential accommodation. It cannot be said that the requirement of the landlord is not intermixed with the question of finding out whether he has any other reasonably suitable accommodation. If he has other reasonably suitable accommodation, ihen necessarily it would mean that he does not require the suit premises and his requirement may not be bona fide. In such circumstances further inquiry would be whether that premises is more suitable than the suit premises. Therefore, the questions raised before the Court would not necessarily depend upon only the pleadings. It could be a good defence that the landlord has other reasonably suitable residential accommodation and thereby defend the claim of the landlord.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. There cannot be a pedantic or a dogmatic approach in the matter of analysis of pleadings or of the evidence adduced thereto. It is no doubt true that if the pleadings are clearly set out, it would be easy for the Court to decide the matters. But if the pleadings are lacking or vague and if both parties have understood what was the case pleaded and put forth with reference to requirement of law and placed such material before the Court, neither party is prejudiced. If we analyse from this angle, we do not think that the High Court was not justified in interfering with the order made by the Rent Controller.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">23. From the perusal of the judgment of the Apex Court it is apparent that the Rent Controller must approach the matter in a practical manner. In case the non-disclosure is such as that it goes to the very root of the case the Rent Controller would be justified in non-suiting the landlord. However, if the non-disclosure is such that it would not prejudice the rights of the respondent then the landlord should not be non-suited only on this ground.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">24. The decisions of this Court cited hereinabove were delivered prior to the judgment delivered by the Apex Court in Ram Nar'ain Arora's case. Further more both in Tara Chand Sharma's case and Vijay Kapoor's case decided by this Court, no averment had been made ixi respect of other residential buildings owned by a landlord. There was complete non-disclosure as to whether any such residential building owned by the landlord was in his possession or not. In the present case, as I have held above, the residential premises at 31, The Mall, Shimla was not owned by the landlord and hence these two earlier judgments of this Court are distinguishable on facts also.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">25. In the present case, the landlord has been non-suited only on the ground that he did not disclose the fact that he was in occupation of certain premises on the Mall Road. Under law he was not required to disclose this fact. He was only required to disclose the factum of occupying another residential building owned by him in the urban area concerned. True it may be, that it would have been better if the landlord had disclosed all the facts but non-disclosure of a fact which he was not under law required to disclose could not in my opinion be a ground to dismiss his eviction petition.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">26. However, what are the premises in his occupation even as a tenant can be taken into consideration while deciding the question whether he bona fide requires the demised premises for his personal use or occupation or not.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">27. Lastly comes the question with regard to the bona fide requirement of the landlord. The landlord has no children. According to the landlord as well as his other witnesses i.e. his brother-in-law PW-2 and his wife PW-3, the wife now wants to come back and settle in Shimla. There is no reason to disbelieve their statements. Even according to the evidence led by the tenant the accommodation in possession of the landlord consists of two rooms, kitchen, bath room etc. Admittedly, the landlord is also having his office as an Architect in this building. The landlord belongs to the middle class of the Society. It cannot be expected of a landlord who owns sufficient property to reside in a two room set wherein he also runs his office.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">28. The law by now is well settled that the landlord is the best judge of the suitability of the accommodation required by him. This suitability has however to be judged in the context of reasonable expectations. The landlord and his wife who are both well educated can reasonably be expected to entertain guests and they will have visitors to their house. They would obviously require a drawing room, a bed room and a spare bed room for guests. Even at his residence the landlord may require another room for his professional work. This is the minimum accommodation which they would require. Even if the accommodation possessed by the landlord, though not owned by him, at 31, the Mall, Shimla is taken into consideration such accommodation is not sufficient to meet his requirements since admittedly the landlord is running his profession of Architect from some portion of his these premises.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">29. Keeping in view the entire facts and circumstances, I am of the considered view that the learned Appellate Authority gravely erred in rejecting the eviction petition of the landlord solely on the ground that he had not disclosed the factum of being in possession of the premises at 31, the Mall Shimla. Even though I have held that the said premises are residential premises, in view of the above discussion I hold that the landlord cannot be non-suited only on the ground of his being in possession of such premises since same were not owned by him.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">30. In view of the above discussion, the Revision Petition is allowed, the order of the learned Appellate Authority dated 6.5.2003 is seaside and the order of the Rent Controller dated 22.8.2001 is restored.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">31. Keeping in view the fact that the tenant has been in possession of the premises for a long period he is granted time up to 31st October, 2008 to vacate the premises.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">32. No order as to costs.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '2008(2)ShimLC491',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'Shri S.L. Srivastava',
			'sub' => 'Tenancy',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'shri-arun-bhanwara-vs-s-l-srivastava',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '891084',
		(int) 1 => 'shri-arun-bhanwara-vs-s-l-srivastava'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Shri Arun Bhanwara Vs Shri S L Srivastava - Citation 891084 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '891084',
		'acts' => '',
		'appealno' => '',
		'appellant' => 'Shri Arun Bhanwara',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Shri Arun Bhanwara Vs. Shri S.L. Srivastava',
		'casenote' => ' - CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908.[C.A. No. 5/1908]. Order 14, Rule 2 [As amended by Amending Act of 1976]: [V.K. Gupta, CJ, Deepak Gupta & Surjit Singh, JJ] Preliminary issue of law and fact  Court framing all issues both of law and facts together and also  tried all the issues together, including the issue relating to jurisdiction of Court  Held, Except in situations perceived or warranted under sub-rule (2) of Rule 2 of Order 14 where a  Court in fact frames only issues of law in the first instance and postpones settlement of other issues, clearly and explicitly in situations where the Court has framed all issues together, both of law as well as facts and has also tried all these issues together, it is not open to the Court to adopt the principle of severability and proceed to decide issues of law first, without taking up simultaneously other issues for decision. This course of action is not available to a Court because sub-rule (1) does not permit the  Court to adopt any such principle of severability and to dispose of a suit only on preliminary issues, or what can be termed as issues of law. Sub-rule (1)  clearly mandates that in a situation contemplated under it, where all the issues have been together and have also been taken up for adjudication during the course of the trial, these must be decided together and the judgment in the suit as a whole must be pronounced by the Court covering all the issues framed in the suit.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => 'Ram Narain Arora v. Asha Rani;',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => '',
		'counseldef' => '',
		'court' => 'Himachal Pradesh',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2008-07-31',
		'deposition' => 'Petition allowed',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => ' Deepak Gupta, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>Deepak Gupta, J.</p><p>1. This Revision Petition under Section 25(5) of the H.P. Urban Rent Control Act, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) is directed against the order of the learned Appellate Authority, Shimla in CMA No. 60-S/14 of 2001 whereby the appeal filed by the respondent (hereinafter referred to as the tenant) has been allowed, the order of the Rent Controller has been set-aside and the petition for eviction filed by the present petitioner (hereinafter referred to as the Landlord) on the ground of personal bona fide requirement has been set-aside.</p><p>2. The undisputed facts are that the landlord is owner of the demised premises situated in building known as Tunnel View, Sanjauli, Shimla-6 consisting of two bed rooms with attached bath room and latrine, drawing-cum-dining room, kitchen and balcony. These premises were purchased by the landlord in the year 1986. Thereafter, the landlord had rented out the premises to one Sh. B.K. Chauhan. According to the landlord, when he got married he requested Sh. B.K. Chauhan to vacate the said premises. Sh. Chauhan vacated the said premises but admittedly the landlord did not occupy the same but rented out the same to the tenant in the year 1990.</p><p>3. In the year 1997 the landlord filed a petition for eviction of the tenant on two grounds; firstly that the tenant is in arrears of rent from 1.11.1990 to 31.7.1997 and secondly that the premises are bona fide required by the landlord for the use and occupation of himself and his family.</p><p>4. This petition was contested by the tenant. After trial, the Rent Controller ordered the eviction of the tenant on two grounds; (i) that the tenant was in arrears of rent from November, 1999 till date of order i.e. 22nd August, 2001 and (ii) that the landlord required the premises for his own use and occupation.</p><p>5. The tenant deposited the rent within the time prescribed. He also filed an appeal challenging the finding on the issue of bona fide requirement. The learned Appellate Authority came to the conclusion that the landlord had not made a proper and full disclosure of facts as required under the provisions of the Act and had withheld material facts from the Court viz. that the landlord was in occupation of residential premises on 31, Mall Road in the urban area of Shimla and as such rejected this petition on this short ground.</p><p>6. Aggrieved by the said order, the landlord has filed the present Revision Petition.</p><p>7. I have heard Sh. Ramakant Sharma, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sh. Bhupinder Gupta, learned senior Counsel for the tenant.</p><p>8. It has been urged on behalf of the landlord that the building which is alleged to be in possession of the landlord i.e. 31, the Mall Shimla is not a residential building and secondly that the building is not owned by him.</p><p>9. On the other hand Sh. Bhupinder Gupta, learned Counsel of the tenant has strenuously urged that the landlord in para 18 has not stated anything about any building being owned by him and has only made an averment that he does not own or possess any other such building within the urban area Shimla. It is contended by Sh. Bhupinder Gupta that the landlord of his own volition did not state anything about the ownership of the building and since he has kept silent about the building which he is in occupation he has made a false averment and therefore his petition for eviction has rightly been rejected.</p><p>10. I am not at all in agreement with the contention of the landlord that the premises known as 31, the Mall Shimla which are admittedly in the occupation of the landlord are commercial premises only and not being used by him for his residence. As pointed out above, the landlord purchased the demised premises in 1986. They fell vacant when he got married despite that he did not occupy the same and rented out the same to the tenant in the year 1990. The question that arises is where was the landlord living for this entire period. According to the landlord after the year 1994 he has been living with his brother-in-law Rajan (wife's brother) PW-2, since the year 1994. Prior to 1994 the landlord will have this Court to believe that he was living off and on with one friend or the other. This story is impossible to believe. The landlord was married in the year 1999. He is an Architect by profession. His wife is a law graduate. It is not believable that such a person would have no permanent abode and would continue to live as a guest with his friends for almost 5 years after his marriage. Even the story that he has been living with his brother-in-law after the year 1994 does not inspire confidence. It stands proved on record that the brother-in-law PW-2 Rajan lives with his own family i.e. wife and children. From the evidence it is also clear that the parents of the brother-in-law also reside with him, His flat consists of only two rooms. The flat in possession of the landlord at 31, the Mall Shimla, also consists of two rooms, kitchen and bath room. Even assuming that he was running an office in the part of the flat it cannot be believed that he would not live on his own flat on the Mall Road and reside with his brother-in-law in cramped premises. Even in the electoral list the landlord is shown to be a resident of 31, The Mall, Shimla. Therefore, I am of the considered view that the building 31, the Mall, Shimla was also being used as a residence by the landlord.</p><p>11. Having held so, the question that arises is whether the landlord can be non-suited only on the ground that he has not made any disclosure about the residential accommodation available with him which premises were admittedly not owned by him.</p><p>12. The short question which arises for decision in this petition is whether the landlord was guilty of suppressing and withholding such relevant facts which would disentitle him from seeking eviction of the tenant. To appreciate these contentions it would be necessary to refer to relevant portion of Section 14(3) of the Act:</p><p>Section 14:</p><p>1 and 2 xxxxxxxxxxx</p><p>(3) A landlord may apply to the Controller for an order directing the tenant to put the landlord in possession-</p><p>(a) in case of residential building, if</p><p>(i) he required it for his own occupation:</p><p>Provided that he is not occupying another residential building owned by him, in the urban area concerned:</p><p>Provided further that he has not vacated such a building without sufficient cause within five years of the filing of the application, in the said urban area....</p><p>13. A perusal of the bare provisions of the Act makes it clear that there are certain essential ingredients which the landlord must satisfy before seeking eviction of the tenant under the Act. Not only must he prove that the residential building is bona fide required by him for his own use and occupation but he must also plead and prove that he is not occupying any other residential building owned by him in the urban area concerned and further that he has not vacated such a building without sufficient cause within 5 years of the filing of the application.</p><p>14. Reference may now be made to the relevant allegations made in para 18 of the eviction petition:</p><p>(ii) That the petitioner bona fide requires the premises for his own use and occupation and also for the use and occupation of his family.</p><p>The petitioner does not own or possess any other such building within the urban area of Simla nor the petitioner has vacated any such premises within five years of the filing of this petition.</p><p>The family of the petitioner presently consists of himself and his wife. Due to paucity of accommodation the petitioner has not been able to keep his wife with himself at Simla, where he is working as an Engineer and she has been residing at Chandigarh since 1991 but on account of her ill health she has been brought to Simla by the petitioner. The petitioner at present is seeking temporary shelter, from time to time, with his relations.</p><p>15. The learned Appellate Authority came to the conclusion that the landlord had falsely pleaded that he does not own or possess any other such building within the urban area of Shimla and hence rejected the eviction petition on this ground.</p><p>16. On a close analysis of the proviso to Section 14(3)(a)(i) of the Act it is clear that a landlord is not entitled to seek eviction of a tenant from residential building even in case of bona fide requirement if the landlord is occupying another residential building owned by him in the urban area concerned. One can read three essential ingredients in this proviso i.e. (i) that the landlord is in occupation of another residential building; (ii) that the said residential building is owned by him and (iii) that the said residential building is situated in the concerned urban area.</p><p>17. The question that arises is what is the impact of the landlord not making a disclosure in respect of premises which he is occupying but are not owned by him.</p><p>18. The Apex Court in Onkar Nath v. Ved Vyas ILR 1979 HP 1, held as follows:</p><p>It is common ground that there are three requirements to make out a cause of action for eviction under that provision, and indeed this is apparent from a bare reading of the sub-section. In the present case the finding is to the effect that the landlord requires the residential building for his own occupation. But, the legislation has taken care to insist upon two more conditions, namely; (a) that the landlord is not occupying any other residential building in the area concerned; and (b) that he has not vacated such a building without sufficient cause. There is not a scintilla of evidence nor indeed there is any averment in compliance with these latter conditions. The necessary consequence follows that not merely is there inadequacy of pleadings sufficient to make out a cause of action but total absence of proof of two vital requirements....</p><p>The Supreme Court also said that:.The statute benignly designed to protect tenants from unreasonable evictions has taken case to put restrictions which must be rigorously construed to fulfil the purpose of the statute.</p><p>19. Following the aforesaid judgment and other pronouncements of the Apex Court, a learned Single Judge of this Court in Tara Chand Sharma v. Baij Nath and Ors. 1992 (2) R.C.J. 323, held as follows:</p><p>16. What appears as the legislative intent, in bold relief, is that the landlord, while seeking eviction of a tenant on the ground that he needs a residential building for his own occupation, must come out clearly and honestly with facts relating to the requirement that he is not occupying another residential building owned by him, in the urban area concerned and that he had not vacated such a building without sufficient cause within five years of the filing of the application, in the said urban area. The primal burden of making a clear disclosure would lie upon the landlord, for, the true facts would be in his special knowledge. An order in his favour by the Rent Controller would depend upon the satisfaction of the Rent Controller in regard not only to the claim that the landlord requires the accommodation, from which he wishes to evict a tenant, for his own occupation but also that he was not occupying another residential building owned by him nor had he vacated such building without sufficient cause within five years of the filing of the application in the application in the urban area concerned....</p><p>It was further held as under:</p><p>18. That the landlord should make a full disclosure of the relevant facts, pertaining to the requirements of Sub-section (3)(a)(i) and the two provisos, becomes all the more necessary because the satisfaction of the Rent Controller in regard thereto is the condition precedent for the making of an order in favour of the landlord....</p><p>20. The aforesaid judgment has been followed in a number of other cases including Vijay Kapoor v. Maya Ram 1997 (2) RCR 437, wherein another learned single Judge of this Court following the aforesaid judgment held that the landlord must make complete and proper disclosure of all the material facts.</p><p>21. On the other hand Sh. Ramakant Sharma has relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in Ram Narain Arora v. Asha Rani 1998(2) RCR 268. In that case the Rent Controller came to the conclusion that the landlord had suppressed material information and had not disclosed the fact that he was already in occupation of a house in Subji Mandi. Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act reads as follows:</p><p>Section 14(1)(e). That the premises let for residential purposes are required bona fide by the landlord for occupation as a residence for himself or for any member of his family dependent on him, if he is the owner thereof, or for any person for whose benefit the premises are held and that the landlord or such person has no other reasonably suitable residential accommodation.</p><p>22. The difference between Delhi Act and the present Act is that under the Delhi Act the only requirement is that the landlord has no other reasonably suitable accommodation whereas under the Himachal Act the residential premises are required to be owned by the landlord. The Apex Court in Rama Narain Arora's case (supra) held that the nondisclosure of the fact that the landlord was in occupation of certain premises in Subji Mandi was.not a ground to non-suit the landlord in view of the facts and circumstances of the case. The Apex Court held as follows:</p><p>9. In making a claim that the suit premises is required bona fide for his own occupation as a residence for himself and other members of his family dependent on him and that he has no other reasonably suitable accommodation is a requirement of law before the Court can state whether the landlord requires the premises bona fide for his use and occupation. In doing so, the Court must also find out whether the landlord or such other person for whose benefit the premises is required has no other reasonably suitable residential accommodation. It cannot be said that the requirement of the landlord is not intermixed with the question of finding out whether he has any other reasonably suitable accommodation. If he has other reasonably suitable accommodation, ihen necessarily it would mean that he does not require the suit premises and his requirement may not be bona fide. In such circumstances further inquiry would be whether that premises is more suitable than the suit premises. Therefore, the questions raised before the Court would not necessarily depend upon only the pleadings. It could be a good defence that the landlord has other reasonably suitable residential accommodation and thereby defend the claim of the landlord.</p><p>10. There cannot be a pedantic or a dogmatic approach in the matter of analysis of pleadings or of the evidence adduced thereto. It is no doubt true that if the pleadings are clearly set out, it would be easy for the Court to decide the matters. But if the pleadings are lacking or vague and if both parties have understood what was the case pleaded and put forth with reference to requirement of law and placed such material before the Court, neither party is prejudiced. If we analyse from this angle, we do not think that the High Court was not justified in interfering with the order made by the Rent Controller.</p><p>23. From the perusal of the judgment of the Apex Court it is apparent that the Rent Controller must approach the matter in a practical manner. In case the non-disclosure is such as that it goes to the very root of the case the Rent Controller would be justified in non-suiting the landlord. However, if the non-disclosure is such that it would not prejudice the rights of the respondent then the landlord should not be non-suited only on this ground.</p><p>24. The decisions of this Court cited hereinabove were delivered prior to the judgment delivered by the Apex Court in Ram Nar'ain Arora's case. Further more both in Tara Chand Sharma's case and Vijay Kapoor's case decided by this Court, no averment had been made ixi respect of other residential buildings owned by a landlord. There was complete non-disclosure as to whether any such residential building owned by the landlord was in his possession or not. In the present case, as I have held above, the residential premises at 31, The Mall, Shimla was not owned by the landlord and hence these two earlier judgments of this Court are distinguishable on facts also.</p><p>25. In the present case, the landlord has been non-suited only on the ground that he did not disclose the fact that he was in occupation of certain premises on the Mall Road. Under law he was not required to disclose this fact. He was only required to disclose the factum of occupying another residential building owned by him in the urban area concerned. True it may be, that it would have been better if the landlord had disclosed all the facts but non-disclosure of a fact which he was not under law required to disclose could not in my opinion be a ground to dismiss his eviction petition.</p><p>26. However, what are the premises in his occupation even as a tenant can be taken into consideration while deciding the question whether he bona fide requires the demised premises for his personal use or occupation or not.</p><p>27. Lastly comes the question with regard to the bona fide requirement of the landlord. The landlord has no children. According to the landlord as well as his other witnesses i.e. his brother-in-law PW-2 and his wife PW-3, the wife now wants to come back and settle in Shimla. There is no reason to disbelieve their statements. Even according to the evidence led by the tenant the accommodation in possession of the landlord consists of two rooms, kitchen, bath room etc. Admittedly, the landlord is also having his office as an Architect in this building. The landlord belongs to the middle class of the Society. It cannot be expected of a landlord who owns sufficient property to reside in a two room set wherein he also runs his office.</p><p>28. The law by now is well settled that the landlord is the best judge of the suitability of the accommodation required by him. This suitability has however to be judged in the context of reasonable expectations. The landlord and his wife who are both well educated can reasonably be expected to entertain guests and they will have visitors to their house. They would obviously require a drawing room, a bed room and a spare bed room for guests. Even at his residence the landlord may require another room for his professional work. This is the minimum accommodation which they would require. Even if the accommodation possessed by the landlord, though not owned by him, at 31, the Mall, Shimla is taken into consideration such accommodation is not sufficient to meet his requirements since admittedly the landlord is running his profession of Architect from some portion of his these premises.</p><p>29. Keeping in view the entire facts and circumstances, I am of the considered view that the learned Appellate Authority gravely erred in rejecting the eviction petition of the landlord solely on the ground that he had not disclosed the factum of being in possession of the premises at 31, the Mall Shimla. Even though I have held that the said premises are residential premises, in view of the above discussion I hold that the landlord cannot be non-suited only on the ground of his being in possession of such premises since same were not owned by him.</p><p>30. In view of the above discussion, the Revision Petition is allowed, the order of the learned Appellate Authority dated 6.5.2003 is seaside and the order of the Rent Controller dated 22.8.2001 is restored.</p><p>31. Keeping in view the fact that the tenant has been in possession of the premises for a long period he is granted time up to 31st October, 2008 to vacate the premises.</p><p>32. No order as to costs.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '2008(2)ShimLC491',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'Shri S.L. Srivastava',
		'sub' => 'Tenancy',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'shri-arun-bhanwara-vs-s-l-srivastava'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '891084',
	(int) 1 => 'shri-arun-bhanwara-vs-s-l-srivastava'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/891084/shri-arun-bhanwara-vs-s-l-srivastava'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$caseref = 'Ram Narain Arora v. Asha Rani<br>'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>Deepak Gupta, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. This Revision Petition under Section 25(5) of the H.P. Urban Rent Control Act, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) is directed against the order of the learned Appellate Authority, Shimla in CMA No. 60-S/14 of 2001 whereby the appeal filed by the respondent (hereinafter referred to as the tenant) has been allowed, the order of the Rent Controller has been set-aside and the petition for eviction filed by the present petitioner (hereinafter referred to as the Landlord) on the ground of personal bona fide requirement has been set-aside.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. The undisputed facts are that the landlord is owner of the demised premises situated in building known as Tunnel View, Sanjauli, Shimla-6 consisting of two bed rooms with attached bath room and latrine, drawing-cum-dining room, kitchen and balcony. These premises were purchased by the landlord in the year 1986. Thereafter, the landlord had rented out the premises to one Sh. B.K. Chauhan. According to the landlord, when he got married he requested Sh. B.K. Chauhan to vacate the said premises. Sh. Chauhan vacated the said premises but admittedly the landlord did not occupy the same but rented out the same to the tenant in the year 1990.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. In the year 1997 the landlord filed a petition for eviction of the tenant on two grounds; firstly that the tenant is in arrears of rent from 1.11.1990 to 31.7.1997 and secondly that the premises are bona fide required by the landlord for the use and occupation of himself and his family.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>4. This petition was contested by the tenant. After trial, the Rent Controller ordered the eviction of the tenant on two grounds; (i) that the tenant was in arrears of rent from November, 1999 till date of order i.e. 22nd August, 2001 and (ii) that the landlord required the premises for his own use and occupation.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>5. The tenant deposited the rent within the time prescribed. He also filed an appeal challenging the finding on the issue of bona fide requirement. The learned Appellate Authority came to the conclusion that the landlord had not made a proper and full disclosure of facts as required under the provisions of the Act and had withheld material facts from the Court viz. that the landlord was in occupation of residential premises on 31, Mall Road in the urban area of Shimla and as such rejected this petition on this short ground.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>6. Aggrieved by the said order, the landlord has filed the present Revision Petition.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>7. I have heard Sh. Ramakant Sharma, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sh. Bhupinder Gupta, learned senior Counsel for the tenant.',
	(int) 8 => '<p>8. It has been urged on behalf of the landlord that the building which is alleged to be in possession of the landlord i.e. 31, the Mall Shimla is not a residential building and secondly that the building is not owned by him.',
	(int) 9 => '<p>9. On the other hand Sh. Bhupinder Gupta, learned Counsel of the tenant has strenuously urged that the landlord in para 18 has not stated anything about any building being owned by him and has only made an averment that he does not own or possess any other such building within the urban area Shimla. It is contended by Sh. Bhupinder Gupta that the landlord of his own volition did not state anything about the ownership of the building and since he has kept silent about the building which he is in occupation he has made a false averment and therefore his petition for eviction has rightly been rejected.',
	(int) 10 => '<p>10. I am not at all in agreement with the contention of the landlord that the premises known as 31, the Mall Shimla which are admittedly in the occupation of the landlord are commercial premises only and not being used by him for his residence. As pointed out above, the landlord purchased the demised premises in 1986. They fell vacant when he got married despite that he did not occupy the same and rented out the same to the tenant in the year 1990. The question that arises is where was the landlord living for this entire period. According to the landlord after the year 1994 he has been living with his brother-in-law Rajan (wife's brother) PW-2, since the year 1994. Prior to 1994 the landlord will have this Court to believe that he was living off and on with one friend or the other. This story is impossible to believe. The landlord was married in the year 1999. He is an Architect by profession. His wife is a law graduate. It is not believable that such a person would have no permanent abode and would continue to live as a guest with his friends for almost 5 years after his marriage. Even the story that he has been living with his brother-in-law after the year 1994 does not inspire confidence. It stands proved on record that the brother-in-law PW-2 Rajan lives with his own family i.e. wife and children. From the evidence it is also clear that the parents of the brother-in-law also reside with him, His flat consists of only two rooms. The flat in possession of the landlord at 31, the Mall Shimla, also consists of two rooms, kitchen and bath room. Even assuming that he was running an office in the part of the flat it cannot be believed that he would not live on his own flat on the Mall Road and reside with his brother-in-law in cramped premises. Even in the electoral list the landlord is shown to be a resident of 31, The Mall, Shimla. Therefore, I am of the considered view that the building 31, the Mall, Shimla was also being used as a residence by the landlord.',
	(int) 11 => '<p>11. Having held so, the question that arises is whether the landlord can be non-suited only on the ground that he has not made any disclosure about the residential accommodation available with him which premises were admittedly not owned by him.',
	(int) 12 => '<p>12. The short question which arises for decision in this petition is whether the landlord was guilty of suppressing and withholding such relevant facts which would disentitle him from seeking eviction of the tenant. To appreciate these contentions it would be necessary to refer to relevant portion of Section 14(3) of the Act:',
	(int) 13 => '<p>Section 14:',
	(int) 14 => '<p>1 and 2 xxxxxxxxxxx',
	(int) 15 => '<p>(3) A landlord may apply to the Controller for an order directing the tenant to put the landlord in possession-',
	(int) 16 => '<p>(a) in case of residential building, if',
	(int) 17 => '<p>(i) he required it for his own occupation:',
	(int) 18 => '<p>Provided that he is not occupying another residential building owned by him, in the urban area concerned:',
	(int) 19 => '<p>Provided further that he has not vacated such a building without sufficient cause within five years of the filing of the application, in the said urban area....',
	(int) 20 => '<p>13. A perusal of the bare provisions of the Act makes it clear that there are certain essential ingredients which the landlord must satisfy before seeking eviction of the tenant under the Act. Not only must he prove that the residential building is bona fide required by him for his own use and occupation but he must also plead and prove that he is not occupying any other residential building owned by him in the urban area concerned and further that he has not vacated such a building without sufficient cause within 5 years of the filing of the application.',
	(int) 21 => '<p>14. Reference may now be made to the relevant allegations made in para 18 of the eviction petition:',
	(int) 22 => '<p>(ii) That the petitioner bona fide requires the premises for his own use and occupation and also for the use and occupation of his family.',
	(int) 23 => '<p>The petitioner does not own or possess any other such building within the urban area of Simla nor the petitioner has vacated any such premises within five years of the filing of this petition.',
	(int) 24 => '<p>The family of the petitioner presently consists of himself and his wife. Due to paucity of accommodation the petitioner has not been able to keep his wife with himself at Simla, where he is working as an Engineer and she has been residing at Chandigarh since 1991 but on account of her ill health she has been brought to Simla by the petitioner. The petitioner at present is seeking temporary shelter, from time to time, with his relations.',
	(int) 25 => '<p>15. The learned Appellate Authority came to the conclusion that the landlord had falsely pleaded that he does not own or possess any other such building within the urban area of Shimla and hence rejected the eviction petition on this ground.',
	(int) 26 => '<p>16. On a close analysis of the proviso to Section 14(3)(a)(i) of the Act it is clear that a landlord is not entitled to seek eviction of a tenant from residential building even in case of bona fide requirement if the landlord is occupying another residential building owned by him in the urban area concerned. One can read three essential ingredients in this proviso i.e. (i) that the landlord is in occupation of another residential building; (ii) that the said residential building is owned by him and (iii) that the said residential building is situated in the concerned urban area.',
	(int) 27 => '<p>17. The question that arises is what is the impact of the landlord not making a disclosure in respect of premises which he is occupying but are not owned by him.',
	(int) 28 => '<p>18. The Apex Court in Onkar Nath v. Ved Vyas ILR 1979 HP 1, held as follows:',
	(int) 29 => '<p>It is common ground that there are three requirements to make out a cause of action for eviction under that provision, and indeed this is apparent from a bare reading of the sub-section. In the present case the finding is to the effect that the landlord requires the residential building for his own occupation. But, the legislation has taken care to insist upon two more conditions, namely; (a) that the landlord is not occupying any other residential building in the area concerned; and (b) that he has not vacated such a building without sufficient cause. There is not a scintilla of evidence nor indeed there is any averment in compliance with these latter conditions. The necessary consequence follows that not merely is there inadequacy of pleadings sufficient to make out a cause of action but total absence of proof of two vital requirements....',
	(int) 30 => '<p>The Supreme Court also said that:.The statute benignly designed to protect tenants from unreasonable evictions has taken case to put restrictions which must be rigorously construed to fulfil the purpose of the statute.',
	(int) 31 => '<p>19. Following the aforesaid judgment and other pronouncements of the Apex Court, a learned Single Judge of this Court in Tara Chand Sharma v. Baij Nath and Ors. 1992 (2) R.C.J. 323, held as follows:',
	(int) 32 => '<p>16. What appears as the legislative intent, in bold relief, is that the landlord, while seeking eviction of a tenant on the ground that he needs a residential building for his own occupation, must come out clearly and honestly with facts relating to the requirement that he is not occupying another residential building owned by him, in the urban area concerned and that he had not vacated such a building without sufficient cause within five years of the filing of the application, in the said urban area. The primal burden of making a clear disclosure would lie upon the landlord, for, the true facts would be in his special knowledge. An order in his favour by the Rent Controller would depend upon the satisfaction of the Rent Controller in regard not only to the claim that the landlord requires the accommodation, from which he wishes to evict a tenant, for his own occupation but also that he was not occupying another residential building owned by him nor had he vacated such building without sufficient cause within five years of the filing of the application in the application in the urban area concerned....',
	(int) 33 => '<p>It was further held as under:',
	(int) 34 => '<p>18. That the landlord should make a full disclosure of the relevant facts, pertaining to the requirements of Sub-section (3)(a)(i) and the two provisos, becomes all the more necessary because the satisfaction of the Rent Controller in regard thereto is the condition precedent for the making of an order in favour of the landlord....',
	(int) 35 => '<p>20. The aforesaid judgment has been followed in a number of other cases including Vijay Kapoor v. Maya Ram 1997 (2) RCR 437, wherein another learned single Judge of this Court following the aforesaid judgment held that the landlord must make complete and proper disclosure of all the material facts.',
	(int) 36 => '<p>21. On the other hand Sh. Ramakant Sharma has relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in Ram Narain Arora v. Asha Rani 1998(2) RCR 268. In that case the Rent Controller came to the conclusion that the landlord had suppressed material information and had not disclosed the fact that he was already in occupation of a house in Subji Mandi. Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act reads as follows:',
	(int) 37 => '<p>Section 14(1)(e). That the premises let for residential purposes are required bona fide by the landlord for occupation as a residence for himself or for any member of his family dependent on him, if he is the owner thereof, or for any person for whose benefit the premises are held and that the landlord or such person has no other reasonably suitable residential accommodation.',
	(int) 38 => '<p>22. The difference between Delhi Act and the present Act is that under the Delhi Act the only requirement is that the landlord has no other reasonably suitable accommodation whereas under the Himachal Act the residential premises are required to be owned by the landlord. The Apex Court in Rama Narain Arora's case (supra) held that the nondisclosure of the fact that the landlord was in occupation of certain premises in Subji Mandi was.not a ground to non-suit the landlord in view of the facts and circumstances of the case. The Apex Court held as follows:',
	(int) 39 => '<p>9. In making a claim that the suit premises is required bona fide for his own occupation as a residence for himself and other members of his family dependent on him and that he has no other reasonably suitable accommodation is a requirement of law before the Court can state whether the landlord requires the premises bona fide for his use and occupation. In doing so, the Court must also find out whether the landlord or such other person for whose benefit the premises is required has no other reasonably suitable residential accommodation. It cannot be said that the requirement of the landlord is not intermixed with the question of finding out whether he has any other reasonably suitable accommodation. If he has other reasonably suitable accommodation, ihen necessarily it would mean that he does not require the suit premises and his requirement may not be bona fide. In such circumstances further inquiry would be whether that premises is more suitable than the suit premises. Therefore, the questions raised before the Court would not necessarily depend upon only the pleadings. It could be a good defence that the landlord has other reasonably suitable residential accommodation and thereby defend the claim of the landlord.',
	(int) 40 => '<p>10. There cannot be a pedantic or a dogmatic approach in the matter of analysis of pleadings or of the evidence adduced thereto. It is no doubt true that if the pleadings are clearly set out, it would be easy for the Court to decide the matters. But if the pleadings are lacking or vague and if both parties have understood what was the case pleaded and put forth with reference to requirement of law and placed such material before the Court, neither party is prejudiced. If we analyse from this angle, we do not think that the High Court was not justified in interfering with the order made by the Rent Controller.',
	(int) 41 => '<p>23. From the perusal of the judgment of the Apex Court it is apparent that the Rent Controller must approach the matter in a practical manner. In case the non-disclosure is such as that it goes to the very root of the case the Rent Controller would be justified in non-suiting the landlord. However, if the non-disclosure is such that it would not prejudice the rights of the respondent then the landlord should not be non-suited only on this ground.',
	(int) 42 => '<p>24. The decisions of this Court cited hereinabove were delivered prior to the judgment delivered by the Apex Court in Ram Nar'ain Arora's case. Further more both in Tara Chand Sharma's case and Vijay Kapoor's case decided by this Court, no averment had been made ixi respect of other residential buildings owned by a landlord. There was complete non-disclosure as to whether any such residential building owned by the landlord was in his possession or not. In the present case, as I have held above, the residential premises at 31, The Mall, Shimla was not owned by the landlord and hence these two earlier judgments of this Court are distinguishable on facts also.',
	(int) 43 => '<p>25. In the present case, the landlord has been non-suited only on the ground that he did not disclose the fact that he was in occupation of certain premises on the Mall Road. Under law he was not required to disclose this fact. He was only required to disclose the factum of occupying another residential building owned by him in the urban area concerned. True it may be, that it would have been better if the landlord had disclosed all the facts but non-disclosure of a fact which he was not under law required to disclose could not in my opinion be a ground to dismiss his eviction petition.',
	(int) 44 => '<p>26. However, what are the premises in his occupation even as a tenant can be taken into consideration while deciding the question whether he bona fide requires the demised premises for his personal use or occupation or not.',
	(int) 45 => '<p>27. Lastly comes the question with regard to the bona fide requirement of the landlord. The landlord has no children. According to the landlord as well as his other witnesses i.e. his brother-in-law PW-2 and his wife PW-3, the wife now wants to come back and settle in Shimla. There is no reason to disbelieve their statements. Even according to the evidence led by the tenant the accommodation in possession of the landlord consists of two rooms, kitchen, bath room etc. Admittedly, the landlord is also having his office as an Architect in this building. The landlord belongs to the middle class of the Society. It cannot be expected of a landlord who owns sufficient property to reside in a two room set wherein he also runs his office.',
	(int) 46 => '<p>28. The law by now is well settled that the landlord is the best judge of the suitability of the accommodation required by him. This suitability has however to be judged in the context of reasonable expectations. The landlord and his wife who are both well educated can reasonably be expected to entertain guests and they will have visitors to their house. They would obviously require a drawing room, a bed room and a spare bed room for guests. Even at his residence the landlord may require another room for his professional work. This is the minimum accommodation which they would require. Even if the accommodation possessed by the landlord, though not owned by him, at 31, the Mall, Shimla is taken into consideration such accommodation is not sufficient to meet his requirements since admittedly the landlord is running his profession of Architect from some portion of his these premises.',
	(int) 47 => '<p>29. Keeping in view the entire facts and circumstances, I am of the considered view that the learned Appellate Authority gravely erred in rejecting the eviction petition of the landlord solely on the ground that he had not disclosed the factum of being in possession of the premises at 31, the Mall Shimla. Even though I have held that the said premises are residential premises, in view of the above discussion I hold that the landlord cannot be non-suited only on the ground of his being in possession of such premises since same were not owned by him.',
	(int) 48 => '<p>30. In view of the above discussion, the Revision Petition is allowed, the order of the learned Appellate Authority dated 6.5.2003 is seaside and the order of the Rent Controller dated 22.8.2001 is restored.',
	(int) 49 => '<p>31. Keeping in view the fact that the tenant has been in possession of the premises for a long period he is granted time up to 31st October, 2008 to vacate the premises.',
	(int) 50 => '<p>32. No order as to costs.<p>',
	(int) 51 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 52
$i = (int) 36
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

21. On the other hand Sh. Ramakant Sharma has relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in Ram Narain Arora v. Asha Rani 1998(2) RCR 268. In that case the Rent Controller came to the conclusion that the landlord had suppressed material information and had not disclosed the fact that he was already in occupation of a house in Subji Mandi. Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act reads as follows:

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Shri Arun Bhanwara Vs Shri S L Srivastava - Citation 891084 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '891084',
			'acts' => '',
			'appealno' => '',
			'appellant' => 'Shri Arun Bhanwara',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Shri Arun Bhanwara Vs. Shri S.L. Srivastava',
			'casenote' => ' - CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908.[C.A. No. 5/1908]. Order 14, Rule 2 [As amended by Amending Act of 1976]: [V.K. Gupta, CJ, Deepak Gupta & Surjit Singh, JJ] Preliminary issue of law and fact  Court framing all issues both of law and facts together and also  tried all the issues together, including the issue relating to jurisdiction of Court  Held, Except in situations perceived or warranted under sub-rule (2) of Rule 2 of Order 14 where a  Court in fact frames only issues of law in the first instance and postpones settlement of other issues, clearly and explicitly in situations where the Court has framed all issues together, both of law as well as facts and has also tried all these issues together, it is not open to the Court to adopt the principle of severability and proceed to decide issues of law first, without taking up simultaneously other issues for decision. This course of action is not available to a Court because sub-rule (1) does not permit the  Court to adopt any such principle of severability and to dispose of a suit only on preliminary issues, or what can be termed as issues of law. Sub-rule (1)  clearly mandates that in a situation contemplated under it, where all the issues have been together and have also been taken up for adjudication during the course of the trial, these must be decided together and the judgment in the suit as a whole must be pronounced by the Court covering all the issues framed in the suit.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => 'Ram Narain Arora v. Asha Rani;',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => '',
			'counseldef' => '',
			'court' => 'Himachal Pradesh',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2008-07-31',
			'deposition' => 'Petition allowed',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => ' Deepak Gupta, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">Deepak Gupta, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. This Revision Petition under Section 25(5) of the H.P. Urban Rent Control Act, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) is directed against the order of the learned Appellate Authority, Shimla in CMA No. 60-S/14 of 2001 whereby the appeal filed by the respondent (hereinafter referred to as the tenant) has been allowed, the order of the Rent Controller has been set-aside and the petition for eviction filed by the present petitioner (hereinafter referred to as the Landlord) on the ground of personal bona fide requirement has been set-aside.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The undisputed facts are that the landlord is owner of the demised premises situated in building known as Tunnel View, Sanjauli, Shimla-6 consisting of two bed rooms with attached bath room and latrine, drawing-cum-dining room, kitchen and balcony. These premises were purchased by the landlord in the year 1986. Thereafter, the landlord had rented out the premises to one Sh. B.K. Chauhan. According to the landlord, when he got married he requested Sh. B.K. Chauhan to vacate the said premises. Sh. Chauhan vacated the said premises but admittedly the landlord did not occupy the same but rented out the same to the tenant in the year 1990.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. In the year 1997 the landlord filed a petition for eviction of the tenant on two grounds; firstly that the tenant is in arrears of rent from 1.11.1990 to 31.7.1997 and secondly that the premises are bona fide required by the landlord for the use and occupation of himself and his family.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. This petition was contested by the tenant. After trial, the Rent Controller ordered the eviction of the tenant on two grounds; (i) that the tenant was in arrears of rent from November, 1999 till date of order i.e. 22nd August, 2001 and (ii) that the landlord required the premises for his own use and occupation.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. The tenant deposited the rent within the time prescribed. He also filed an appeal challenging the finding on the issue of bona fide requirement. The learned Appellate Authority came to the conclusion that the landlord had not made a proper and full disclosure of facts as required under the provisions of the Act and had withheld material facts from the Court viz. that the landlord was in occupation of residential premises on 31, Mall Road in the urban area of Shimla and as such rejected this petition on this short ground.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. Aggrieved by the said order, the landlord has filed the present Revision Petition.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. I have heard Sh. Ramakant Sharma, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sh. Bhupinder Gupta, learned senior Counsel for the tenant.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. It has been urged on behalf of the landlord that the building which is alleged to be in possession of the landlord i.e. 31, the Mall Shimla is not a residential building and secondly that the building is not owned by him.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. On the other hand Sh. Bhupinder Gupta, learned Counsel of the tenant has strenuously urged that the landlord in para 18 has not stated anything about any building being owned by him and has only made an averment that he does not own or possess any other such building within the urban area Shimla. It is contended by Sh. Bhupinder Gupta that the landlord of his own volition did not state anything about the ownership of the building and since he has kept silent about the building which he is in occupation he has made a false averment and therefore his petition for eviction has rightly been rejected.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. I am not at all in agreement with the contention of the landlord that the premises known as 31, the Mall Shimla which are admittedly in the occupation of the landlord are commercial premises only and not being used by him for his residence. As pointed out above, the landlord purchased the demised premises in 1986. They fell vacant when he got married despite that he did not occupy the same and rented out the same to the tenant in the year 1990. The question that arises is where was the landlord living for this entire period. According to the landlord after the year 1994 he has been living with his brother-in-law Rajan (wife's brother) PW-2, since the year 1994. Prior to 1994 the landlord will have this Court to believe that he was living off and on with one friend or the other. This story is impossible to believe. The landlord was married in the year 1999. He is an Architect by profession. His wife is a law graduate. It is not believable that such a person would have no permanent abode and would continue to live as a guest with his friends for almost 5 years after his marriage. Even the story that he has been living with his brother-in-law after the year 1994 does not inspire confidence. It stands proved on record that the brother-in-law PW-2 Rajan lives with his own family i.e. wife and children. From the evidence it is also clear that the parents of the brother-in-law also reside with him, His flat consists of only two rooms. The flat in possession of the landlord at 31, the Mall Shimla, also consists of two rooms, kitchen and bath room. Even assuming that he was running an office in the part of the flat it cannot be believed that he would not live on his own flat on the Mall Road and reside with his brother-in-law in cramped premises. Even in the electoral list the landlord is shown to be a resident of 31, The Mall, Shimla. Therefore, I am of the considered view that the building 31, the Mall, Shimla was also being used as a residence by the landlord.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. Having held so, the question that arises is whether the landlord can be non-suited only on the ground that he has not made any disclosure about the residential accommodation available with him which premises were admittedly not owned by him.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. The short question which arises for decision in this petition is whether the landlord was guilty of suppressing and withholding such relevant facts which would disentitle him from seeking eviction of the tenant. To appreciate these contentions it would be necessary to refer to relevant portion of Section 14(3) of the Act:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Section 14:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1 and 2 xxxxxxxxxxx</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(3) A landlord may apply to the Controller for an order directing the tenant to put the landlord in possession-</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(a) in case of residential building, if</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(i) he required it for his own occupation:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Provided that he is not occupying another residential building owned by him, in the urban area concerned:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Provided further that he has not vacated such a building without sufficient cause within five years of the filing of the application, in the said urban area....</p><p style="text-align: justify;">13. A perusal of the bare provisions of the Act makes it clear that there are certain essential ingredients which the landlord must satisfy before seeking eviction of the tenant under the Act. Not only must he prove that the residential building is bona fide required by him for his own use and occupation but he must also plead and prove that he is not occupying any other residential building owned by him in the urban area concerned and further that he has not vacated such a building without sufficient cause within 5 years of the filing of the application.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">14. Reference may now be made to the relevant allegations made in para 18 of the eviction petition:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(ii) That the petitioner bona fide requires the premises for his own use and occupation and also for the use and occupation of his family.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The petitioner does not own or possess any other such building within the urban area of Simla nor the petitioner has vacated any such premises within five years of the filing of this petition.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The family of the petitioner presently consists of himself and his wife. Due to paucity of accommodation the petitioner has not been able to keep his wife with himself at Simla, where he is working as an Engineer and she has been residing at Chandigarh since 1991 but on account of her ill health she has been brought to Simla by the petitioner. The petitioner at present is seeking temporary shelter, from time to time, with his relations.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">15. The learned Appellate Authority came to the conclusion that the landlord had falsely pleaded that he does not own or possess any other such building within the urban area of Shimla and hence rejected the eviction petition on this ground.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">16. On a close analysis of the proviso to Section 14(3)(a)(i) of the Act it is clear that a landlord is not entitled to seek eviction of a tenant from residential building even in case of bona fide requirement if the landlord is occupying another residential building owned by him in the urban area concerned. One can read three essential ingredients in this proviso i.e. (i) that the landlord is in occupation of another residential building; (ii) that the said residential building is owned by him and (iii) that the said residential building is situated in the concerned urban area.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">17. The question that arises is what is the impact of the landlord not making a disclosure in respect of premises which he is occupying but are not owned by him.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">18. The Apex Court in Onkar Nath v. Ved Vyas ILR 1979 HP 1, held as follows:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">It is common ground that there are three requirements to make out a cause of action for eviction under that provision, and indeed this is apparent from a bare reading of the sub-section. In the present case the finding is to the effect that the landlord requires the residential building for his own occupation. But, the legislation has taken care to insist upon two more conditions, namely; (a) that the landlord is not occupying any other residential building in the area concerned; and (b) that he has not vacated such a building without sufficient cause. There is not a scintilla of evidence nor indeed there is any averment in compliance with these latter conditions. The necessary consequence follows that not merely is there inadequacy of pleadings sufficient to make out a cause of action but total absence of proof of two vital requirements....</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The Supreme Court also said that:.The statute benignly designed to protect tenants from unreasonable evictions has taken case to put restrictions which must be rigorously construed to fulfil the purpose of the statute.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">19. Following the aforesaid judgment and other pronouncements of the Apex Court, a learned Single Judge of this Court in Tara Chand Sharma v. Baij Nath and Ors. 1992 (2) R.C.J. 323, held as follows:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">16. What appears as the legislative intent, in bold relief, is that the landlord, while seeking eviction of a tenant on the ground that he needs a residential building for his own occupation, must come out clearly and honestly with facts relating to the requirement that he is not occupying another residential building owned by him, in the urban area concerned and that he had not vacated such a building without sufficient cause within five years of the filing of the application, in the said urban area. The primal burden of making a clear disclosure would lie upon the landlord, for, the true facts would be in his special knowledge. An order in his favour by the Rent Controller would depend upon the satisfaction of the Rent Controller in regard not only to the claim that the landlord requires the accommodation, from which he wishes to evict a tenant, for his own occupation but also that he was not occupying another residential building owned by him nor had he vacated such building without sufficient cause within five years of the filing of the application in the application in the urban area concerned....</p><p style="text-align: justify;">It was further held as under:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">18. That the landlord should make a full disclosure of the relevant facts, pertaining to the requirements of Sub-section (3)(a)(i) and the two provisos, becomes all the more necessary because the satisfaction of the Rent Controller in regard thereto is the condition precedent for the making of an order in favour of the landlord....</p><p style="text-align: justify;">20. The aforesaid judgment has been followed in a number of other cases including Vijay Kapoor v. Maya Ram 1997 (2) RCR 437, wherein another learned single Judge of this Court following the aforesaid judgment held that the landlord must make complete and proper disclosure of all the material facts.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">21. On the other hand Sh. Ramakant Sharma has relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in Ram Narain Arora v. Asha Rani 1998(2) RCR 268. In that case the Rent Controller came to the conclusion that the landlord had suppressed material information and had not disclosed the fact that he was already in occupation of a house in Subji Mandi. Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act reads as follows:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Section 14(1)(e). That the premises let for residential purposes are required bona fide by the landlord for occupation as a residence for himself or for any member of his family dependent on him, if he is the owner thereof, or for any person for whose benefit the premises are held and that the landlord or such person has no other reasonably suitable residential accommodation.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">22. The difference between Delhi Act and the present Act is that under the Delhi Act the only requirement is that the landlord has no other reasonably suitable accommodation whereas under the Himachal Act the residential premises are required to be owned by the landlord. The Apex Court in Rama Narain Arora's case (supra) held that the nondisclosure of the fact that the landlord was in occupation of certain premises in Subji Mandi was.not a ground to non-suit the landlord in view of the facts and circumstances of the case. The Apex Court held as follows:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. In making a claim that the suit premises is required bona fide for his own occupation as a residence for himself and other members of his family dependent on him and that he has no other reasonably suitable accommodation is a requirement of law before the Court can state whether the landlord requires the premises bona fide for his use and occupation. In doing so, the Court must also find out whether the landlord or such other person for whose benefit the premises is required has no other reasonably suitable residential accommodation. It cannot be said that the requirement of the landlord is not intermixed with the question of finding out whether he has any other reasonably suitable accommodation. If he has other reasonably suitable accommodation, ihen necessarily it would mean that he does not require the suit premises and his requirement may not be bona fide. In such circumstances further inquiry would be whether that premises is more suitable than the suit premises. Therefore, the questions raised before the Court would not necessarily depend upon only the pleadings. It could be a good defence that the landlord has other reasonably suitable residential accommodation and thereby defend the claim of the landlord.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. There cannot be a pedantic or a dogmatic approach in the matter of analysis of pleadings or of the evidence adduced thereto. It is no doubt true that if the pleadings are clearly set out, it would be easy for the Court to decide the matters. But if the pleadings are lacking or vague and if both parties have understood what was the case pleaded and put forth with reference to requirement of law and placed such material before the Court, neither party is prejudiced. If we analyse from this angle, we do not think that the High Court was not justified in interfering with the order made by the Rent Controller.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">23. From the perusal of the judgment of the Apex Court it is apparent that the Rent Controller must approach the matter in a practical manner. In case the non-disclosure is such as that it goes to the very root of the case the Rent Controller would be justified in non-suiting the landlord. However, if the non-disclosure is such that it would not prejudice the rights of the respondent then the landlord should not be non-suited only on this ground.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">24. The decisions of this Court cited hereinabove were delivered prior to the judgment delivered by the Apex Court in Ram Nar'ain Arora's case. Further more both in Tara Chand Sharma's case and Vijay Kapoor's case decided by this Court, no averment had been made ixi respect of other residential buildings owned by a landlord. There was complete non-disclosure as to whether any such residential building owned by the landlord was in his possession or not. In the present case, as I have held above, the residential premises at 31, The Mall, Shimla was not owned by the landlord and hence these two earlier judgments of this Court are distinguishable on facts also.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">25. In the present case, the landlord has been non-suited only on the ground that he did not disclose the fact that he was in occupation of certain premises on the Mall Road. Under law he was not required to disclose this fact. He was only required to disclose the factum of occupying another residential building owned by him in the urban area concerned. True it may be, that it would have been better if the landlord had disclosed all the facts but non-disclosure of a fact which he was not under law required to disclose could not in my opinion be a ground to dismiss his eviction petition.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">26. However, what are the premises in his occupation even as a tenant can be taken into consideration while deciding the question whether he bona fide requires the demised premises for his personal use or occupation or not.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">27. Lastly comes the question with regard to the bona fide requirement of the landlord. The landlord has no children. According to the landlord as well as his other witnesses i.e. his brother-in-law PW-2 and his wife PW-3, the wife now wants to come back and settle in Shimla. There is no reason to disbelieve their statements. Even according to the evidence led by the tenant the accommodation in possession of the landlord consists of two rooms, kitchen, bath room etc. Admittedly, the landlord is also having his office as an Architect in this building. The landlord belongs to the middle class of the Society. It cannot be expected of a landlord who owns sufficient property to reside in a two room set wherein he also runs his office.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">28. The law by now is well settled that the landlord is the best judge of the suitability of the accommodation required by him. This suitability has however to be judged in the context of reasonable expectations. The landlord and his wife who are both well educated can reasonably be expected to entertain guests and they will have visitors to their house. They would obviously require a drawing room, a bed room and a spare bed room for guests. Even at his residence the landlord may require another room for his professional work. This is the minimum accommodation which they would require. Even if the accommodation possessed by the landlord, though not owned by him, at 31, the Mall, Shimla is taken into consideration such accommodation is not sufficient to meet his requirements since admittedly the landlord is running his profession of Architect from some portion of his these premises.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">29. Keeping in view the entire facts and circumstances, I am of the considered view that the learned Appellate Authority gravely erred in rejecting the eviction petition of the landlord solely on the ground that he had not disclosed the factum of being in possession of the premises at 31, the Mall Shimla. Even though I have held that the said premises are residential premises, in view of the above discussion I hold that the landlord cannot be non-suited only on the ground of his being in possession of such premises since same were not owned by him.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">30. In view of the above discussion, the Revision Petition is allowed, the order of the learned Appellate Authority dated 6.5.2003 is seaside and the order of the Rent Controller dated 22.8.2001 is restored.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">31. Keeping in view the fact that the tenant has been in possession of the premises for a long period he is granted time up to 31st October, 2008 to vacate the premises.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">32. No order as to costs.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '2008(2)ShimLC491',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'Shri S.L. Srivastava',
			'sub' => 'Tenancy',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'shri-arun-bhanwara-vs-s-l-srivastava',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '891084',
		(int) 1 => 'shri-arun-bhanwara-vs-s-l-srivastava'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Shri Arun Bhanwara Vs Shri S L Srivastava - Citation 891084 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '891084',
		'acts' => '',
		'appealno' => '',
		'appellant' => 'Shri Arun Bhanwara',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Shri Arun Bhanwara Vs. Shri S.L. Srivastava',
		'casenote' => ' - CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908.[C.A. No. 5/1908]. Order 14, Rule 2 [As amended by Amending Act of 1976]: [V.K. Gupta, CJ, Deepak Gupta & Surjit Singh, JJ] Preliminary issue of law and fact  Court framing all issues both of law and facts together and also  tried all the issues together, including the issue relating to jurisdiction of Court  Held, Except in situations perceived or warranted under sub-rule (2) of Rule 2 of Order 14 where a  Court in fact frames only issues of law in the first instance and postpones settlement of other issues, clearly and explicitly in situations where the Court has framed all issues together, both of law as well as facts and has also tried all these issues together, it is not open to the Court to adopt the principle of severability and proceed to decide issues of law first, without taking up simultaneously other issues for decision. This course of action is not available to a Court because sub-rule (1) does not permit the  Court to adopt any such principle of severability and to dispose of a suit only on preliminary issues, or what can be termed as issues of law. Sub-rule (1)  clearly mandates that in a situation contemplated under it, where all the issues have been together and have also been taken up for adjudication during the course of the trial, these must be decided together and the judgment in the suit as a whole must be pronounced by the Court covering all the issues framed in the suit.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => 'Ram Narain Arora v. Asha Rani;',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => '',
		'counseldef' => '',
		'court' => 'Himachal Pradesh',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2008-07-31',
		'deposition' => 'Petition allowed',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => ' Deepak Gupta, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>Deepak Gupta, J.</p><p>1. This Revision Petition under Section 25(5) of the H.P. Urban Rent Control Act, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) is directed against the order of the learned Appellate Authority, Shimla in CMA No. 60-S/14 of 2001 whereby the appeal filed by the respondent (hereinafter referred to as the tenant) has been allowed, the order of the Rent Controller has been set-aside and the petition for eviction filed by the present petitioner (hereinafter referred to as the Landlord) on the ground of personal bona fide requirement has been set-aside.</p><p>2. The undisputed facts are that the landlord is owner of the demised premises situated in building known as Tunnel View, Sanjauli, Shimla-6 consisting of two bed rooms with attached bath room and latrine, drawing-cum-dining room, kitchen and balcony. These premises were purchased by the landlord in the year 1986. Thereafter, the landlord had rented out the premises to one Sh. B.K. Chauhan. According to the landlord, when he got married he requested Sh. B.K. Chauhan to vacate the said premises. Sh. Chauhan vacated the said premises but admittedly the landlord did not occupy the same but rented out the same to the tenant in the year 1990.</p><p>3. In the year 1997 the landlord filed a petition for eviction of the tenant on two grounds; firstly that the tenant is in arrears of rent from 1.11.1990 to 31.7.1997 and secondly that the premises are bona fide required by the landlord for the use and occupation of himself and his family.</p><p>4. This petition was contested by the tenant. After trial, the Rent Controller ordered the eviction of the tenant on two grounds; (i) that the tenant was in arrears of rent from November, 1999 till date of order i.e. 22nd August, 2001 and (ii) that the landlord required the premises for his own use and occupation.</p><p>5. The tenant deposited the rent within the time prescribed. He also filed an appeal challenging the finding on the issue of bona fide requirement. The learned Appellate Authority came to the conclusion that the landlord had not made a proper and full disclosure of facts as required under the provisions of the Act and had withheld material facts from the Court viz. that the landlord was in occupation of residential premises on 31, Mall Road in the urban area of Shimla and as such rejected this petition on this short ground.</p><p>6. Aggrieved by the said order, the landlord has filed the present Revision Petition.</p><p>7. I have heard Sh. Ramakant Sharma, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sh. Bhupinder Gupta, learned senior Counsel for the tenant.</p><p>8. It has been urged on behalf of the landlord that the building which is alleged to be in possession of the landlord i.e. 31, the Mall Shimla is not a residential building and secondly that the building is not owned by him.</p><p>9. On the other hand Sh. Bhupinder Gupta, learned Counsel of the tenant has strenuously urged that the landlord in para 18 has not stated anything about any building being owned by him and has only made an averment that he does not own or possess any other such building within the urban area Shimla. It is contended by Sh. Bhupinder Gupta that the landlord of his own volition did not state anything about the ownership of the building and since he has kept silent about the building which he is in occupation he has made a false averment and therefore his petition for eviction has rightly been rejected.</p><p>10. I am not at all in agreement with the contention of the landlord that the premises known as 31, the Mall Shimla which are admittedly in the occupation of the landlord are commercial premises only and not being used by him for his residence. As pointed out above, the landlord purchased the demised premises in 1986. They fell vacant when he got married despite that he did not occupy the same and rented out the same to the tenant in the year 1990. The question that arises is where was the landlord living for this entire period. According to the landlord after the year 1994 he has been living with his brother-in-law Rajan (wife's brother) PW-2, since the year 1994. Prior to 1994 the landlord will have this Court to believe that he was living off and on with one friend or the other. This story is impossible to believe. The landlord was married in the year 1999. He is an Architect by profession. His wife is a law graduate. It is not believable that such a person would have no permanent abode and would continue to live as a guest with his friends for almost 5 years after his marriage. Even the story that he has been living with his brother-in-law after the year 1994 does not inspire confidence. It stands proved on record that the brother-in-law PW-2 Rajan lives with his own family i.e. wife and children. From the evidence it is also clear that the parents of the brother-in-law also reside with him, His flat consists of only two rooms. The flat in possession of the landlord at 31, the Mall Shimla, also consists of two rooms, kitchen and bath room. Even assuming that he was running an office in the part of the flat it cannot be believed that he would not live on his own flat on the Mall Road and reside with his brother-in-law in cramped premises. Even in the electoral list the landlord is shown to be a resident of 31, The Mall, Shimla. Therefore, I am of the considered view that the building 31, the Mall, Shimla was also being used as a residence by the landlord.</p><p>11. Having held so, the question that arises is whether the landlord can be non-suited only on the ground that he has not made any disclosure about the residential accommodation available with him which premises were admittedly not owned by him.</p><p>12. The short question which arises for decision in this petition is whether the landlord was guilty of suppressing and withholding such relevant facts which would disentitle him from seeking eviction of the tenant. To appreciate these contentions it would be necessary to refer to relevant portion of Section 14(3) of the Act:</p><p>Section 14:</p><p>1 and 2 xxxxxxxxxxx</p><p>(3) A landlord may apply to the Controller for an order directing the tenant to put the landlord in possession-</p><p>(a) in case of residential building, if</p><p>(i) he required it for his own occupation:</p><p>Provided that he is not occupying another residential building owned by him, in the urban area concerned:</p><p>Provided further that he has not vacated such a building without sufficient cause within five years of the filing of the application, in the said urban area....</p><p>13. A perusal of the bare provisions of the Act makes it clear that there are certain essential ingredients which the landlord must satisfy before seeking eviction of the tenant under the Act. Not only must he prove that the residential building is bona fide required by him for his own use and occupation but he must also plead and prove that he is not occupying any other residential building owned by him in the urban area concerned and further that he has not vacated such a building without sufficient cause within 5 years of the filing of the application.</p><p>14. Reference may now be made to the relevant allegations made in para 18 of the eviction petition:</p><p>(ii) That the petitioner bona fide requires the premises for his own use and occupation and also for the use and occupation of his family.</p><p>The petitioner does not own or possess any other such building within the urban area of Simla nor the petitioner has vacated any such premises within five years of the filing of this petition.</p><p>The family of the petitioner presently consists of himself and his wife. Due to paucity of accommodation the petitioner has not been able to keep his wife with himself at Simla, where he is working as an Engineer and she has been residing at Chandigarh since 1991 but on account of her ill health she has been brought to Simla by the petitioner. The petitioner at present is seeking temporary shelter, from time to time, with his relations.</p><p>15. The learned Appellate Authority came to the conclusion that the landlord had falsely pleaded that he does not own or possess any other such building within the urban area of Shimla and hence rejected the eviction petition on this ground.</p><p>16. On a close analysis of the proviso to Section 14(3)(a)(i) of the Act it is clear that a landlord is not entitled to seek eviction of a tenant from residential building even in case of bona fide requirement if the landlord is occupying another residential building owned by him in the urban area concerned. One can read three essential ingredients in this proviso i.e. (i) that the landlord is in occupation of another residential building; (ii) that the said residential building is owned by him and (iii) that the said residential building is situated in the concerned urban area.</p><p>17. The question that arises is what is the impact of the landlord not making a disclosure in respect of premises which he is occupying but are not owned by him.</p><p>18. The Apex Court in Onkar Nath v. Ved Vyas ILR 1979 HP 1, held as follows:</p><p>It is common ground that there are three requirements to make out a cause of action for eviction under that provision, and indeed this is apparent from a bare reading of the sub-section. In the present case the finding is to the effect that the landlord requires the residential building for his own occupation. But, the legislation has taken care to insist upon two more conditions, namely; (a) that the landlord is not occupying any other residential building in the area concerned; and (b) that he has not vacated such a building without sufficient cause. There is not a scintilla of evidence nor indeed there is any averment in compliance with these latter conditions. The necessary consequence follows that not merely is there inadequacy of pleadings sufficient to make out a cause of action but total absence of proof of two vital requirements....</p><p>The Supreme Court also said that:.The statute benignly designed to protect tenants from unreasonable evictions has taken case to put restrictions which must be rigorously construed to fulfil the purpose of the statute.</p><p>19. Following the aforesaid judgment and other pronouncements of the Apex Court, a learned Single Judge of this Court in Tara Chand Sharma v. Baij Nath and Ors. 1992 (2) R.C.J. 323, held as follows:</p><p>16. What appears as the legislative intent, in bold relief, is that the landlord, while seeking eviction of a tenant on the ground that he needs a residential building for his own occupation, must come out clearly and honestly with facts relating to the requirement that he is not occupying another residential building owned by him, in the urban area concerned and that he had not vacated such a building without sufficient cause within five years of the filing of the application, in the said urban area. The primal burden of making a clear disclosure would lie upon the landlord, for, the true facts would be in his special knowledge. An order in his favour by the Rent Controller would depend upon the satisfaction of the Rent Controller in regard not only to the claim that the landlord requires the accommodation, from which he wishes to evict a tenant, for his own occupation but also that he was not occupying another residential building owned by him nor had he vacated such building without sufficient cause within five years of the filing of the application in the application in the urban area concerned....</p><p>It was further held as under:</p><p>18. That the landlord should make a full disclosure of the relevant facts, pertaining to the requirements of Sub-section (3)(a)(i) and the two provisos, becomes all the more necessary because the satisfaction of the Rent Controller in regard thereto is the condition precedent for the making of an order in favour of the landlord....</p><p>20. The aforesaid judgment has been followed in a number of other cases including Vijay Kapoor v. Maya Ram 1997 (2) RCR 437, wherein another learned single Judge of this Court following the aforesaid judgment held that the landlord must make complete and proper disclosure of all the material facts.</p><p>21. On the other hand Sh. Ramakant Sharma has relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in Ram Narain Arora v. Asha Rani 1998(2) RCR 268. In that case the Rent Controller came to the conclusion that the landlord had suppressed material information and had not disclosed the fact that he was already in occupation of a house in Subji Mandi. Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act reads as follows:</p><p>Section 14(1)(e). That the premises let for residential purposes are required bona fide by the landlord for occupation as a residence for himself or for any member of his family dependent on him, if he is the owner thereof, or for any person for whose benefit the premises are held and that the landlord or such person has no other reasonably suitable residential accommodation.</p><p>22. The difference between Delhi Act and the present Act is that under the Delhi Act the only requirement is that the landlord has no other reasonably suitable accommodation whereas under the Himachal Act the residential premises are required to be owned by the landlord. The Apex Court in Rama Narain Arora's case (supra) held that the nondisclosure of the fact that the landlord was in occupation of certain premises in Subji Mandi was.not a ground to non-suit the landlord in view of the facts and circumstances of the case. The Apex Court held as follows:</p><p>9. In making a claim that the suit premises is required bona fide for his own occupation as a residence for himself and other members of his family dependent on him and that he has no other reasonably suitable accommodation is a requirement of law before the Court can state whether the landlord requires the premises bona fide for his use and occupation. In doing so, the Court must also find out whether the landlord or such other person for whose benefit the premises is required has no other reasonably suitable residential accommodation. It cannot be said that the requirement of the landlord is not intermixed with the question of finding out whether he has any other reasonably suitable accommodation. If he has other reasonably suitable accommodation, ihen necessarily it would mean that he does not require the suit premises and his requirement may not be bona fide. In such circumstances further inquiry would be whether that premises is more suitable than the suit premises. Therefore, the questions raised before the Court would not necessarily depend upon only the pleadings. It could be a good defence that the landlord has other reasonably suitable residential accommodation and thereby defend the claim of the landlord.</p><p>10. There cannot be a pedantic or a dogmatic approach in the matter of analysis of pleadings or of the evidence adduced thereto. It is no doubt true that if the pleadings are clearly set out, it would be easy for the Court to decide the matters. But if the pleadings are lacking or vague and if both parties have understood what was the case pleaded and put forth with reference to requirement of law and placed such material before the Court, neither party is prejudiced. If we analyse from this angle, we do not think that the High Court was not justified in interfering with the order made by the Rent Controller.</p><p>23. From the perusal of the judgment of the Apex Court it is apparent that the Rent Controller must approach the matter in a practical manner. In case the non-disclosure is such as that it goes to the very root of the case the Rent Controller would be justified in non-suiting the landlord. However, if the non-disclosure is such that it would not prejudice the rights of the respondent then the landlord should not be non-suited only on this ground.</p><p>24. The decisions of this Court cited hereinabove were delivered prior to the judgment delivered by the Apex Court in Ram Nar'ain Arora's case. Further more both in Tara Chand Sharma's case and Vijay Kapoor's case decided by this Court, no averment had been made ixi respect of other residential buildings owned by a landlord. There was complete non-disclosure as to whether any such residential building owned by the landlord was in his possession or not. In the present case, as I have held above, the residential premises at 31, The Mall, Shimla was not owned by the landlord and hence these two earlier judgments of this Court are distinguishable on facts also.</p><p>25. In the present case, the landlord has been non-suited only on the ground that he did not disclose the fact that he was in occupation of certain premises on the Mall Road. Under law he was not required to disclose this fact. He was only required to disclose the factum of occupying another residential building owned by him in the urban area concerned. True it may be, that it would have been better if the landlord had disclosed all the facts but non-disclosure of a fact which he was not under law required to disclose could not in my opinion be a ground to dismiss his eviction petition.</p><p>26. However, what are the premises in his occupation even as a tenant can be taken into consideration while deciding the question whether he bona fide requires the demised premises for his personal use or occupation or not.</p><p>27. Lastly comes the question with regard to the bona fide requirement of the landlord. The landlord has no children. According to the landlord as well as his other witnesses i.e. his brother-in-law PW-2 and his wife PW-3, the wife now wants to come back and settle in Shimla. There is no reason to disbelieve their statements. Even according to the evidence led by the tenant the accommodation in possession of the landlord consists of two rooms, kitchen, bath room etc. Admittedly, the landlord is also having his office as an Architect in this building. The landlord belongs to the middle class of the Society. It cannot be expected of a landlord who owns sufficient property to reside in a two room set wherein he also runs his office.</p><p>28. The law by now is well settled that the landlord is the best judge of the suitability of the accommodation required by him. This suitability has however to be judged in the context of reasonable expectations. The landlord and his wife who are both well educated can reasonably be expected to entertain guests and they will have visitors to their house. They would obviously require a drawing room, a bed room and a spare bed room for guests. Even at his residence the landlord may require another room for his professional work. This is the minimum accommodation which they would require. Even if the accommodation possessed by the landlord, though not owned by him, at 31, the Mall, Shimla is taken into consideration such accommodation is not sufficient to meet his requirements since admittedly the landlord is running his profession of Architect from some portion of his these premises.</p><p>29. Keeping in view the entire facts and circumstances, I am of the considered view that the learned Appellate Authority gravely erred in rejecting the eviction petition of the landlord solely on the ground that he had not disclosed the factum of being in possession of the premises at 31, the Mall Shimla. Even though I have held that the said premises are residential premises, in view of the above discussion I hold that the landlord cannot be non-suited only on the ground of his being in possession of such premises since same were not owned by him.</p><p>30. In view of the above discussion, the Revision Petition is allowed, the order of the learned Appellate Authority dated 6.5.2003 is seaside and the order of the Rent Controller dated 22.8.2001 is restored.</p><p>31. Keeping in view the fact that the tenant has been in possession of the premises for a long period he is granted time up to 31st October, 2008 to vacate the premises.</p><p>32. No order as to costs.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '2008(2)ShimLC491',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'Shri S.L. Srivastava',
		'sub' => 'Tenancy',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'shri-arun-bhanwara-vs-s-l-srivastava'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '891084',
	(int) 1 => 'shri-arun-bhanwara-vs-s-l-srivastava'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/891084/shri-arun-bhanwara-vs-s-l-srivastava'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$caseref = 'Ram Narain Arora v. Asha Rani<br>'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>Deepak Gupta, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. This Revision Petition under Section 25(5) of the H.P. Urban Rent Control Act, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) is directed against the order of the learned Appellate Authority, Shimla in CMA No. 60-S/14 of 2001 whereby the appeal filed by the respondent (hereinafter referred to as the tenant) has been allowed, the order of the Rent Controller has been set-aside and the petition for eviction filed by the present petitioner (hereinafter referred to as the Landlord) on the ground of personal bona fide requirement has been set-aside.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. The undisputed facts are that the landlord is owner of the demised premises situated in building known as Tunnel View, Sanjauli, Shimla-6 consisting of two bed rooms with attached bath room and latrine, drawing-cum-dining room, kitchen and balcony. These premises were purchased by the landlord in the year 1986. Thereafter, the landlord had rented out the premises to one Sh. B.K. Chauhan. According to the landlord, when he got married he requested Sh. B.K. Chauhan to vacate the said premises. Sh. Chauhan vacated the said premises but admittedly the landlord did not occupy the same but rented out the same to the tenant in the year 1990.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. In the year 1997 the landlord filed a petition for eviction of the tenant on two grounds; firstly that the tenant is in arrears of rent from 1.11.1990 to 31.7.1997 and secondly that the premises are bona fide required by the landlord for the use and occupation of himself and his family.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>4. This petition was contested by the tenant. After trial, the Rent Controller ordered the eviction of the tenant on two grounds; (i) that the tenant was in arrears of rent from November, 1999 till date of order i.e. 22nd August, 2001 and (ii) that the landlord required the premises for his own use and occupation.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>5. The tenant deposited the rent within the time prescribed. He also filed an appeal challenging the finding on the issue of bona fide requirement. The learned Appellate Authority came to the conclusion that the landlord had not made a proper and full disclosure of facts as required under the provisions of the Act and had withheld material facts from the Court viz. that the landlord was in occupation of residential premises on 31, Mall Road in the urban area of Shimla and as such rejected this petition on this short ground.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>6. Aggrieved by the said order, the landlord has filed the present Revision Petition.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>7. I have heard Sh. Ramakant Sharma, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sh. Bhupinder Gupta, learned senior Counsel for the tenant.',
	(int) 8 => '<p>8. It has been urged on behalf of the landlord that the building which is alleged to be in possession of the landlord i.e. 31, the Mall Shimla is not a residential building and secondly that the building is not owned by him.',
	(int) 9 => '<p>9. On the other hand Sh. Bhupinder Gupta, learned Counsel of the tenant has strenuously urged that the landlord in para 18 has not stated anything about any building being owned by him and has only made an averment that he does not own or possess any other such building within the urban area Shimla. It is contended by Sh. Bhupinder Gupta that the landlord of his own volition did not state anything about the ownership of the building and since he has kept silent about the building which he is in occupation he has made a false averment and therefore his petition for eviction has rightly been rejected.',
	(int) 10 => '<p>10. I am not at all in agreement with the contention of the landlord that the premises known as 31, the Mall Shimla which are admittedly in the occupation of the landlord are commercial premises only and not being used by him for his residence. As pointed out above, the landlord purchased the demised premises in 1986. They fell vacant when he got married despite that he did not occupy the same and rented out the same to the tenant in the year 1990. The question that arises is where was the landlord living for this entire period. According to the landlord after the year 1994 he has been living with his brother-in-law Rajan (wife's brother) PW-2, since the year 1994. Prior to 1994 the landlord will have this Court to believe that he was living off and on with one friend or the other. This story is impossible to believe. The landlord was married in the year 1999. He is an Architect by profession. His wife is a law graduate. It is not believable that such a person would have no permanent abode and would continue to live as a guest with his friends for almost 5 years after his marriage. Even the story that he has been living with his brother-in-law after the year 1994 does not inspire confidence. It stands proved on record that the brother-in-law PW-2 Rajan lives with his own family i.e. wife and children. From the evidence it is also clear that the parents of the brother-in-law also reside with him, His flat consists of only two rooms. The flat in possession of the landlord at 31, the Mall Shimla, also consists of two rooms, kitchen and bath room. Even assuming that he was running an office in the part of the flat it cannot be believed that he would not live on his own flat on the Mall Road and reside with his brother-in-law in cramped premises. Even in the electoral list the landlord is shown to be a resident of 31, The Mall, Shimla. Therefore, I am of the considered view that the building 31, the Mall, Shimla was also being used as a residence by the landlord.',
	(int) 11 => '<p>11. Having held so, the question that arises is whether the landlord can be non-suited only on the ground that he has not made any disclosure about the residential accommodation available with him which premises were admittedly not owned by him.',
	(int) 12 => '<p>12. The short question which arises for decision in this petition is whether the landlord was guilty of suppressing and withholding such relevant facts which would disentitle him from seeking eviction of the tenant. To appreciate these contentions it would be necessary to refer to relevant portion of Section 14(3) of the Act:',
	(int) 13 => '<p>Section 14:',
	(int) 14 => '<p>1 and 2 xxxxxxxxxxx',
	(int) 15 => '<p>(3) A landlord may apply to the Controller for an order directing the tenant to put the landlord in possession-',
	(int) 16 => '<p>(a) in case of residential building, if',
	(int) 17 => '<p>(i) he required it for his own occupation:',
	(int) 18 => '<p>Provided that he is not occupying another residential building owned by him, in the urban area concerned:',
	(int) 19 => '<p>Provided further that he has not vacated such a building without sufficient cause within five years of the filing of the application, in the said urban area....',
	(int) 20 => '<p>13. A perusal of the bare provisions of the Act makes it clear that there are certain essential ingredients which the landlord must satisfy before seeking eviction of the tenant under the Act. Not only must he prove that the residential building is bona fide required by him for his own use and occupation but he must also plead and prove that he is not occupying any other residential building owned by him in the urban area concerned and further that he has not vacated such a building without sufficient cause within 5 years of the filing of the application.',
	(int) 21 => '<p>14. Reference may now be made to the relevant allegations made in para 18 of the eviction petition:',
	(int) 22 => '<p>(ii) That the petitioner bona fide requires the premises for his own use and occupation and also for the use and occupation of his family.',
	(int) 23 => '<p>The petitioner does not own or possess any other such building within the urban area of Simla nor the petitioner has vacated any such premises within five years of the filing of this petition.',
	(int) 24 => '<p>The family of the petitioner presently consists of himself and his wife. Due to paucity of accommodation the petitioner has not been able to keep his wife with himself at Simla, where he is working as an Engineer and she has been residing at Chandigarh since 1991 but on account of her ill health she has been brought to Simla by the petitioner. The petitioner at present is seeking temporary shelter, from time to time, with his relations.',
	(int) 25 => '<p>15. The learned Appellate Authority came to the conclusion that the landlord had falsely pleaded that he does not own or possess any other such building within the urban area of Shimla and hence rejected the eviction petition on this ground.',
	(int) 26 => '<p>16. On a close analysis of the proviso to Section 14(3)(a)(i) of the Act it is clear that a landlord is not entitled to seek eviction of a tenant from residential building even in case of bona fide requirement if the landlord is occupying another residential building owned by him in the urban area concerned. One can read three essential ingredients in this proviso i.e. (i) that the landlord is in occupation of another residential building; (ii) that the said residential building is owned by him and (iii) that the said residential building is situated in the concerned urban area.',
	(int) 27 => '<p>17. The question that arises is what is the impact of the landlord not making a disclosure in respect of premises which he is occupying but are not owned by him.',
	(int) 28 => '<p>18. The Apex Court in Onkar Nath v. Ved Vyas ILR 1979 HP 1, held as follows:',
	(int) 29 => '<p>It is common ground that there are three requirements to make out a cause of action for eviction under that provision, and indeed this is apparent from a bare reading of the sub-section. In the present case the finding is to the effect that the landlord requires the residential building for his own occupation. But, the legislation has taken care to insist upon two more conditions, namely; (a) that the landlord is not occupying any other residential building in the area concerned; and (b) that he has not vacated such a building without sufficient cause. There is not a scintilla of evidence nor indeed there is any averment in compliance with these latter conditions. The necessary consequence follows that not merely is there inadequacy of pleadings sufficient to make out a cause of action but total absence of proof of two vital requirements....',
	(int) 30 => '<p>The Supreme Court also said that:.The statute benignly designed to protect tenants from unreasonable evictions has taken case to put restrictions which must be rigorously construed to fulfil the purpose of the statute.',
	(int) 31 => '<p>19. Following the aforesaid judgment and other pronouncements of the Apex Court, a learned Single Judge of this Court in Tara Chand Sharma v. Baij Nath and Ors. 1992 (2) R.C.J. 323, held as follows:',
	(int) 32 => '<p>16. What appears as the legislative intent, in bold relief, is that the landlord, while seeking eviction of a tenant on the ground that he needs a residential building for his own occupation, must come out clearly and honestly with facts relating to the requirement that he is not occupying another residential building owned by him, in the urban area concerned and that he had not vacated such a building without sufficient cause within five years of the filing of the application, in the said urban area. The primal burden of making a clear disclosure would lie upon the landlord, for, the true facts would be in his special knowledge. An order in his favour by the Rent Controller would depend upon the satisfaction of the Rent Controller in regard not only to the claim that the landlord requires the accommodation, from which he wishes to evict a tenant, for his own occupation but also that he was not occupying another residential building owned by him nor had he vacated such building without sufficient cause within five years of the filing of the application in the application in the urban area concerned....',
	(int) 33 => '<p>It was further held as under:',
	(int) 34 => '<p>18. That the landlord should make a full disclosure of the relevant facts, pertaining to the requirements of Sub-section (3)(a)(i) and the two provisos, becomes all the more necessary because the satisfaction of the Rent Controller in regard thereto is the condition precedent for the making of an order in favour of the landlord....',
	(int) 35 => '<p>20. The aforesaid judgment has been followed in a number of other cases including Vijay Kapoor v. Maya Ram 1997 (2) RCR 437, wherein another learned single Judge of this Court following the aforesaid judgment held that the landlord must make complete and proper disclosure of all the material facts.',
	(int) 36 => '<p>21. On the other hand Sh. Ramakant Sharma has relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in Ram Narain Arora v. Asha Rani 1998(2) RCR 268. In that case the Rent Controller came to the conclusion that the landlord had suppressed material information and had not disclosed the fact that he was already in occupation of a house in Subji Mandi. Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act reads as follows:',
	(int) 37 => '<p>Section 14(1)(e). That the premises let for residential purposes are required bona fide by the landlord for occupation as a residence for himself or for any member of his family dependent on him, if he is the owner thereof, or for any person for whose benefit the premises are held and that the landlord or such person has no other reasonably suitable residential accommodation.',
	(int) 38 => '<p>22. The difference between Delhi Act and the present Act is that under the Delhi Act the only requirement is that the landlord has no other reasonably suitable accommodation whereas under the Himachal Act the residential premises are required to be owned by the landlord. The Apex Court in Rama Narain Arora's case (supra) held that the nondisclosure of the fact that the landlord was in occupation of certain premises in Subji Mandi was.not a ground to non-suit the landlord in view of the facts and circumstances of the case. The Apex Court held as follows:',
	(int) 39 => '<p>9. In making a claim that the suit premises is required bona fide for his own occupation as a residence for himself and other members of his family dependent on him and that he has no other reasonably suitable accommodation is a requirement of law before the Court can state whether the landlord requires the premises bona fide for his use and occupation. In doing so, the Court must also find out whether the landlord or such other person for whose benefit the premises is required has no other reasonably suitable residential accommodation. It cannot be said that the requirement of the landlord is not intermixed with the question of finding out whether he has any other reasonably suitable accommodation. If he has other reasonably suitable accommodation, ihen necessarily it would mean that he does not require the suit premises and his requirement may not be bona fide. In such circumstances further inquiry would be whether that premises is more suitable than the suit premises. Therefore, the questions raised before the Court would not necessarily depend upon only the pleadings. It could be a good defence that the landlord has other reasonably suitable residential accommodation and thereby defend the claim of the landlord.',
	(int) 40 => '<p>10. There cannot be a pedantic or a dogmatic approach in the matter of analysis of pleadings or of the evidence adduced thereto. It is no doubt true that if the pleadings are clearly set out, it would be easy for the Court to decide the matters. But if the pleadings are lacking or vague and if both parties have understood what was the case pleaded and put forth with reference to requirement of law and placed such material before the Court, neither party is prejudiced. If we analyse from this angle, we do not think that the High Court was not justified in interfering with the order made by the Rent Controller.',
	(int) 41 => '<p>23. From the perusal of the judgment of the Apex Court it is apparent that the Rent Controller must approach the matter in a practical manner. In case the non-disclosure is such as that it goes to the very root of the case the Rent Controller would be justified in non-suiting the landlord. However, if the non-disclosure is such that it would not prejudice the rights of the respondent then the landlord should not be non-suited only on this ground.',
	(int) 42 => '<p>24. The decisions of this Court cited hereinabove were delivered prior to the judgment delivered by the Apex Court in Ram Nar'ain Arora's case. Further more both in Tara Chand Sharma's case and Vijay Kapoor's case decided by this Court, no averment had been made ixi respect of other residential buildings owned by a landlord. There was complete non-disclosure as to whether any such residential building owned by the landlord was in his possession or not. In the present case, as I have held above, the residential premises at 31, The Mall, Shimla was not owned by the landlord and hence these two earlier judgments of this Court are distinguishable on facts also.',
	(int) 43 => '<p>25. In the present case, the landlord has been non-suited only on the ground that he did not disclose the fact that he was in occupation of certain premises on the Mall Road. Under law he was not required to disclose this fact. He was only required to disclose the factum of occupying another residential building owned by him in the urban area concerned. True it may be, that it would have been better if the landlord had disclosed all the facts but non-disclosure of a fact which he was not under law required to disclose could not in my opinion be a ground to dismiss his eviction petition.',
	(int) 44 => '<p>26. However, what are the premises in his occupation even as a tenant can be taken into consideration while deciding the question whether he bona fide requires the demised premises for his personal use or occupation or not.',
	(int) 45 => '<p>27. Lastly comes the question with regard to the bona fide requirement of the landlord. The landlord has no children. According to the landlord as well as his other witnesses i.e. his brother-in-law PW-2 and his wife PW-3, the wife now wants to come back and settle in Shimla. There is no reason to disbelieve their statements. Even according to the evidence led by the tenant the accommodation in possession of the landlord consists of two rooms, kitchen, bath room etc. Admittedly, the landlord is also having his office as an Architect in this building. The landlord belongs to the middle class of the Society. It cannot be expected of a landlord who owns sufficient property to reside in a two room set wherein he also runs his office.',
	(int) 46 => '<p>28. The law by now is well settled that the landlord is the best judge of the suitability of the accommodation required by him. This suitability has however to be judged in the context of reasonable expectations. The landlord and his wife who are both well educated can reasonably be expected to entertain guests and they will have visitors to their house. They would obviously require a drawing room, a bed room and a spare bed room for guests. Even at his residence the landlord may require another room for his professional work. This is the minimum accommodation which they would require. Even if the accommodation possessed by the landlord, though not owned by him, at 31, the Mall, Shimla is taken into consideration such accommodation is not sufficient to meet his requirements since admittedly the landlord is running his profession of Architect from some portion of his these premises.',
	(int) 47 => '<p>29. Keeping in view the entire facts and circumstances, I am of the considered view that the learned Appellate Authority gravely erred in rejecting the eviction petition of the landlord solely on the ground that he had not disclosed the factum of being in possession of the premises at 31, the Mall Shimla. Even though I have held that the said premises are residential premises, in view of the above discussion I hold that the landlord cannot be non-suited only on the ground of his being in possession of such premises since same were not owned by him.',
	(int) 48 => '<p>30. In view of the above discussion, the Revision Petition is allowed, the order of the learned Appellate Authority dated 6.5.2003 is seaside and the order of the Rent Controller dated 22.8.2001 is restored.',
	(int) 49 => '<p>31. Keeping in view the fact that the tenant has been in possession of the premises for a long period he is granted time up to 31st October, 2008 to vacate the premises.',
	(int) 50 => '<p>32. No order as to costs.<p>',
	(int) 51 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 52
$i = (int) 37
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

Section 14(1)(e). That the premises let for residential purposes are required bona fide by the landlord for occupation as a residence for himself or for any member of his family dependent on him, if he is the owner thereof, or for any person for whose benefit the premises are held and that the landlord or such person has no other reasonably suitable residential accommodation.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Shri Arun Bhanwara Vs Shri S L Srivastava - Citation 891084 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '891084',
			'acts' => '',
			'appealno' => '',
			'appellant' => 'Shri Arun Bhanwara',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Shri Arun Bhanwara Vs. Shri S.L. Srivastava',
			'casenote' => ' - CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908.[C.A. No. 5/1908]. Order 14, Rule 2 [As amended by Amending Act of 1976]: [V.K. Gupta, CJ, Deepak Gupta & Surjit Singh, JJ] Preliminary issue of law and fact  Court framing all issues both of law and facts together and also  tried all the issues together, including the issue relating to jurisdiction of Court  Held, Except in situations perceived or warranted under sub-rule (2) of Rule 2 of Order 14 where a  Court in fact frames only issues of law in the first instance and postpones settlement of other issues, clearly and explicitly in situations where the Court has framed all issues together, both of law as well as facts and has also tried all these issues together, it is not open to the Court to adopt the principle of severability and proceed to decide issues of law first, without taking up simultaneously other issues for decision. This course of action is not available to a Court because sub-rule (1) does not permit the  Court to adopt any such principle of severability and to dispose of a suit only on preliminary issues, or what can be termed as issues of law. Sub-rule (1)  clearly mandates that in a situation contemplated under it, where all the issues have been together and have also been taken up for adjudication during the course of the trial, these must be decided together and the judgment in the suit as a whole must be pronounced by the Court covering all the issues framed in the suit.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => 'Ram Narain Arora v. Asha Rani;',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => '',
			'counseldef' => '',
			'court' => 'Himachal Pradesh',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2008-07-31',
			'deposition' => 'Petition allowed',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => ' Deepak Gupta, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">Deepak Gupta, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. This Revision Petition under Section 25(5) of the H.P. Urban Rent Control Act, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) is directed against the order of the learned Appellate Authority, Shimla in CMA No. 60-S/14 of 2001 whereby the appeal filed by the respondent (hereinafter referred to as the tenant) has been allowed, the order of the Rent Controller has been set-aside and the petition for eviction filed by the present petitioner (hereinafter referred to as the Landlord) on the ground of personal bona fide requirement has been set-aside.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The undisputed facts are that the landlord is owner of the demised premises situated in building known as Tunnel View, Sanjauli, Shimla-6 consisting of two bed rooms with attached bath room and latrine, drawing-cum-dining room, kitchen and balcony. These premises were purchased by the landlord in the year 1986. Thereafter, the landlord had rented out the premises to one Sh. B.K. Chauhan. According to the landlord, when he got married he requested Sh. B.K. Chauhan to vacate the said premises. Sh. Chauhan vacated the said premises but admittedly the landlord did not occupy the same but rented out the same to the tenant in the year 1990.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. In the year 1997 the landlord filed a petition for eviction of the tenant on two grounds; firstly that the tenant is in arrears of rent from 1.11.1990 to 31.7.1997 and secondly that the premises are bona fide required by the landlord for the use and occupation of himself and his family.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. This petition was contested by the tenant. After trial, the Rent Controller ordered the eviction of the tenant on two grounds; (i) that the tenant was in arrears of rent from November, 1999 till date of order i.e. 22nd August, 2001 and (ii) that the landlord required the premises for his own use and occupation.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. The tenant deposited the rent within the time prescribed. He also filed an appeal challenging the finding on the issue of bona fide requirement. The learned Appellate Authority came to the conclusion that the landlord had not made a proper and full disclosure of facts as required under the provisions of the Act and had withheld material facts from the Court viz. that the landlord was in occupation of residential premises on 31, Mall Road in the urban area of Shimla and as such rejected this petition on this short ground.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. Aggrieved by the said order, the landlord has filed the present Revision Petition.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. I have heard Sh. Ramakant Sharma, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sh. Bhupinder Gupta, learned senior Counsel for the tenant.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. It has been urged on behalf of the landlord that the building which is alleged to be in possession of the landlord i.e. 31, the Mall Shimla is not a residential building and secondly that the building is not owned by him.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. On the other hand Sh. Bhupinder Gupta, learned Counsel of the tenant has strenuously urged that the landlord in para 18 has not stated anything about any building being owned by him and has only made an averment that he does not own or possess any other such building within the urban area Shimla. It is contended by Sh. Bhupinder Gupta that the landlord of his own volition did not state anything about the ownership of the building and since he has kept silent about the building which he is in occupation he has made a false averment and therefore his petition for eviction has rightly been rejected.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. I am not at all in agreement with the contention of the landlord that the premises known as 31, the Mall Shimla which are admittedly in the occupation of the landlord are commercial premises only and not being used by him for his residence. As pointed out above, the landlord purchased the demised premises in 1986. They fell vacant when he got married despite that he did not occupy the same and rented out the same to the tenant in the year 1990. The question that arises is where was the landlord living for this entire period. According to the landlord after the year 1994 he has been living with his brother-in-law Rajan (wife's brother) PW-2, since the year 1994. Prior to 1994 the landlord will have this Court to believe that he was living off and on with one friend or the other. This story is impossible to believe. The landlord was married in the year 1999. He is an Architect by profession. His wife is a law graduate. It is not believable that such a person would have no permanent abode and would continue to live as a guest with his friends for almost 5 years after his marriage. Even the story that he has been living with his brother-in-law after the year 1994 does not inspire confidence. It stands proved on record that the brother-in-law PW-2 Rajan lives with his own family i.e. wife and children. From the evidence it is also clear that the parents of the brother-in-law also reside with him, His flat consists of only two rooms. The flat in possession of the landlord at 31, the Mall Shimla, also consists of two rooms, kitchen and bath room. Even assuming that he was running an office in the part of the flat it cannot be believed that he would not live on his own flat on the Mall Road and reside with his brother-in-law in cramped premises. Even in the electoral list the landlord is shown to be a resident of 31, The Mall, Shimla. Therefore, I am of the considered view that the building 31, the Mall, Shimla was also being used as a residence by the landlord.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. Having held so, the question that arises is whether the landlord can be non-suited only on the ground that he has not made any disclosure about the residential accommodation available with him which premises were admittedly not owned by him.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. The short question which arises for decision in this petition is whether the landlord was guilty of suppressing and withholding such relevant facts which would disentitle him from seeking eviction of the tenant. To appreciate these contentions it would be necessary to refer to relevant portion of Section 14(3) of the Act:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Section 14:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1 and 2 xxxxxxxxxxx</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(3) A landlord may apply to the Controller for an order directing the tenant to put the landlord in possession-</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(a) in case of residential building, if</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(i) he required it for his own occupation:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Provided that he is not occupying another residential building owned by him, in the urban area concerned:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Provided further that he has not vacated such a building without sufficient cause within five years of the filing of the application, in the said urban area....</p><p style="text-align: justify;">13. A perusal of the bare provisions of the Act makes it clear that there are certain essential ingredients which the landlord must satisfy before seeking eviction of the tenant under the Act. Not only must he prove that the residential building is bona fide required by him for his own use and occupation but he must also plead and prove that he is not occupying any other residential building owned by him in the urban area concerned and further that he has not vacated such a building without sufficient cause within 5 years of the filing of the application.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">14. Reference may now be made to the relevant allegations made in para 18 of the eviction petition:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(ii) That the petitioner bona fide requires the premises for his own use and occupation and also for the use and occupation of his family.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The petitioner does not own or possess any other such building within the urban area of Simla nor the petitioner has vacated any such premises within five years of the filing of this petition.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The family of the petitioner presently consists of himself and his wife. Due to paucity of accommodation the petitioner has not been able to keep his wife with himself at Simla, where he is working as an Engineer and she has been residing at Chandigarh since 1991 but on account of her ill health she has been brought to Simla by the petitioner. The petitioner at present is seeking temporary shelter, from time to time, with his relations.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">15. The learned Appellate Authority came to the conclusion that the landlord had falsely pleaded that he does not own or possess any other such building within the urban area of Shimla and hence rejected the eviction petition on this ground.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">16. On a close analysis of the proviso to Section 14(3)(a)(i) of the Act it is clear that a landlord is not entitled to seek eviction of a tenant from residential building even in case of bona fide requirement if the landlord is occupying another residential building owned by him in the urban area concerned. One can read three essential ingredients in this proviso i.e. (i) that the landlord is in occupation of another residential building; (ii) that the said residential building is owned by him and (iii) that the said residential building is situated in the concerned urban area.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">17. The question that arises is what is the impact of the landlord not making a disclosure in respect of premises which he is occupying but are not owned by him.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">18. The Apex Court in Onkar Nath v. Ved Vyas ILR 1979 HP 1, held as follows:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">It is common ground that there are three requirements to make out a cause of action for eviction under that provision, and indeed this is apparent from a bare reading of the sub-section. In the present case the finding is to the effect that the landlord requires the residential building for his own occupation. But, the legislation has taken care to insist upon two more conditions, namely; (a) that the landlord is not occupying any other residential building in the area concerned; and (b) that he has not vacated such a building without sufficient cause. There is not a scintilla of evidence nor indeed there is any averment in compliance with these latter conditions. The necessary consequence follows that not merely is there inadequacy of pleadings sufficient to make out a cause of action but total absence of proof of two vital requirements....</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The Supreme Court also said that:.The statute benignly designed to protect tenants from unreasonable evictions has taken case to put restrictions which must be rigorously construed to fulfil the purpose of the statute.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">19. Following the aforesaid judgment and other pronouncements of the Apex Court, a learned Single Judge of this Court in Tara Chand Sharma v. Baij Nath and Ors. 1992 (2) R.C.J. 323, held as follows:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">16. What appears as the legislative intent, in bold relief, is that the landlord, while seeking eviction of a tenant on the ground that he needs a residential building for his own occupation, must come out clearly and honestly with facts relating to the requirement that he is not occupying another residential building owned by him, in the urban area concerned and that he had not vacated such a building without sufficient cause within five years of the filing of the application, in the said urban area. The primal burden of making a clear disclosure would lie upon the landlord, for, the true facts would be in his special knowledge. An order in his favour by the Rent Controller would depend upon the satisfaction of the Rent Controller in regard not only to the claim that the landlord requires the accommodation, from which he wishes to evict a tenant, for his own occupation but also that he was not occupying another residential building owned by him nor had he vacated such building without sufficient cause within five years of the filing of the application in the application in the urban area concerned....</p><p style="text-align: justify;">It was further held as under:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">18. That the landlord should make a full disclosure of the relevant facts, pertaining to the requirements of Sub-section (3)(a)(i) and the two provisos, becomes all the more necessary because the satisfaction of the Rent Controller in regard thereto is the condition precedent for the making of an order in favour of the landlord....</p><p style="text-align: justify;">20. The aforesaid judgment has been followed in a number of other cases including Vijay Kapoor v. Maya Ram 1997 (2) RCR 437, wherein another learned single Judge of this Court following the aforesaid judgment held that the landlord must make complete and proper disclosure of all the material facts.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">21. On the other hand Sh. Ramakant Sharma has relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in Ram Narain Arora v. Asha Rani 1998(2) RCR 268. In that case the Rent Controller came to the conclusion that the landlord had suppressed material information and had not disclosed the fact that he was already in occupation of a house in Subji Mandi. Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act reads as follows:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Section 14(1)(e). That the premises let for residential purposes are required bona fide by the landlord for occupation as a residence for himself or for any member of his family dependent on him, if he is the owner thereof, or for any person for whose benefit the premises are held and that the landlord or such person has no other reasonably suitable residential accommodation.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">22. The difference between Delhi Act and the present Act is that under the Delhi Act the only requirement is that the landlord has no other reasonably suitable accommodation whereas under the Himachal Act the residential premises are required to be owned by the landlord. The Apex Court in Rama Narain Arora's case (supra) held that the nondisclosure of the fact that the landlord was in occupation of certain premises in Subji Mandi was.not a ground to non-suit the landlord in view of the facts and circumstances of the case. The Apex Court held as follows:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. In making a claim that the suit premises is required bona fide for his own occupation as a residence for himself and other members of his family dependent on him and that he has no other reasonably suitable accommodation is a requirement of law before the Court can state whether the landlord requires the premises bona fide for his use and occupation. In doing so, the Court must also find out whether the landlord or such other person for whose benefit the premises is required has no other reasonably suitable residential accommodation. It cannot be said that the requirement of the landlord is not intermixed with the question of finding out whether he has any other reasonably suitable accommodation. If he has other reasonably suitable accommodation, ihen necessarily it would mean that he does not require the suit premises and his requirement may not be bona fide. In such circumstances further inquiry would be whether that premises is more suitable than the suit premises. Therefore, the questions raised before the Court would not necessarily depend upon only the pleadings. It could be a good defence that the landlord has other reasonably suitable residential accommodation and thereby defend the claim of the landlord.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. There cannot be a pedantic or a dogmatic approach in the matter of analysis of pleadings or of the evidence adduced thereto. It is no doubt true that if the pleadings are clearly set out, it would be easy for the Court to decide the matters. But if the pleadings are lacking or vague and if both parties have understood what was the case pleaded and put forth with reference to requirement of law and placed such material before the Court, neither party is prejudiced. If we analyse from this angle, we do not think that the High Court was not justified in interfering with the order made by the Rent Controller.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">23. From the perusal of the judgment of the Apex Court it is apparent that the Rent Controller must approach the matter in a practical manner. In case the non-disclosure is such as that it goes to the very root of the case the Rent Controller would be justified in non-suiting the landlord. However, if the non-disclosure is such that it would not prejudice the rights of the respondent then the landlord should not be non-suited only on this ground.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">24. The decisions of this Court cited hereinabove were delivered prior to the judgment delivered by the Apex Court in Ram Nar'ain Arora's case. Further more both in Tara Chand Sharma's case and Vijay Kapoor's case decided by this Court, no averment had been made ixi respect of other residential buildings owned by a landlord. There was complete non-disclosure as to whether any such residential building owned by the landlord was in his possession or not. In the present case, as I have held above, the residential premises at 31, The Mall, Shimla was not owned by the landlord and hence these two earlier judgments of this Court are distinguishable on facts also.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">25. In the present case, the landlord has been non-suited only on the ground that he did not disclose the fact that he was in occupation of certain premises on the Mall Road. Under law he was not required to disclose this fact. He was only required to disclose the factum of occupying another residential building owned by him in the urban area concerned. True it may be, that it would have been better if the landlord had disclosed all the facts but non-disclosure of a fact which he was not under law required to disclose could not in my opinion be a ground to dismiss his eviction petition.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">26. However, what are the premises in his occupation even as a tenant can be taken into consideration while deciding the question whether he bona fide requires the demised premises for his personal use or occupation or not.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">27. Lastly comes the question with regard to the bona fide requirement of the landlord. The landlord has no children. According to the landlord as well as his other witnesses i.e. his brother-in-law PW-2 and his wife PW-3, the wife now wants to come back and settle in Shimla. There is no reason to disbelieve their statements. Even according to the evidence led by the tenant the accommodation in possession of the landlord consists of two rooms, kitchen, bath room etc. Admittedly, the landlord is also having his office as an Architect in this building. The landlord belongs to the middle class of the Society. It cannot be expected of a landlord who owns sufficient property to reside in a two room set wherein he also runs his office.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">28. The law by now is well settled that the landlord is the best judge of the suitability of the accommodation required by him. This suitability has however to be judged in the context of reasonable expectations. The landlord and his wife who are both well educated can reasonably be expected to entertain guests and they will have visitors to their house. They would obviously require a drawing room, a bed room and a spare bed room for guests. Even at his residence the landlord may require another room for his professional work. This is the minimum accommodation which they would require. Even if the accommodation possessed by the landlord, though not owned by him, at 31, the Mall, Shimla is taken into consideration such accommodation is not sufficient to meet his requirements since admittedly the landlord is running his profession of Architect from some portion of his these premises.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">29. Keeping in view the entire facts and circumstances, I am of the considered view that the learned Appellate Authority gravely erred in rejecting the eviction petition of the landlord solely on the ground that he had not disclosed the factum of being in possession of the premises at 31, the Mall Shimla. Even though I have held that the said premises are residential premises, in view of the above discussion I hold that the landlord cannot be non-suited only on the ground of his being in possession of such premises since same were not owned by him.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">30. In view of the above discussion, the Revision Petition is allowed, the order of the learned Appellate Authority dated 6.5.2003 is seaside and the order of the Rent Controller dated 22.8.2001 is restored.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">31. Keeping in view the fact that the tenant has been in possession of the premises for a long period he is granted time up to 31st October, 2008 to vacate the premises.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">32. No order as to costs.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '2008(2)ShimLC491',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'Shri S.L. Srivastava',
			'sub' => 'Tenancy',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'shri-arun-bhanwara-vs-s-l-srivastava',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '891084',
		(int) 1 => 'shri-arun-bhanwara-vs-s-l-srivastava'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Shri Arun Bhanwara Vs Shri S L Srivastava - Citation 891084 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '891084',
		'acts' => '',
		'appealno' => '',
		'appellant' => 'Shri Arun Bhanwara',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Shri Arun Bhanwara Vs. Shri S.L. Srivastava',
		'casenote' => ' - CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908.[C.A. No. 5/1908]. Order 14, Rule 2 [As amended by Amending Act of 1976]: [V.K. Gupta, CJ, Deepak Gupta & Surjit Singh, JJ] Preliminary issue of law and fact  Court framing all issues both of law and facts together and also  tried all the issues together, including the issue relating to jurisdiction of Court  Held, Except in situations perceived or warranted under sub-rule (2) of Rule 2 of Order 14 where a  Court in fact frames only issues of law in the first instance and postpones settlement of other issues, clearly and explicitly in situations where the Court has framed all issues together, both of law as well as facts and has also tried all these issues together, it is not open to the Court to adopt the principle of severability and proceed to decide issues of law first, without taking up simultaneously other issues for decision. This course of action is not available to a Court because sub-rule (1) does not permit the  Court to adopt any such principle of severability and to dispose of a suit only on preliminary issues, or what can be termed as issues of law. Sub-rule (1)  clearly mandates that in a situation contemplated under it, where all the issues have been together and have also been taken up for adjudication during the course of the trial, these must be decided together and the judgment in the suit as a whole must be pronounced by the Court covering all the issues framed in the suit.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => 'Ram Narain Arora v. Asha Rani;',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => '',
		'counseldef' => '',
		'court' => 'Himachal Pradesh',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2008-07-31',
		'deposition' => 'Petition allowed',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => ' Deepak Gupta, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>Deepak Gupta, J.</p><p>1. This Revision Petition under Section 25(5) of the H.P. Urban Rent Control Act, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) is directed against the order of the learned Appellate Authority, Shimla in CMA No. 60-S/14 of 2001 whereby the appeal filed by the respondent (hereinafter referred to as the tenant) has been allowed, the order of the Rent Controller has been set-aside and the petition for eviction filed by the present petitioner (hereinafter referred to as the Landlord) on the ground of personal bona fide requirement has been set-aside.</p><p>2. The undisputed facts are that the landlord is owner of the demised premises situated in building known as Tunnel View, Sanjauli, Shimla-6 consisting of two bed rooms with attached bath room and latrine, drawing-cum-dining room, kitchen and balcony. These premises were purchased by the landlord in the year 1986. Thereafter, the landlord had rented out the premises to one Sh. B.K. Chauhan. According to the landlord, when he got married he requested Sh. B.K. Chauhan to vacate the said premises. Sh. Chauhan vacated the said premises but admittedly the landlord did not occupy the same but rented out the same to the tenant in the year 1990.</p><p>3. In the year 1997 the landlord filed a petition for eviction of the tenant on two grounds; firstly that the tenant is in arrears of rent from 1.11.1990 to 31.7.1997 and secondly that the premises are bona fide required by the landlord for the use and occupation of himself and his family.</p><p>4. This petition was contested by the tenant. After trial, the Rent Controller ordered the eviction of the tenant on two grounds; (i) that the tenant was in arrears of rent from November, 1999 till date of order i.e. 22nd August, 2001 and (ii) that the landlord required the premises for his own use and occupation.</p><p>5. The tenant deposited the rent within the time prescribed. He also filed an appeal challenging the finding on the issue of bona fide requirement. The learned Appellate Authority came to the conclusion that the landlord had not made a proper and full disclosure of facts as required under the provisions of the Act and had withheld material facts from the Court viz. that the landlord was in occupation of residential premises on 31, Mall Road in the urban area of Shimla and as such rejected this petition on this short ground.</p><p>6. Aggrieved by the said order, the landlord has filed the present Revision Petition.</p><p>7. I have heard Sh. Ramakant Sharma, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sh. Bhupinder Gupta, learned senior Counsel for the tenant.</p><p>8. It has been urged on behalf of the landlord that the building which is alleged to be in possession of the landlord i.e. 31, the Mall Shimla is not a residential building and secondly that the building is not owned by him.</p><p>9. On the other hand Sh. Bhupinder Gupta, learned Counsel of the tenant has strenuously urged that the landlord in para 18 has not stated anything about any building being owned by him and has only made an averment that he does not own or possess any other such building within the urban area Shimla. It is contended by Sh. Bhupinder Gupta that the landlord of his own volition did not state anything about the ownership of the building and since he has kept silent about the building which he is in occupation he has made a false averment and therefore his petition for eviction has rightly been rejected.</p><p>10. I am not at all in agreement with the contention of the landlord that the premises known as 31, the Mall Shimla which are admittedly in the occupation of the landlord are commercial premises only and not being used by him for his residence. As pointed out above, the landlord purchased the demised premises in 1986. They fell vacant when he got married despite that he did not occupy the same and rented out the same to the tenant in the year 1990. The question that arises is where was the landlord living for this entire period. According to the landlord after the year 1994 he has been living with his brother-in-law Rajan (wife's brother) PW-2, since the year 1994. Prior to 1994 the landlord will have this Court to believe that he was living off and on with one friend or the other. This story is impossible to believe. The landlord was married in the year 1999. He is an Architect by profession. His wife is a law graduate. It is not believable that such a person would have no permanent abode and would continue to live as a guest with his friends for almost 5 years after his marriage. Even the story that he has been living with his brother-in-law after the year 1994 does not inspire confidence. It stands proved on record that the brother-in-law PW-2 Rajan lives with his own family i.e. wife and children. From the evidence it is also clear that the parents of the brother-in-law also reside with him, His flat consists of only two rooms. The flat in possession of the landlord at 31, the Mall Shimla, also consists of two rooms, kitchen and bath room. Even assuming that he was running an office in the part of the flat it cannot be believed that he would not live on his own flat on the Mall Road and reside with his brother-in-law in cramped premises. Even in the electoral list the landlord is shown to be a resident of 31, The Mall, Shimla. Therefore, I am of the considered view that the building 31, the Mall, Shimla was also being used as a residence by the landlord.</p><p>11. Having held so, the question that arises is whether the landlord can be non-suited only on the ground that he has not made any disclosure about the residential accommodation available with him which premises were admittedly not owned by him.</p><p>12. The short question which arises for decision in this petition is whether the landlord was guilty of suppressing and withholding such relevant facts which would disentitle him from seeking eviction of the tenant. To appreciate these contentions it would be necessary to refer to relevant portion of Section 14(3) of the Act:</p><p>Section 14:</p><p>1 and 2 xxxxxxxxxxx</p><p>(3) A landlord may apply to the Controller for an order directing the tenant to put the landlord in possession-</p><p>(a) in case of residential building, if</p><p>(i) he required it for his own occupation:</p><p>Provided that he is not occupying another residential building owned by him, in the urban area concerned:</p><p>Provided further that he has not vacated such a building without sufficient cause within five years of the filing of the application, in the said urban area....</p><p>13. A perusal of the bare provisions of the Act makes it clear that there are certain essential ingredients which the landlord must satisfy before seeking eviction of the tenant under the Act. Not only must he prove that the residential building is bona fide required by him for his own use and occupation but he must also plead and prove that he is not occupying any other residential building owned by him in the urban area concerned and further that he has not vacated such a building without sufficient cause within 5 years of the filing of the application.</p><p>14. Reference may now be made to the relevant allegations made in para 18 of the eviction petition:</p><p>(ii) That the petitioner bona fide requires the premises for his own use and occupation and also for the use and occupation of his family.</p><p>The petitioner does not own or possess any other such building within the urban area of Simla nor the petitioner has vacated any such premises within five years of the filing of this petition.</p><p>The family of the petitioner presently consists of himself and his wife. Due to paucity of accommodation the petitioner has not been able to keep his wife with himself at Simla, where he is working as an Engineer and she has been residing at Chandigarh since 1991 but on account of her ill health she has been brought to Simla by the petitioner. The petitioner at present is seeking temporary shelter, from time to time, with his relations.</p><p>15. The learned Appellate Authority came to the conclusion that the landlord had falsely pleaded that he does not own or possess any other such building within the urban area of Shimla and hence rejected the eviction petition on this ground.</p><p>16. On a close analysis of the proviso to Section 14(3)(a)(i) of the Act it is clear that a landlord is not entitled to seek eviction of a tenant from residential building even in case of bona fide requirement if the landlord is occupying another residential building owned by him in the urban area concerned. One can read three essential ingredients in this proviso i.e. (i) that the landlord is in occupation of another residential building; (ii) that the said residential building is owned by him and (iii) that the said residential building is situated in the concerned urban area.</p><p>17. The question that arises is what is the impact of the landlord not making a disclosure in respect of premises which he is occupying but are not owned by him.</p><p>18. The Apex Court in Onkar Nath v. Ved Vyas ILR 1979 HP 1, held as follows:</p><p>It is common ground that there are three requirements to make out a cause of action for eviction under that provision, and indeed this is apparent from a bare reading of the sub-section. In the present case the finding is to the effect that the landlord requires the residential building for his own occupation. But, the legislation has taken care to insist upon two more conditions, namely; (a) that the landlord is not occupying any other residential building in the area concerned; and (b) that he has not vacated such a building without sufficient cause. There is not a scintilla of evidence nor indeed there is any averment in compliance with these latter conditions. The necessary consequence follows that not merely is there inadequacy of pleadings sufficient to make out a cause of action but total absence of proof of two vital requirements....</p><p>The Supreme Court also said that:.The statute benignly designed to protect tenants from unreasonable evictions has taken case to put restrictions which must be rigorously construed to fulfil the purpose of the statute.</p><p>19. Following the aforesaid judgment and other pronouncements of the Apex Court, a learned Single Judge of this Court in Tara Chand Sharma v. Baij Nath and Ors. 1992 (2) R.C.J. 323, held as follows:</p><p>16. What appears as the legislative intent, in bold relief, is that the landlord, while seeking eviction of a tenant on the ground that he needs a residential building for his own occupation, must come out clearly and honestly with facts relating to the requirement that he is not occupying another residential building owned by him, in the urban area concerned and that he had not vacated such a building without sufficient cause within five years of the filing of the application, in the said urban area. The primal burden of making a clear disclosure would lie upon the landlord, for, the true facts would be in his special knowledge. An order in his favour by the Rent Controller would depend upon the satisfaction of the Rent Controller in regard not only to the claim that the landlord requires the accommodation, from which he wishes to evict a tenant, for his own occupation but also that he was not occupying another residential building owned by him nor had he vacated such building without sufficient cause within five years of the filing of the application in the application in the urban area concerned....</p><p>It was further held as under:</p><p>18. That the landlord should make a full disclosure of the relevant facts, pertaining to the requirements of Sub-section (3)(a)(i) and the two provisos, becomes all the more necessary because the satisfaction of the Rent Controller in regard thereto is the condition precedent for the making of an order in favour of the landlord....</p><p>20. The aforesaid judgment has been followed in a number of other cases including Vijay Kapoor v. Maya Ram 1997 (2) RCR 437, wherein another learned single Judge of this Court following the aforesaid judgment held that the landlord must make complete and proper disclosure of all the material facts.</p><p>21. On the other hand Sh. Ramakant Sharma has relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in Ram Narain Arora v. Asha Rani 1998(2) RCR 268. In that case the Rent Controller came to the conclusion that the landlord had suppressed material information and had not disclosed the fact that he was already in occupation of a house in Subji Mandi. Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act reads as follows:</p><p>Section 14(1)(e). That the premises let for residential purposes are required bona fide by the landlord for occupation as a residence for himself or for any member of his family dependent on him, if he is the owner thereof, or for any person for whose benefit the premises are held and that the landlord or such person has no other reasonably suitable residential accommodation.</p><p>22. The difference between Delhi Act and the present Act is that under the Delhi Act the only requirement is that the landlord has no other reasonably suitable accommodation whereas under the Himachal Act the residential premises are required to be owned by the landlord. The Apex Court in Rama Narain Arora's case (supra) held that the nondisclosure of the fact that the landlord was in occupation of certain premises in Subji Mandi was.not a ground to non-suit the landlord in view of the facts and circumstances of the case. The Apex Court held as follows:</p><p>9. In making a claim that the suit premises is required bona fide for his own occupation as a residence for himself and other members of his family dependent on him and that he has no other reasonably suitable accommodation is a requirement of law before the Court can state whether the landlord requires the premises bona fide for his use and occupation. In doing so, the Court must also find out whether the landlord or such other person for whose benefit the premises is required has no other reasonably suitable residential accommodation. It cannot be said that the requirement of the landlord is not intermixed with the question of finding out whether he has any other reasonably suitable accommodation. If he has other reasonably suitable accommodation, ihen necessarily it would mean that he does not require the suit premises and his requirement may not be bona fide. In such circumstances further inquiry would be whether that premises is more suitable than the suit premises. Therefore, the questions raised before the Court would not necessarily depend upon only the pleadings. It could be a good defence that the landlord has other reasonably suitable residential accommodation and thereby defend the claim of the landlord.</p><p>10. There cannot be a pedantic or a dogmatic approach in the matter of analysis of pleadings or of the evidence adduced thereto. It is no doubt true that if the pleadings are clearly set out, it would be easy for the Court to decide the matters. But if the pleadings are lacking or vague and if both parties have understood what was the case pleaded and put forth with reference to requirement of law and placed such material before the Court, neither party is prejudiced. If we analyse from this angle, we do not think that the High Court was not justified in interfering with the order made by the Rent Controller.</p><p>23. From the perusal of the judgment of the Apex Court it is apparent that the Rent Controller must approach the matter in a practical manner. In case the non-disclosure is such as that it goes to the very root of the case the Rent Controller would be justified in non-suiting the landlord. However, if the non-disclosure is such that it would not prejudice the rights of the respondent then the landlord should not be non-suited only on this ground.</p><p>24. The decisions of this Court cited hereinabove were delivered prior to the judgment delivered by the Apex Court in Ram Nar'ain Arora's case. Further more both in Tara Chand Sharma's case and Vijay Kapoor's case decided by this Court, no averment had been made ixi respect of other residential buildings owned by a landlord. There was complete non-disclosure as to whether any such residential building owned by the landlord was in his possession or not. In the present case, as I have held above, the residential premises at 31, The Mall, Shimla was not owned by the landlord and hence these two earlier judgments of this Court are distinguishable on facts also.</p><p>25. In the present case, the landlord has been non-suited only on the ground that he did not disclose the fact that he was in occupation of certain premises on the Mall Road. Under law he was not required to disclose this fact. He was only required to disclose the factum of occupying another residential building owned by him in the urban area concerned. True it may be, that it would have been better if the landlord had disclosed all the facts but non-disclosure of a fact which he was not under law required to disclose could not in my opinion be a ground to dismiss his eviction petition.</p><p>26. However, what are the premises in his occupation even as a tenant can be taken into consideration while deciding the question whether he bona fide requires the demised premises for his personal use or occupation or not.</p><p>27. Lastly comes the question with regard to the bona fide requirement of the landlord. The landlord has no children. According to the landlord as well as his other witnesses i.e. his brother-in-law PW-2 and his wife PW-3, the wife now wants to come back and settle in Shimla. There is no reason to disbelieve their statements. Even according to the evidence led by the tenant the accommodation in possession of the landlord consists of two rooms, kitchen, bath room etc. Admittedly, the landlord is also having his office as an Architect in this building. The landlord belongs to the middle class of the Society. It cannot be expected of a landlord who owns sufficient property to reside in a two room set wherein he also runs his office.</p><p>28. The law by now is well settled that the landlord is the best judge of the suitability of the accommodation required by him. This suitability has however to be judged in the context of reasonable expectations. The landlord and his wife who are both well educated can reasonably be expected to entertain guests and they will have visitors to their house. They would obviously require a drawing room, a bed room and a spare bed room for guests. Even at his residence the landlord may require another room for his professional work. This is the minimum accommodation which they would require. Even if the accommodation possessed by the landlord, though not owned by him, at 31, the Mall, Shimla is taken into consideration such accommodation is not sufficient to meet his requirements since admittedly the landlord is running his profession of Architect from some portion of his these premises.</p><p>29. Keeping in view the entire facts and circumstances, I am of the considered view that the learned Appellate Authority gravely erred in rejecting the eviction petition of the landlord solely on the ground that he had not disclosed the factum of being in possession of the premises at 31, the Mall Shimla. Even though I have held that the said premises are residential premises, in view of the above discussion I hold that the landlord cannot be non-suited only on the ground of his being in possession of such premises since same were not owned by him.</p><p>30. In view of the above discussion, the Revision Petition is allowed, the order of the learned Appellate Authority dated 6.5.2003 is seaside and the order of the Rent Controller dated 22.8.2001 is restored.</p><p>31. Keeping in view the fact that the tenant has been in possession of the premises for a long period he is granted time up to 31st October, 2008 to vacate the premises.</p><p>32. No order as to costs.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '2008(2)ShimLC491',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'Shri S.L. Srivastava',
		'sub' => 'Tenancy',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'shri-arun-bhanwara-vs-s-l-srivastava'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '891084',
	(int) 1 => 'shri-arun-bhanwara-vs-s-l-srivastava'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/891084/shri-arun-bhanwara-vs-s-l-srivastava'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$caseref = 'Ram Narain Arora v. Asha Rani<br>'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>Deepak Gupta, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. This Revision Petition under Section 25(5) of the H.P. Urban Rent Control Act, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) is directed against the order of the learned Appellate Authority, Shimla in CMA No. 60-S/14 of 2001 whereby the appeal filed by the respondent (hereinafter referred to as the tenant) has been allowed, the order of the Rent Controller has been set-aside and the petition for eviction filed by the present petitioner (hereinafter referred to as the Landlord) on the ground of personal bona fide requirement has been set-aside.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. The undisputed facts are that the landlord is owner of the demised premises situated in building known as Tunnel View, Sanjauli, Shimla-6 consisting of two bed rooms with attached bath room and latrine, drawing-cum-dining room, kitchen and balcony. These premises were purchased by the landlord in the year 1986. Thereafter, the landlord had rented out the premises to one Sh. B.K. Chauhan. According to the landlord, when he got married he requested Sh. B.K. Chauhan to vacate the said premises. Sh. Chauhan vacated the said premises but admittedly the landlord did not occupy the same but rented out the same to the tenant in the year 1990.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. In the year 1997 the landlord filed a petition for eviction of the tenant on two grounds; firstly that the tenant is in arrears of rent from 1.11.1990 to 31.7.1997 and secondly that the premises are bona fide required by the landlord for the use and occupation of himself and his family.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>4. This petition was contested by the tenant. After trial, the Rent Controller ordered the eviction of the tenant on two grounds; (i) that the tenant was in arrears of rent from November, 1999 till date of order i.e. 22nd August, 2001 and (ii) that the landlord required the premises for his own use and occupation.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>5. The tenant deposited the rent within the time prescribed. He also filed an appeal challenging the finding on the issue of bona fide requirement. The learned Appellate Authority came to the conclusion that the landlord had not made a proper and full disclosure of facts as required under the provisions of the Act and had withheld material facts from the Court viz. that the landlord was in occupation of residential premises on 31, Mall Road in the urban area of Shimla and as such rejected this petition on this short ground.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>6. Aggrieved by the said order, the landlord has filed the present Revision Petition.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>7. I have heard Sh. Ramakant Sharma, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sh. Bhupinder Gupta, learned senior Counsel for the tenant.',
	(int) 8 => '<p>8. It has been urged on behalf of the landlord that the building which is alleged to be in possession of the landlord i.e. 31, the Mall Shimla is not a residential building and secondly that the building is not owned by him.',
	(int) 9 => '<p>9. On the other hand Sh. Bhupinder Gupta, learned Counsel of the tenant has strenuously urged that the landlord in para 18 has not stated anything about any building being owned by him and has only made an averment that he does not own or possess any other such building within the urban area Shimla. It is contended by Sh. Bhupinder Gupta that the landlord of his own volition did not state anything about the ownership of the building and since he has kept silent about the building which he is in occupation he has made a false averment and therefore his petition for eviction has rightly been rejected.',
	(int) 10 => '<p>10. I am not at all in agreement with the contention of the landlord that the premises known as 31, the Mall Shimla which are admittedly in the occupation of the landlord are commercial premises only and not being used by him for his residence. As pointed out above, the landlord purchased the demised premises in 1986. They fell vacant when he got married despite that he did not occupy the same and rented out the same to the tenant in the year 1990. The question that arises is where was the landlord living for this entire period. According to the landlord after the year 1994 he has been living with his brother-in-law Rajan (wife's brother) PW-2, since the year 1994. Prior to 1994 the landlord will have this Court to believe that he was living off and on with one friend or the other. This story is impossible to believe. The landlord was married in the year 1999. He is an Architect by profession. His wife is a law graduate. It is not believable that such a person would have no permanent abode and would continue to live as a guest with his friends for almost 5 years after his marriage. Even the story that he has been living with his brother-in-law after the year 1994 does not inspire confidence. It stands proved on record that the brother-in-law PW-2 Rajan lives with his own family i.e. wife and children. From the evidence it is also clear that the parents of the brother-in-law also reside with him, His flat consists of only two rooms. The flat in possession of the landlord at 31, the Mall Shimla, also consists of two rooms, kitchen and bath room. Even assuming that he was running an office in the part of the flat it cannot be believed that he would not live on his own flat on the Mall Road and reside with his brother-in-law in cramped premises. Even in the electoral list the landlord is shown to be a resident of 31, The Mall, Shimla. Therefore, I am of the considered view that the building 31, the Mall, Shimla was also being used as a residence by the landlord.',
	(int) 11 => '<p>11. Having held so, the question that arises is whether the landlord can be non-suited only on the ground that he has not made any disclosure about the residential accommodation available with him which premises were admittedly not owned by him.',
	(int) 12 => '<p>12. The short question which arises for decision in this petition is whether the landlord was guilty of suppressing and withholding such relevant facts which would disentitle him from seeking eviction of the tenant. To appreciate these contentions it would be necessary to refer to relevant portion of Section 14(3) of the Act:',
	(int) 13 => '<p>Section 14:',
	(int) 14 => '<p>1 and 2 xxxxxxxxxxx',
	(int) 15 => '<p>(3) A landlord may apply to the Controller for an order directing the tenant to put the landlord in possession-',
	(int) 16 => '<p>(a) in case of residential building, if',
	(int) 17 => '<p>(i) he required it for his own occupation:',
	(int) 18 => '<p>Provided that he is not occupying another residential building owned by him, in the urban area concerned:',
	(int) 19 => '<p>Provided further that he has not vacated such a building without sufficient cause within five years of the filing of the application, in the said urban area....',
	(int) 20 => '<p>13. A perusal of the bare provisions of the Act makes it clear that there are certain essential ingredients which the landlord must satisfy before seeking eviction of the tenant under the Act. Not only must he prove that the residential building is bona fide required by him for his own use and occupation but he must also plead and prove that he is not occupying any other residential building owned by him in the urban area concerned and further that he has not vacated such a building without sufficient cause within 5 years of the filing of the application.',
	(int) 21 => '<p>14. Reference may now be made to the relevant allegations made in para 18 of the eviction petition:',
	(int) 22 => '<p>(ii) That the petitioner bona fide requires the premises for his own use and occupation and also for the use and occupation of his family.',
	(int) 23 => '<p>The petitioner does not own or possess any other such building within the urban area of Simla nor the petitioner has vacated any such premises within five years of the filing of this petition.',
	(int) 24 => '<p>The family of the petitioner presently consists of himself and his wife. Due to paucity of accommodation the petitioner has not been able to keep his wife with himself at Simla, where he is working as an Engineer and she has been residing at Chandigarh since 1991 but on account of her ill health she has been brought to Simla by the petitioner. The petitioner at present is seeking temporary shelter, from time to time, with his relations.',
	(int) 25 => '<p>15. The learned Appellate Authority came to the conclusion that the landlord had falsely pleaded that he does not own or possess any other such building within the urban area of Shimla and hence rejected the eviction petition on this ground.',
	(int) 26 => '<p>16. On a close analysis of the proviso to Section 14(3)(a)(i) of the Act it is clear that a landlord is not entitled to seek eviction of a tenant from residential building even in case of bona fide requirement if the landlord is occupying another residential building owned by him in the urban area concerned. One can read three essential ingredients in this proviso i.e. (i) that the landlord is in occupation of another residential building; (ii) that the said residential building is owned by him and (iii) that the said residential building is situated in the concerned urban area.',
	(int) 27 => '<p>17. The question that arises is what is the impact of the landlord not making a disclosure in respect of premises which he is occupying but are not owned by him.',
	(int) 28 => '<p>18. The Apex Court in Onkar Nath v. Ved Vyas ILR 1979 HP 1, held as follows:',
	(int) 29 => '<p>It is common ground that there are three requirements to make out a cause of action for eviction under that provision, and indeed this is apparent from a bare reading of the sub-section. In the present case the finding is to the effect that the landlord requires the residential building for his own occupation. But, the legislation has taken care to insist upon two more conditions, namely; (a) that the landlord is not occupying any other residential building in the area concerned; and (b) that he has not vacated such a building without sufficient cause. There is not a scintilla of evidence nor indeed there is any averment in compliance with these latter conditions. The necessary consequence follows that not merely is there inadequacy of pleadings sufficient to make out a cause of action but total absence of proof of two vital requirements....',
	(int) 30 => '<p>The Supreme Court also said that:.The statute benignly designed to protect tenants from unreasonable evictions has taken case to put restrictions which must be rigorously construed to fulfil the purpose of the statute.',
	(int) 31 => '<p>19. Following the aforesaid judgment and other pronouncements of the Apex Court, a learned Single Judge of this Court in Tara Chand Sharma v. Baij Nath and Ors. 1992 (2) R.C.J. 323, held as follows:',
	(int) 32 => '<p>16. What appears as the legislative intent, in bold relief, is that the landlord, while seeking eviction of a tenant on the ground that he needs a residential building for his own occupation, must come out clearly and honestly with facts relating to the requirement that he is not occupying another residential building owned by him, in the urban area concerned and that he had not vacated such a building without sufficient cause within five years of the filing of the application, in the said urban area. The primal burden of making a clear disclosure would lie upon the landlord, for, the true facts would be in his special knowledge. An order in his favour by the Rent Controller would depend upon the satisfaction of the Rent Controller in regard not only to the claim that the landlord requires the accommodation, from which he wishes to evict a tenant, for his own occupation but also that he was not occupying another residential building owned by him nor had he vacated such building without sufficient cause within five years of the filing of the application in the application in the urban area concerned....',
	(int) 33 => '<p>It was further held as under:',
	(int) 34 => '<p>18. That the landlord should make a full disclosure of the relevant facts, pertaining to the requirements of Sub-section (3)(a)(i) and the two provisos, becomes all the more necessary because the satisfaction of the Rent Controller in regard thereto is the condition precedent for the making of an order in favour of the landlord....',
	(int) 35 => '<p>20. The aforesaid judgment has been followed in a number of other cases including Vijay Kapoor v. Maya Ram 1997 (2) RCR 437, wherein another learned single Judge of this Court following the aforesaid judgment held that the landlord must make complete and proper disclosure of all the material facts.',
	(int) 36 => '<p>21. On the other hand Sh. Ramakant Sharma has relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in Ram Narain Arora v. Asha Rani 1998(2) RCR 268. In that case the Rent Controller came to the conclusion that the landlord had suppressed material information and had not disclosed the fact that he was already in occupation of a house in Subji Mandi. Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act reads as follows:',
	(int) 37 => '<p>Section 14(1)(e). That the premises let for residential purposes are required bona fide by the landlord for occupation as a residence for himself or for any member of his family dependent on him, if he is the owner thereof, or for any person for whose benefit the premises are held and that the landlord or such person has no other reasonably suitable residential accommodation.',
	(int) 38 => '<p>22. The difference between Delhi Act and the present Act is that under the Delhi Act the only requirement is that the landlord has no other reasonably suitable accommodation whereas under the Himachal Act the residential premises are required to be owned by the landlord. The Apex Court in Rama Narain Arora's case (supra) held that the nondisclosure of the fact that the landlord was in occupation of certain premises in Subji Mandi was.not a ground to non-suit the landlord in view of the facts and circumstances of the case. The Apex Court held as follows:',
	(int) 39 => '<p>9. In making a claim that the suit premises is required bona fide for his own occupation as a residence for himself and other members of his family dependent on him and that he has no other reasonably suitable accommodation is a requirement of law before the Court can state whether the landlord requires the premises bona fide for his use and occupation. In doing so, the Court must also find out whether the landlord or such other person for whose benefit the premises is required has no other reasonably suitable residential accommodation. It cannot be said that the requirement of the landlord is not intermixed with the question of finding out whether he has any other reasonably suitable accommodation. If he has other reasonably suitable accommodation, ihen necessarily it would mean that he does not require the suit premises and his requirement may not be bona fide. In such circumstances further inquiry would be whether that premises is more suitable than the suit premises. Therefore, the questions raised before the Court would not necessarily depend upon only the pleadings. It could be a good defence that the landlord has other reasonably suitable residential accommodation and thereby defend the claim of the landlord.',
	(int) 40 => '<p>10. There cannot be a pedantic or a dogmatic approach in the matter of analysis of pleadings or of the evidence adduced thereto. It is no doubt true that if the pleadings are clearly set out, it would be easy for the Court to decide the matters. But if the pleadings are lacking or vague and if both parties have understood what was the case pleaded and put forth with reference to requirement of law and placed such material before the Court, neither party is prejudiced. If we analyse from this angle, we do not think that the High Court was not justified in interfering with the order made by the Rent Controller.',
	(int) 41 => '<p>23. From the perusal of the judgment of the Apex Court it is apparent that the Rent Controller must approach the matter in a practical manner. In case the non-disclosure is such as that it goes to the very root of the case the Rent Controller would be justified in non-suiting the landlord. However, if the non-disclosure is such that it would not prejudice the rights of the respondent then the landlord should not be non-suited only on this ground.',
	(int) 42 => '<p>24. The decisions of this Court cited hereinabove were delivered prior to the judgment delivered by the Apex Court in Ram Nar'ain Arora's case. Further more both in Tara Chand Sharma's case and Vijay Kapoor's case decided by this Court, no averment had been made ixi respect of other residential buildings owned by a landlord. There was complete non-disclosure as to whether any such residential building owned by the landlord was in his possession or not. In the present case, as I have held above, the residential premises at 31, The Mall, Shimla was not owned by the landlord and hence these two earlier judgments of this Court are distinguishable on facts also.',
	(int) 43 => '<p>25. In the present case, the landlord has been non-suited only on the ground that he did not disclose the fact that he was in occupation of certain premises on the Mall Road. Under law he was not required to disclose this fact. He was only required to disclose the factum of occupying another residential building owned by him in the urban area concerned. True it may be, that it would have been better if the landlord had disclosed all the facts but non-disclosure of a fact which he was not under law required to disclose could not in my opinion be a ground to dismiss his eviction petition.',
	(int) 44 => '<p>26. However, what are the premises in his occupation even as a tenant can be taken into consideration while deciding the question whether he bona fide requires the demised premises for his personal use or occupation or not.',
	(int) 45 => '<p>27. Lastly comes the question with regard to the bona fide requirement of the landlord. The landlord has no children. According to the landlord as well as his other witnesses i.e. his brother-in-law PW-2 and his wife PW-3, the wife now wants to come back and settle in Shimla. There is no reason to disbelieve their statements. Even according to the evidence led by the tenant the accommodation in possession of the landlord consists of two rooms, kitchen, bath room etc. Admittedly, the landlord is also having his office as an Architect in this building. The landlord belongs to the middle class of the Society. It cannot be expected of a landlord who owns sufficient property to reside in a two room set wherein he also runs his office.',
	(int) 46 => '<p>28. The law by now is well settled that the landlord is the best judge of the suitability of the accommodation required by him. This suitability has however to be judged in the context of reasonable expectations. The landlord and his wife who are both well educated can reasonably be expected to entertain guests and they will have visitors to their house. They would obviously require a drawing room, a bed room and a spare bed room for guests. Even at his residence the landlord may require another room for his professional work. This is the minimum accommodation which they would require. Even if the accommodation possessed by the landlord, though not owned by him, at 31, the Mall, Shimla is taken into consideration such accommodation is not sufficient to meet his requirements since admittedly the landlord is running his profession of Architect from some portion of his these premises.',
	(int) 47 => '<p>29. Keeping in view the entire facts and circumstances, I am of the considered view that the learned Appellate Authority gravely erred in rejecting the eviction petition of the landlord solely on the ground that he had not disclosed the factum of being in possession of the premises at 31, the Mall Shimla. Even though I have held that the said premises are residential premises, in view of the above discussion I hold that the landlord cannot be non-suited only on the ground of his being in possession of such premises since same were not owned by him.',
	(int) 48 => '<p>30. In view of the above discussion, the Revision Petition is allowed, the order of the learned Appellate Authority dated 6.5.2003 is seaside and the order of the Rent Controller dated 22.8.2001 is restored.',
	(int) 49 => '<p>31. Keeping in view the fact that the tenant has been in possession of the premises for a long period he is granted time up to 31st October, 2008 to vacate the premises.',
	(int) 50 => '<p>32. No order as to costs.<p>',
	(int) 51 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 52
$i = (int) 38
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

22. The difference between Delhi Act and the present Act is that under the Delhi Act the only requirement is that the landlord has no other reasonably suitable accommodation whereas under the Himachal Act the residential premises are required to be owned by the landlord. The Apex Court in Rama Narain Arora's case (supra) held that the nondisclosure of the fact that the landlord was in occupation of certain premises in Subji Mandi was.not a ground to non-suit the landlord in view of the facts and circumstances of the case. The Apex Court held as follows:

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Shri Arun Bhanwara Vs Shri S L Srivastava - Citation 891084 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '891084',
			'acts' => '',
			'appealno' => '',
			'appellant' => 'Shri Arun Bhanwara',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Shri Arun Bhanwara Vs. Shri S.L. Srivastava',
			'casenote' => ' - CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908.[C.A. No. 5/1908]. Order 14, Rule 2 [As amended by Amending Act of 1976]: [V.K. Gupta, CJ, Deepak Gupta & Surjit Singh, JJ] Preliminary issue of law and fact  Court framing all issues both of law and facts together and also  tried all the issues together, including the issue relating to jurisdiction of Court  Held, Except in situations perceived or warranted under sub-rule (2) of Rule 2 of Order 14 where a  Court in fact frames only issues of law in the first instance and postpones settlement of other issues, clearly and explicitly in situations where the Court has framed all issues together, both of law as well as facts and has also tried all these issues together, it is not open to the Court to adopt the principle of severability and proceed to decide issues of law first, without taking up simultaneously other issues for decision. This course of action is not available to a Court because sub-rule (1) does not permit the  Court to adopt any such principle of severability and to dispose of a suit only on preliminary issues, or what can be termed as issues of law. Sub-rule (1)  clearly mandates that in a situation contemplated under it, where all the issues have been together and have also been taken up for adjudication during the course of the trial, these must be decided together and the judgment in the suit as a whole must be pronounced by the Court covering all the issues framed in the suit.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => 'Ram Narain Arora v. Asha Rani;',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => '',
			'counseldef' => '',
			'court' => 'Himachal Pradesh',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2008-07-31',
			'deposition' => 'Petition allowed',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => ' Deepak Gupta, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">Deepak Gupta, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. This Revision Petition under Section 25(5) of the H.P. Urban Rent Control Act, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) is directed against the order of the learned Appellate Authority, Shimla in CMA No. 60-S/14 of 2001 whereby the appeal filed by the respondent (hereinafter referred to as the tenant) has been allowed, the order of the Rent Controller has been set-aside and the petition for eviction filed by the present petitioner (hereinafter referred to as the Landlord) on the ground of personal bona fide requirement has been set-aside.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The undisputed facts are that the landlord is owner of the demised premises situated in building known as Tunnel View, Sanjauli, Shimla-6 consisting of two bed rooms with attached bath room and latrine, drawing-cum-dining room, kitchen and balcony. These premises were purchased by the landlord in the year 1986. Thereafter, the landlord had rented out the premises to one Sh. B.K. Chauhan. According to the landlord, when he got married he requested Sh. B.K. Chauhan to vacate the said premises. Sh. Chauhan vacated the said premises but admittedly the landlord did not occupy the same but rented out the same to the tenant in the year 1990.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. In the year 1997 the landlord filed a petition for eviction of the tenant on two grounds; firstly that the tenant is in arrears of rent from 1.11.1990 to 31.7.1997 and secondly that the premises are bona fide required by the landlord for the use and occupation of himself and his family.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. This petition was contested by the tenant. After trial, the Rent Controller ordered the eviction of the tenant on two grounds; (i) that the tenant was in arrears of rent from November, 1999 till date of order i.e. 22nd August, 2001 and (ii) that the landlord required the premises for his own use and occupation.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. The tenant deposited the rent within the time prescribed. He also filed an appeal challenging the finding on the issue of bona fide requirement. The learned Appellate Authority came to the conclusion that the landlord had not made a proper and full disclosure of facts as required under the provisions of the Act and had withheld material facts from the Court viz. that the landlord was in occupation of residential premises on 31, Mall Road in the urban area of Shimla and as such rejected this petition on this short ground.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. Aggrieved by the said order, the landlord has filed the present Revision Petition.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. I have heard Sh. Ramakant Sharma, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sh. Bhupinder Gupta, learned senior Counsel for the tenant.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. It has been urged on behalf of the landlord that the building which is alleged to be in possession of the landlord i.e. 31, the Mall Shimla is not a residential building and secondly that the building is not owned by him.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. On the other hand Sh. Bhupinder Gupta, learned Counsel of the tenant has strenuously urged that the landlord in para 18 has not stated anything about any building being owned by him and has only made an averment that he does not own or possess any other such building within the urban area Shimla. It is contended by Sh. Bhupinder Gupta that the landlord of his own volition did not state anything about the ownership of the building and since he has kept silent about the building which he is in occupation he has made a false averment and therefore his petition for eviction has rightly been rejected.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. I am not at all in agreement with the contention of the landlord that the premises known as 31, the Mall Shimla which are admittedly in the occupation of the landlord are commercial premises only and not being used by him for his residence. As pointed out above, the landlord purchased the demised premises in 1986. They fell vacant when he got married despite that he did not occupy the same and rented out the same to the tenant in the year 1990. The question that arises is where was the landlord living for this entire period. According to the landlord after the year 1994 he has been living with his brother-in-law Rajan (wife's brother) PW-2, since the year 1994. Prior to 1994 the landlord will have this Court to believe that he was living off and on with one friend or the other. This story is impossible to believe. The landlord was married in the year 1999. He is an Architect by profession. His wife is a law graduate. It is not believable that such a person would have no permanent abode and would continue to live as a guest with his friends for almost 5 years after his marriage. Even the story that he has been living with his brother-in-law after the year 1994 does not inspire confidence. It stands proved on record that the brother-in-law PW-2 Rajan lives with his own family i.e. wife and children. From the evidence it is also clear that the parents of the brother-in-law also reside with him, His flat consists of only two rooms. The flat in possession of the landlord at 31, the Mall Shimla, also consists of two rooms, kitchen and bath room. Even assuming that he was running an office in the part of the flat it cannot be believed that he would not live on his own flat on the Mall Road and reside with his brother-in-law in cramped premises. Even in the electoral list the landlord is shown to be a resident of 31, The Mall, Shimla. Therefore, I am of the considered view that the building 31, the Mall, Shimla was also being used as a residence by the landlord.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. Having held so, the question that arises is whether the landlord can be non-suited only on the ground that he has not made any disclosure about the residential accommodation available with him which premises were admittedly not owned by him.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. The short question which arises for decision in this petition is whether the landlord was guilty of suppressing and withholding such relevant facts which would disentitle him from seeking eviction of the tenant. To appreciate these contentions it would be necessary to refer to relevant portion of Section 14(3) of the Act:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Section 14:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1 and 2 xxxxxxxxxxx</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(3) A landlord may apply to the Controller for an order directing the tenant to put the landlord in possession-</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(a) in case of residential building, if</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(i) he required it for his own occupation:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Provided that he is not occupying another residential building owned by him, in the urban area concerned:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Provided further that he has not vacated such a building without sufficient cause within five years of the filing of the application, in the said urban area....</p><p style="text-align: justify;">13. A perusal of the bare provisions of the Act makes it clear that there are certain essential ingredients which the landlord must satisfy before seeking eviction of the tenant under the Act. Not only must he prove that the residential building is bona fide required by him for his own use and occupation but he must also plead and prove that he is not occupying any other residential building owned by him in the urban area concerned and further that he has not vacated such a building without sufficient cause within 5 years of the filing of the application.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">14. Reference may now be made to the relevant allegations made in para 18 of the eviction petition:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(ii) That the petitioner bona fide requires the premises for his own use and occupation and also for the use and occupation of his family.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The petitioner does not own or possess any other such building within the urban area of Simla nor the petitioner has vacated any such premises within five years of the filing of this petition.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The family of the petitioner presently consists of himself and his wife. Due to paucity of accommodation the petitioner has not been able to keep his wife with himself at Simla, where he is working as an Engineer and she has been residing at Chandigarh since 1991 but on account of her ill health she has been brought to Simla by the petitioner. The petitioner at present is seeking temporary shelter, from time to time, with his relations.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">15. The learned Appellate Authority came to the conclusion that the landlord had falsely pleaded that he does not own or possess any other such building within the urban area of Shimla and hence rejected the eviction petition on this ground.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">16. On a close analysis of the proviso to Section 14(3)(a)(i) of the Act it is clear that a landlord is not entitled to seek eviction of a tenant from residential building even in case of bona fide requirement if the landlord is occupying another residential building owned by him in the urban area concerned. One can read three essential ingredients in this proviso i.e. (i) that the landlord is in occupation of another residential building; (ii) that the said residential building is owned by him and (iii) that the said residential building is situated in the concerned urban area.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">17. The question that arises is what is the impact of the landlord not making a disclosure in respect of premises which he is occupying but are not owned by him.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">18. The Apex Court in Onkar Nath v. Ved Vyas ILR 1979 HP 1, held as follows:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">It is common ground that there are three requirements to make out a cause of action for eviction under that provision, and indeed this is apparent from a bare reading of the sub-section. In the present case the finding is to the effect that the landlord requires the residential building for his own occupation. But, the legislation has taken care to insist upon two more conditions, namely; (a) that the landlord is not occupying any other residential building in the area concerned; and (b) that he has not vacated such a building without sufficient cause. There is not a scintilla of evidence nor indeed there is any averment in compliance with these latter conditions. The necessary consequence follows that not merely is there inadequacy of pleadings sufficient to make out a cause of action but total absence of proof of two vital requirements....</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The Supreme Court also said that:.The statute benignly designed to protect tenants from unreasonable evictions has taken case to put restrictions which must be rigorously construed to fulfil the purpose of the statute.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">19. Following the aforesaid judgment and other pronouncements of the Apex Court, a learned Single Judge of this Court in Tara Chand Sharma v. Baij Nath and Ors. 1992 (2) R.C.J. 323, held as follows:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">16. What appears as the legislative intent, in bold relief, is that the landlord, while seeking eviction of a tenant on the ground that he needs a residential building for his own occupation, must come out clearly and honestly with facts relating to the requirement that he is not occupying another residential building owned by him, in the urban area concerned and that he had not vacated such a building without sufficient cause within five years of the filing of the application, in the said urban area. The primal burden of making a clear disclosure would lie upon the landlord, for, the true facts would be in his special knowledge. An order in his favour by the Rent Controller would depend upon the satisfaction of the Rent Controller in regard not only to the claim that the landlord requires the accommodation, from which he wishes to evict a tenant, for his own occupation but also that he was not occupying another residential building owned by him nor had he vacated such building without sufficient cause within five years of the filing of the application in the application in the urban area concerned....</p><p style="text-align: justify;">It was further held as under:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">18. That the landlord should make a full disclosure of the relevant facts, pertaining to the requirements of Sub-section (3)(a)(i) and the two provisos, becomes all the more necessary because the satisfaction of the Rent Controller in regard thereto is the condition precedent for the making of an order in favour of the landlord....</p><p style="text-align: justify;">20. The aforesaid judgment has been followed in a number of other cases including Vijay Kapoor v. Maya Ram 1997 (2) RCR 437, wherein another learned single Judge of this Court following the aforesaid judgment held that the landlord must make complete and proper disclosure of all the material facts.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">21. On the other hand Sh. Ramakant Sharma has relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in Ram Narain Arora v. Asha Rani 1998(2) RCR 268. In that case the Rent Controller came to the conclusion that the landlord had suppressed material information and had not disclosed the fact that he was already in occupation of a house in Subji Mandi. Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act reads as follows:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Section 14(1)(e). That the premises let for residential purposes are required bona fide by the landlord for occupation as a residence for himself or for any member of his family dependent on him, if he is the owner thereof, or for any person for whose benefit the premises are held and that the landlord or such person has no other reasonably suitable residential accommodation.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">22. The difference between Delhi Act and the present Act is that under the Delhi Act the only requirement is that the landlord has no other reasonably suitable accommodation whereas under the Himachal Act the residential premises are required to be owned by the landlord. The Apex Court in Rama Narain Arora's case (supra) held that the nondisclosure of the fact that the landlord was in occupation of certain premises in Subji Mandi was.not a ground to non-suit the landlord in view of the facts and circumstances of the case. The Apex Court held as follows:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. In making a claim that the suit premises is required bona fide for his own occupation as a residence for himself and other members of his family dependent on him and that he has no other reasonably suitable accommodation is a requirement of law before the Court can state whether the landlord requires the premises bona fide for his use and occupation. In doing so, the Court must also find out whether the landlord or such other person for whose benefit the premises is required has no other reasonably suitable residential accommodation. It cannot be said that the requirement of the landlord is not intermixed with the question of finding out whether he has any other reasonably suitable accommodation. If he has other reasonably suitable accommodation, ihen necessarily it would mean that he does not require the suit premises and his requirement may not be bona fide. In such circumstances further inquiry would be whether that premises is more suitable than the suit premises. Therefore, the questions raised before the Court would not necessarily depend upon only the pleadings. It could be a good defence that the landlord has other reasonably suitable residential accommodation and thereby defend the claim of the landlord.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. There cannot be a pedantic or a dogmatic approach in the matter of analysis of pleadings or of the evidence adduced thereto. It is no doubt true that if the pleadings are clearly set out, it would be easy for the Court to decide the matters. But if the pleadings are lacking or vague and if both parties have understood what was the case pleaded and put forth with reference to requirement of law and placed such material before the Court, neither party is prejudiced. If we analyse from this angle, we do not think that the High Court was not justified in interfering with the order made by the Rent Controller.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">23. From the perusal of the judgment of the Apex Court it is apparent that the Rent Controller must approach the matter in a practical manner. In case the non-disclosure is such as that it goes to the very root of the case the Rent Controller would be justified in non-suiting the landlord. However, if the non-disclosure is such that it would not prejudice the rights of the respondent then the landlord should not be non-suited only on this ground.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">24. The decisions of this Court cited hereinabove were delivered prior to the judgment delivered by the Apex Court in Ram Nar'ain Arora's case. Further more both in Tara Chand Sharma's case and Vijay Kapoor's case decided by this Court, no averment had been made ixi respect of other residential buildings owned by a landlord. There was complete non-disclosure as to whether any such residential building owned by the landlord was in his possession or not. In the present case, as I have held above, the residential premises at 31, The Mall, Shimla was not owned by the landlord and hence these two earlier judgments of this Court are distinguishable on facts also.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">25. In the present case, the landlord has been non-suited only on the ground that he did not disclose the fact that he was in occupation of certain premises on the Mall Road. Under law he was not required to disclose this fact. He was only required to disclose the factum of occupying another residential building owned by him in the urban area concerned. True it may be, that it would have been better if the landlord had disclosed all the facts but non-disclosure of a fact which he was not under law required to disclose could not in my opinion be a ground to dismiss his eviction petition.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">26. However, what are the premises in his occupation even as a tenant can be taken into consideration while deciding the question whether he bona fide requires the demised premises for his personal use or occupation or not.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">27. Lastly comes the question with regard to the bona fide requirement of the landlord. The landlord has no children. According to the landlord as well as his other witnesses i.e. his brother-in-law PW-2 and his wife PW-3, the wife now wants to come back and settle in Shimla. There is no reason to disbelieve their statements. Even according to the evidence led by the tenant the accommodation in possession of the landlord consists of two rooms, kitchen, bath room etc. Admittedly, the landlord is also having his office as an Architect in this building. The landlord belongs to the middle class of the Society. It cannot be expected of a landlord who owns sufficient property to reside in a two room set wherein he also runs his office.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">28. The law by now is well settled that the landlord is the best judge of the suitability of the accommodation required by him. This suitability has however to be judged in the context of reasonable expectations. The landlord and his wife who are both well educated can reasonably be expected to entertain guests and they will have visitors to their house. They would obviously require a drawing room, a bed room and a spare bed room for guests. Even at his residence the landlord may require another room for his professional work. This is the minimum accommodation which they would require. Even if the accommodation possessed by the landlord, though not owned by him, at 31, the Mall, Shimla is taken into consideration such accommodation is not sufficient to meet his requirements since admittedly the landlord is running his profession of Architect from some portion of his these premises.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">29. Keeping in view the entire facts and circumstances, I am of the considered view that the learned Appellate Authority gravely erred in rejecting the eviction petition of the landlord solely on the ground that he had not disclosed the factum of being in possession of the premises at 31, the Mall Shimla. Even though I have held that the said premises are residential premises, in view of the above discussion I hold that the landlord cannot be non-suited only on the ground of his being in possession of such premises since same were not owned by him.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">30. In view of the above discussion, the Revision Petition is allowed, the order of the learned Appellate Authority dated 6.5.2003 is seaside and the order of the Rent Controller dated 22.8.2001 is restored.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">31. Keeping in view the fact that the tenant has been in possession of the premises for a long period he is granted time up to 31st October, 2008 to vacate the premises.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">32. No order as to costs.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '2008(2)ShimLC491',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'Shri S.L. Srivastava',
			'sub' => 'Tenancy',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'shri-arun-bhanwara-vs-s-l-srivastava',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '891084',
		(int) 1 => 'shri-arun-bhanwara-vs-s-l-srivastava'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Shri Arun Bhanwara Vs Shri S L Srivastava - Citation 891084 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '891084',
		'acts' => '',
		'appealno' => '',
		'appellant' => 'Shri Arun Bhanwara',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Shri Arun Bhanwara Vs. Shri S.L. Srivastava',
		'casenote' => ' - CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908.[C.A. No. 5/1908]. Order 14, Rule 2 [As amended by Amending Act of 1976]: [V.K. Gupta, CJ, Deepak Gupta & Surjit Singh, JJ] Preliminary issue of law and fact  Court framing all issues both of law and facts together and also  tried all the issues together, including the issue relating to jurisdiction of Court  Held, Except in situations perceived or warranted under sub-rule (2) of Rule 2 of Order 14 where a  Court in fact frames only issues of law in the first instance and postpones settlement of other issues, clearly and explicitly in situations where the Court has framed all issues together, both of law as well as facts and has also tried all these issues together, it is not open to the Court to adopt the principle of severability and proceed to decide issues of law first, without taking up simultaneously other issues for decision. This course of action is not available to a Court because sub-rule (1) does not permit the  Court to adopt any such principle of severability and to dispose of a suit only on preliminary issues, or what can be termed as issues of law. Sub-rule (1)  clearly mandates that in a situation contemplated under it, where all the issues have been together and have also been taken up for adjudication during the course of the trial, these must be decided together and the judgment in the suit as a whole must be pronounced by the Court covering all the issues framed in the suit.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => 'Ram Narain Arora v. Asha Rani;',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => '',
		'counseldef' => '',
		'court' => 'Himachal Pradesh',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2008-07-31',
		'deposition' => 'Petition allowed',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => ' Deepak Gupta, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>Deepak Gupta, J.</p><p>1. This Revision Petition under Section 25(5) of the H.P. Urban Rent Control Act, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) is directed against the order of the learned Appellate Authority, Shimla in CMA No. 60-S/14 of 2001 whereby the appeal filed by the respondent (hereinafter referred to as the tenant) has been allowed, the order of the Rent Controller has been set-aside and the petition for eviction filed by the present petitioner (hereinafter referred to as the Landlord) on the ground of personal bona fide requirement has been set-aside.</p><p>2. The undisputed facts are that the landlord is owner of the demised premises situated in building known as Tunnel View, Sanjauli, Shimla-6 consisting of two bed rooms with attached bath room and latrine, drawing-cum-dining room, kitchen and balcony. These premises were purchased by the landlord in the year 1986. Thereafter, the landlord had rented out the premises to one Sh. B.K. Chauhan. According to the landlord, when he got married he requested Sh. B.K. Chauhan to vacate the said premises. Sh. Chauhan vacated the said premises but admittedly the landlord did not occupy the same but rented out the same to the tenant in the year 1990.</p><p>3. In the year 1997 the landlord filed a petition for eviction of the tenant on two grounds; firstly that the tenant is in arrears of rent from 1.11.1990 to 31.7.1997 and secondly that the premises are bona fide required by the landlord for the use and occupation of himself and his family.</p><p>4. This petition was contested by the tenant. After trial, the Rent Controller ordered the eviction of the tenant on two grounds; (i) that the tenant was in arrears of rent from November, 1999 till date of order i.e. 22nd August, 2001 and (ii) that the landlord required the premises for his own use and occupation.</p><p>5. The tenant deposited the rent within the time prescribed. He also filed an appeal challenging the finding on the issue of bona fide requirement. The learned Appellate Authority came to the conclusion that the landlord had not made a proper and full disclosure of facts as required under the provisions of the Act and had withheld material facts from the Court viz. that the landlord was in occupation of residential premises on 31, Mall Road in the urban area of Shimla and as such rejected this petition on this short ground.</p><p>6. Aggrieved by the said order, the landlord has filed the present Revision Petition.</p><p>7. I have heard Sh. Ramakant Sharma, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sh. Bhupinder Gupta, learned senior Counsel for the tenant.</p><p>8. It has been urged on behalf of the landlord that the building which is alleged to be in possession of the landlord i.e. 31, the Mall Shimla is not a residential building and secondly that the building is not owned by him.</p><p>9. On the other hand Sh. Bhupinder Gupta, learned Counsel of the tenant has strenuously urged that the landlord in para 18 has not stated anything about any building being owned by him and has only made an averment that he does not own or possess any other such building within the urban area Shimla. It is contended by Sh. Bhupinder Gupta that the landlord of his own volition did not state anything about the ownership of the building and since he has kept silent about the building which he is in occupation he has made a false averment and therefore his petition for eviction has rightly been rejected.</p><p>10. I am not at all in agreement with the contention of the landlord that the premises known as 31, the Mall Shimla which are admittedly in the occupation of the landlord are commercial premises only and not being used by him for his residence. As pointed out above, the landlord purchased the demised premises in 1986. They fell vacant when he got married despite that he did not occupy the same and rented out the same to the tenant in the year 1990. The question that arises is where was the landlord living for this entire period. According to the landlord after the year 1994 he has been living with his brother-in-law Rajan (wife's brother) PW-2, since the year 1994. Prior to 1994 the landlord will have this Court to believe that he was living off and on with one friend or the other. This story is impossible to believe. The landlord was married in the year 1999. He is an Architect by profession. His wife is a law graduate. It is not believable that such a person would have no permanent abode and would continue to live as a guest with his friends for almost 5 years after his marriage. Even the story that he has been living with his brother-in-law after the year 1994 does not inspire confidence. It stands proved on record that the brother-in-law PW-2 Rajan lives with his own family i.e. wife and children. From the evidence it is also clear that the parents of the brother-in-law also reside with him, His flat consists of only two rooms. The flat in possession of the landlord at 31, the Mall Shimla, also consists of two rooms, kitchen and bath room. Even assuming that he was running an office in the part of the flat it cannot be believed that he would not live on his own flat on the Mall Road and reside with his brother-in-law in cramped premises. Even in the electoral list the landlord is shown to be a resident of 31, The Mall, Shimla. Therefore, I am of the considered view that the building 31, the Mall, Shimla was also being used as a residence by the landlord.</p><p>11. Having held so, the question that arises is whether the landlord can be non-suited only on the ground that he has not made any disclosure about the residential accommodation available with him which premises were admittedly not owned by him.</p><p>12. The short question which arises for decision in this petition is whether the landlord was guilty of suppressing and withholding such relevant facts which would disentitle him from seeking eviction of the tenant. To appreciate these contentions it would be necessary to refer to relevant portion of Section 14(3) of the Act:</p><p>Section 14:</p><p>1 and 2 xxxxxxxxxxx</p><p>(3) A landlord may apply to the Controller for an order directing the tenant to put the landlord in possession-</p><p>(a) in case of residential building, if</p><p>(i) he required it for his own occupation:</p><p>Provided that he is not occupying another residential building owned by him, in the urban area concerned:</p><p>Provided further that he has not vacated such a building without sufficient cause within five years of the filing of the application, in the said urban area....</p><p>13. A perusal of the bare provisions of the Act makes it clear that there are certain essential ingredients which the landlord must satisfy before seeking eviction of the tenant under the Act. Not only must he prove that the residential building is bona fide required by him for his own use and occupation but he must also plead and prove that he is not occupying any other residential building owned by him in the urban area concerned and further that he has not vacated such a building without sufficient cause within 5 years of the filing of the application.</p><p>14. Reference may now be made to the relevant allegations made in para 18 of the eviction petition:</p><p>(ii) That the petitioner bona fide requires the premises for his own use and occupation and also for the use and occupation of his family.</p><p>The petitioner does not own or possess any other such building within the urban area of Simla nor the petitioner has vacated any such premises within five years of the filing of this petition.</p><p>The family of the petitioner presently consists of himself and his wife. Due to paucity of accommodation the petitioner has not been able to keep his wife with himself at Simla, where he is working as an Engineer and she has been residing at Chandigarh since 1991 but on account of her ill health she has been brought to Simla by the petitioner. The petitioner at present is seeking temporary shelter, from time to time, with his relations.</p><p>15. The learned Appellate Authority came to the conclusion that the landlord had falsely pleaded that he does not own or possess any other such building within the urban area of Shimla and hence rejected the eviction petition on this ground.</p><p>16. On a close analysis of the proviso to Section 14(3)(a)(i) of the Act it is clear that a landlord is not entitled to seek eviction of a tenant from residential building even in case of bona fide requirement if the landlord is occupying another residential building owned by him in the urban area concerned. One can read three essential ingredients in this proviso i.e. (i) that the landlord is in occupation of another residential building; (ii) that the said residential building is owned by him and (iii) that the said residential building is situated in the concerned urban area.</p><p>17. The question that arises is what is the impact of the landlord not making a disclosure in respect of premises which he is occupying but are not owned by him.</p><p>18. The Apex Court in Onkar Nath v. Ved Vyas ILR 1979 HP 1, held as follows:</p><p>It is common ground that there are three requirements to make out a cause of action for eviction under that provision, and indeed this is apparent from a bare reading of the sub-section. In the present case the finding is to the effect that the landlord requires the residential building for his own occupation. But, the legislation has taken care to insist upon two more conditions, namely; (a) that the landlord is not occupying any other residential building in the area concerned; and (b) that he has not vacated such a building without sufficient cause. There is not a scintilla of evidence nor indeed there is any averment in compliance with these latter conditions. The necessary consequence follows that not merely is there inadequacy of pleadings sufficient to make out a cause of action but total absence of proof of two vital requirements....</p><p>The Supreme Court also said that:.The statute benignly designed to protect tenants from unreasonable evictions has taken case to put restrictions which must be rigorously construed to fulfil the purpose of the statute.</p><p>19. Following the aforesaid judgment and other pronouncements of the Apex Court, a learned Single Judge of this Court in Tara Chand Sharma v. Baij Nath and Ors. 1992 (2) R.C.J. 323, held as follows:</p><p>16. What appears as the legislative intent, in bold relief, is that the landlord, while seeking eviction of a tenant on the ground that he needs a residential building for his own occupation, must come out clearly and honestly with facts relating to the requirement that he is not occupying another residential building owned by him, in the urban area concerned and that he had not vacated such a building without sufficient cause within five years of the filing of the application, in the said urban area. The primal burden of making a clear disclosure would lie upon the landlord, for, the true facts would be in his special knowledge. An order in his favour by the Rent Controller would depend upon the satisfaction of the Rent Controller in regard not only to the claim that the landlord requires the accommodation, from which he wishes to evict a tenant, for his own occupation but also that he was not occupying another residential building owned by him nor had he vacated such building without sufficient cause within five years of the filing of the application in the application in the urban area concerned....</p><p>It was further held as under:</p><p>18. That the landlord should make a full disclosure of the relevant facts, pertaining to the requirements of Sub-section (3)(a)(i) and the two provisos, becomes all the more necessary because the satisfaction of the Rent Controller in regard thereto is the condition precedent for the making of an order in favour of the landlord....</p><p>20. The aforesaid judgment has been followed in a number of other cases including Vijay Kapoor v. Maya Ram 1997 (2) RCR 437, wherein another learned single Judge of this Court following the aforesaid judgment held that the landlord must make complete and proper disclosure of all the material facts.</p><p>21. On the other hand Sh. Ramakant Sharma has relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in Ram Narain Arora v. Asha Rani 1998(2) RCR 268. In that case the Rent Controller came to the conclusion that the landlord had suppressed material information and had not disclosed the fact that he was already in occupation of a house in Subji Mandi. Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act reads as follows:</p><p>Section 14(1)(e). That the premises let for residential purposes are required bona fide by the landlord for occupation as a residence for himself or for any member of his family dependent on him, if he is the owner thereof, or for any person for whose benefit the premises are held and that the landlord or such person has no other reasonably suitable residential accommodation.</p><p>22. The difference between Delhi Act and the present Act is that under the Delhi Act the only requirement is that the landlord has no other reasonably suitable accommodation whereas under the Himachal Act the residential premises are required to be owned by the landlord. The Apex Court in Rama Narain Arora's case (supra) held that the nondisclosure of the fact that the landlord was in occupation of certain premises in Subji Mandi was.not a ground to non-suit the landlord in view of the facts and circumstances of the case. The Apex Court held as follows:</p><p>9. In making a claim that the suit premises is required bona fide for his own occupation as a residence for himself and other members of his family dependent on him and that he has no other reasonably suitable accommodation is a requirement of law before the Court can state whether the landlord requires the premises bona fide for his use and occupation. In doing so, the Court must also find out whether the landlord or such other person for whose benefit the premises is required has no other reasonably suitable residential accommodation. It cannot be said that the requirement of the landlord is not intermixed with the question of finding out whether he has any other reasonably suitable accommodation. If he has other reasonably suitable accommodation, ihen necessarily it would mean that he does not require the suit premises and his requirement may not be bona fide. In such circumstances further inquiry would be whether that premises is more suitable than the suit premises. Therefore, the questions raised before the Court would not necessarily depend upon only the pleadings. It could be a good defence that the landlord has other reasonably suitable residential accommodation and thereby defend the claim of the landlord.</p><p>10. There cannot be a pedantic or a dogmatic approach in the matter of analysis of pleadings or of the evidence adduced thereto. It is no doubt true that if the pleadings are clearly set out, it would be easy for the Court to decide the matters. But if the pleadings are lacking or vague and if both parties have understood what was the case pleaded and put forth with reference to requirement of law and placed such material before the Court, neither party is prejudiced. If we analyse from this angle, we do not think that the High Court was not justified in interfering with the order made by the Rent Controller.</p><p>23. From the perusal of the judgment of the Apex Court it is apparent that the Rent Controller must approach the matter in a practical manner. In case the non-disclosure is such as that it goes to the very root of the case the Rent Controller would be justified in non-suiting the landlord. However, if the non-disclosure is such that it would not prejudice the rights of the respondent then the landlord should not be non-suited only on this ground.</p><p>24. The decisions of this Court cited hereinabove were delivered prior to the judgment delivered by the Apex Court in Ram Nar'ain Arora's case. Further more both in Tara Chand Sharma's case and Vijay Kapoor's case decided by this Court, no averment had been made ixi respect of other residential buildings owned by a landlord. There was complete non-disclosure as to whether any such residential building owned by the landlord was in his possession or not. In the present case, as I have held above, the residential premises at 31, The Mall, Shimla was not owned by the landlord and hence these two earlier judgments of this Court are distinguishable on facts also.</p><p>25. In the present case, the landlord has been non-suited only on the ground that he did not disclose the fact that he was in occupation of certain premises on the Mall Road. Under law he was not required to disclose this fact. He was only required to disclose the factum of occupying another residential building owned by him in the urban area concerned. True it may be, that it would have been better if the landlord had disclosed all the facts but non-disclosure of a fact which he was not under law required to disclose could not in my opinion be a ground to dismiss his eviction petition.</p><p>26. However, what are the premises in his occupation even as a tenant can be taken into consideration while deciding the question whether he bona fide requires the demised premises for his personal use or occupation or not.</p><p>27. Lastly comes the question with regard to the bona fide requirement of the landlord. The landlord has no children. According to the landlord as well as his other witnesses i.e. his brother-in-law PW-2 and his wife PW-3, the wife now wants to come back and settle in Shimla. There is no reason to disbelieve their statements. Even according to the evidence led by the tenant the accommodation in possession of the landlord consists of two rooms, kitchen, bath room etc. Admittedly, the landlord is also having his office as an Architect in this building. The landlord belongs to the middle class of the Society. It cannot be expected of a landlord who owns sufficient property to reside in a two room set wherein he also runs his office.</p><p>28. The law by now is well settled that the landlord is the best judge of the suitability of the accommodation required by him. This suitability has however to be judged in the context of reasonable expectations. The landlord and his wife who are both well educated can reasonably be expected to entertain guests and they will have visitors to their house. They would obviously require a drawing room, a bed room and a spare bed room for guests. Even at his residence the landlord may require another room for his professional work. This is the minimum accommodation which they would require. Even if the accommodation possessed by the landlord, though not owned by him, at 31, the Mall, Shimla is taken into consideration such accommodation is not sufficient to meet his requirements since admittedly the landlord is running his profession of Architect from some portion of his these premises.</p><p>29. Keeping in view the entire facts and circumstances, I am of the considered view that the learned Appellate Authority gravely erred in rejecting the eviction petition of the landlord solely on the ground that he had not disclosed the factum of being in possession of the premises at 31, the Mall Shimla. Even though I have held that the said premises are residential premises, in view of the above discussion I hold that the landlord cannot be non-suited only on the ground of his being in possession of such premises since same were not owned by him.</p><p>30. In view of the above discussion, the Revision Petition is allowed, the order of the learned Appellate Authority dated 6.5.2003 is seaside and the order of the Rent Controller dated 22.8.2001 is restored.</p><p>31. Keeping in view the fact that the tenant has been in possession of the premises for a long period he is granted time up to 31st October, 2008 to vacate the premises.</p><p>32. No order as to costs.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '2008(2)ShimLC491',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'Shri S.L. Srivastava',
		'sub' => 'Tenancy',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'shri-arun-bhanwara-vs-s-l-srivastava'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '891084',
	(int) 1 => 'shri-arun-bhanwara-vs-s-l-srivastava'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/891084/shri-arun-bhanwara-vs-s-l-srivastava'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$caseref = 'Ram Narain Arora v. Asha Rani<br>'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>Deepak Gupta, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. This Revision Petition under Section 25(5) of the H.P. Urban Rent Control Act, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) is directed against the order of the learned Appellate Authority, Shimla in CMA No. 60-S/14 of 2001 whereby the appeal filed by the respondent (hereinafter referred to as the tenant) has been allowed, the order of the Rent Controller has been set-aside and the petition for eviction filed by the present petitioner (hereinafter referred to as the Landlord) on the ground of personal bona fide requirement has been set-aside.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. The undisputed facts are that the landlord is owner of the demised premises situated in building known as Tunnel View, Sanjauli, Shimla-6 consisting of two bed rooms with attached bath room and latrine, drawing-cum-dining room, kitchen and balcony. These premises were purchased by the landlord in the year 1986. Thereafter, the landlord had rented out the premises to one Sh. B.K. Chauhan. According to the landlord, when he got married he requested Sh. B.K. Chauhan to vacate the said premises. Sh. Chauhan vacated the said premises but admittedly the landlord did not occupy the same but rented out the same to the tenant in the year 1990.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. In the year 1997 the landlord filed a petition for eviction of the tenant on two grounds; firstly that the tenant is in arrears of rent from 1.11.1990 to 31.7.1997 and secondly that the premises are bona fide required by the landlord for the use and occupation of himself and his family.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>4. This petition was contested by the tenant. After trial, the Rent Controller ordered the eviction of the tenant on two grounds; (i) that the tenant was in arrears of rent from November, 1999 till date of order i.e. 22nd August, 2001 and (ii) that the landlord required the premises for his own use and occupation.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>5. The tenant deposited the rent within the time prescribed. He also filed an appeal challenging the finding on the issue of bona fide requirement. The learned Appellate Authority came to the conclusion that the landlord had not made a proper and full disclosure of facts as required under the provisions of the Act and had withheld material facts from the Court viz. that the landlord was in occupation of residential premises on 31, Mall Road in the urban area of Shimla and as such rejected this petition on this short ground.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>6. Aggrieved by the said order, the landlord has filed the present Revision Petition.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>7. I have heard Sh. Ramakant Sharma, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sh. Bhupinder Gupta, learned senior Counsel for the tenant.',
	(int) 8 => '<p>8. It has been urged on behalf of the landlord that the building which is alleged to be in possession of the landlord i.e. 31, the Mall Shimla is not a residential building and secondly that the building is not owned by him.',
	(int) 9 => '<p>9. On the other hand Sh. Bhupinder Gupta, learned Counsel of the tenant has strenuously urged that the landlord in para 18 has not stated anything about any building being owned by him and has only made an averment that he does not own or possess any other such building within the urban area Shimla. It is contended by Sh. Bhupinder Gupta that the landlord of his own volition did not state anything about the ownership of the building and since he has kept silent about the building which he is in occupation he has made a false averment and therefore his petition for eviction has rightly been rejected.',
	(int) 10 => '<p>10. I am not at all in agreement with the contention of the landlord that the premises known as 31, the Mall Shimla which are admittedly in the occupation of the landlord are commercial premises only and not being used by him for his residence. As pointed out above, the landlord purchased the demised premises in 1986. They fell vacant when he got married despite that he did not occupy the same and rented out the same to the tenant in the year 1990. The question that arises is where was the landlord living for this entire period. According to the landlord after the year 1994 he has been living with his brother-in-law Rajan (wife's brother) PW-2, since the year 1994. Prior to 1994 the landlord will have this Court to believe that he was living off and on with one friend or the other. This story is impossible to believe. The landlord was married in the year 1999. He is an Architect by profession. His wife is a law graduate. It is not believable that such a person would have no permanent abode and would continue to live as a guest with his friends for almost 5 years after his marriage. Even the story that he has been living with his brother-in-law after the year 1994 does not inspire confidence. It stands proved on record that the brother-in-law PW-2 Rajan lives with his own family i.e. wife and children. From the evidence it is also clear that the parents of the brother-in-law also reside with him, His flat consists of only two rooms. The flat in possession of the landlord at 31, the Mall Shimla, also consists of two rooms, kitchen and bath room. Even assuming that he was running an office in the part of the flat it cannot be believed that he would not live on his own flat on the Mall Road and reside with his brother-in-law in cramped premises. Even in the electoral list the landlord is shown to be a resident of 31, The Mall, Shimla. Therefore, I am of the considered view that the building 31, the Mall, Shimla was also being used as a residence by the landlord.',
	(int) 11 => '<p>11. Having held so, the question that arises is whether the landlord can be non-suited only on the ground that he has not made any disclosure about the residential accommodation available with him which premises were admittedly not owned by him.',
	(int) 12 => '<p>12. The short question which arises for decision in this petition is whether the landlord was guilty of suppressing and withholding such relevant facts which would disentitle him from seeking eviction of the tenant. To appreciate these contentions it would be necessary to refer to relevant portion of Section 14(3) of the Act:',
	(int) 13 => '<p>Section 14:',
	(int) 14 => '<p>1 and 2 xxxxxxxxxxx',
	(int) 15 => '<p>(3) A landlord may apply to the Controller for an order directing the tenant to put the landlord in possession-',
	(int) 16 => '<p>(a) in case of residential building, if',
	(int) 17 => '<p>(i) he required it for his own occupation:',
	(int) 18 => '<p>Provided that he is not occupying another residential building owned by him, in the urban area concerned:',
	(int) 19 => '<p>Provided further that he has not vacated such a building without sufficient cause within five years of the filing of the application, in the said urban area....',
	(int) 20 => '<p>13. A perusal of the bare provisions of the Act makes it clear that there are certain essential ingredients which the landlord must satisfy before seeking eviction of the tenant under the Act. Not only must he prove that the residential building is bona fide required by him for his own use and occupation but he must also plead and prove that he is not occupying any other residential building owned by him in the urban area concerned and further that he has not vacated such a building without sufficient cause within 5 years of the filing of the application.',
	(int) 21 => '<p>14. Reference may now be made to the relevant allegations made in para 18 of the eviction petition:',
	(int) 22 => '<p>(ii) That the petitioner bona fide requires the premises for his own use and occupation and also for the use and occupation of his family.',
	(int) 23 => '<p>The petitioner does not own or possess any other such building within the urban area of Simla nor the petitioner has vacated any such premises within five years of the filing of this petition.',
	(int) 24 => '<p>The family of the petitioner presently consists of himself and his wife. Due to paucity of accommodation the petitioner has not been able to keep his wife with himself at Simla, where he is working as an Engineer and she has been residing at Chandigarh since 1991 but on account of her ill health she has been brought to Simla by the petitioner. The petitioner at present is seeking temporary shelter, from time to time, with his relations.',
	(int) 25 => '<p>15. The learned Appellate Authority came to the conclusion that the landlord had falsely pleaded that he does not own or possess any other such building within the urban area of Shimla and hence rejected the eviction petition on this ground.',
	(int) 26 => '<p>16. On a close analysis of the proviso to Section 14(3)(a)(i) of the Act it is clear that a landlord is not entitled to seek eviction of a tenant from residential building even in case of bona fide requirement if the landlord is occupying another residential building owned by him in the urban area concerned. One can read three essential ingredients in this proviso i.e. (i) that the landlord is in occupation of another residential building; (ii) that the said residential building is owned by him and (iii) that the said residential building is situated in the concerned urban area.',
	(int) 27 => '<p>17. The question that arises is what is the impact of the landlord not making a disclosure in respect of premises which he is occupying but are not owned by him.',
	(int) 28 => '<p>18. The Apex Court in Onkar Nath v. Ved Vyas ILR 1979 HP 1, held as follows:',
	(int) 29 => '<p>It is common ground that there are three requirements to make out a cause of action for eviction under that provision, and indeed this is apparent from a bare reading of the sub-section. In the present case the finding is to the effect that the landlord requires the residential building for his own occupation. But, the legislation has taken care to insist upon two more conditions, namely; (a) that the landlord is not occupying any other residential building in the area concerned; and (b) that he has not vacated such a building without sufficient cause. There is not a scintilla of evidence nor indeed there is any averment in compliance with these latter conditions. The necessary consequence follows that not merely is there inadequacy of pleadings sufficient to make out a cause of action but total absence of proof of two vital requirements....',
	(int) 30 => '<p>The Supreme Court also said that:.The statute benignly designed to protect tenants from unreasonable evictions has taken case to put restrictions which must be rigorously construed to fulfil the purpose of the statute.',
	(int) 31 => '<p>19. Following the aforesaid judgment and other pronouncements of the Apex Court, a learned Single Judge of this Court in Tara Chand Sharma v. Baij Nath and Ors. 1992 (2) R.C.J. 323, held as follows:',
	(int) 32 => '<p>16. What appears as the legislative intent, in bold relief, is that the landlord, while seeking eviction of a tenant on the ground that he needs a residential building for his own occupation, must come out clearly and honestly with facts relating to the requirement that he is not occupying another residential building owned by him, in the urban area concerned and that he had not vacated such a building without sufficient cause within five years of the filing of the application, in the said urban area. The primal burden of making a clear disclosure would lie upon the landlord, for, the true facts would be in his special knowledge. An order in his favour by the Rent Controller would depend upon the satisfaction of the Rent Controller in regard not only to the claim that the landlord requires the accommodation, from which he wishes to evict a tenant, for his own occupation but also that he was not occupying another residential building owned by him nor had he vacated such building without sufficient cause within five years of the filing of the application in the application in the urban area concerned....',
	(int) 33 => '<p>It was further held as under:',
	(int) 34 => '<p>18. That the landlord should make a full disclosure of the relevant facts, pertaining to the requirements of Sub-section (3)(a)(i) and the two provisos, becomes all the more necessary because the satisfaction of the Rent Controller in regard thereto is the condition precedent for the making of an order in favour of the landlord....',
	(int) 35 => '<p>20. The aforesaid judgment has been followed in a number of other cases including Vijay Kapoor v. Maya Ram 1997 (2) RCR 437, wherein another learned single Judge of this Court following the aforesaid judgment held that the landlord must make complete and proper disclosure of all the material facts.',
	(int) 36 => '<p>21. On the other hand Sh. Ramakant Sharma has relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in Ram Narain Arora v. Asha Rani 1998(2) RCR 268. In that case the Rent Controller came to the conclusion that the landlord had suppressed material information and had not disclosed the fact that he was already in occupation of a house in Subji Mandi. Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act reads as follows:',
	(int) 37 => '<p>Section 14(1)(e). That the premises let for residential purposes are required bona fide by the landlord for occupation as a residence for himself or for any member of his family dependent on him, if he is the owner thereof, or for any person for whose benefit the premises are held and that the landlord or such person has no other reasonably suitable residential accommodation.',
	(int) 38 => '<p>22. The difference between Delhi Act and the present Act is that under the Delhi Act the only requirement is that the landlord has no other reasonably suitable accommodation whereas under the Himachal Act the residential premises are required to be owned by the landlord. The Apex Court in Rama Narain Arora's case (supra) held that the nondisclosure of the fact that the landlord was in occupation of certain premises in Subji Mandi was.not a ground to non-suit the landlord in view of the facts and circumstances of the case. The Apex Court held as follows:',
	(int) 39 => '<p>9. In making a claim that the suit premises is required bona fide for his own occupation as a residence for himself and other members of his family dependent on him and that he has no other reasonably suitable accommodation is a requirement of law before the Court can state whether the landlord requires the premises bona fide for his use and occupation. In doing so, the Court must also find out whether the landlord or such other person for whose benefit the premises is required has no other reasonably suitable residential accommodation. It cannot be said that the requirement of the landlord is not intermixed with the question of finding out whether he has any other reasonably suitable accommodation. If he has other reasonably suitable accommodation, ihen necessarily it would mean that he does not require the suit premises and his requirement may not be bona fide. In such circumstances further inquiry would be whether that premises is more suitable than the suit premises. Therefore, the questions raised before the Court would not necessarily depend upon only the pleadings. It could be a good defence that the landlord has other reasonably suitable residential accommodation and thereby defend the claim of the landlord.',
	(int) 40 => '<p>10. There cannot be a pedantic or a dogmatic approach in the matter of analysis of pleadings or of the evidence adduced thereto. It is no doubt true that if the pleadings are clearly set out, it would be easy for the Court to decide the matters. But if the pleadings are lacking or vague and if both parties have understood what was the case pleaded and put forth with reference to requirement of law and placed such material before the Court, neither party is prejudiced. If we analyse from this angle, we do not think that the High Court was not justified in interfering with the order made by the Rent Controller.',
	(int) 41 => '<p>23. From the perusal of the judgment of the Apex Court it is apparent that the Rent Controller must approach the matter in a practical manner. In case the non-disclosure is such as that it goes to the very root of the case the Rent Controller would be justified in non-suiting the landlord. However, if the non-disclosure is such that it would not prejudice the rights of the respondent then the landlord should not be non-suited only on this ground.',
	(int) 42 => '<p>24. The decisions of this Court cited hereinabove were delivered prior to the judgment delivered by the Apex Court in Ram Nar'ain Arora's case. Further more both in Tara Chand Sharma's case and Vijay Kapoor's case decided by this Court, no averment had been made ixi respect of other residential buildings owned by a landlord. There was complete non-disclosure as to whether any such residential building owned by the landlord was in his possession or not. In the present case, as I have held above, the residential premises at 31, The Mall, Shimla was not owned by the landlord and hence these two earlier judgments of this Court are distinguishable on facts also.',
	(int) 43 => '<p>25. In the present case, the landlord has been non-suited only on the ground that he did not disclose the fact that he was in occupation of certain premises on the Mall Road. Under law he was not required to disclose this fact. He was only required to disclose the factum of occupying another residential building owned by him in the urban area concerned. True it may be, that it would have been better if the landlord had disclosed all the facts but non-disclosure of a fact which he was not under law required to disclose could not in my opinion be a ground to dismiss his eviction petition.',
	(int) 44 => '<p>26. However, what are the premises in his occupation even as a tenant can be taken into consideration while deciding the question whether he bona fide requires the demised premises for his personal use or occupation or not.',
	(int) 45 => '<p>27. Lastly comes the question with regard to the bona fide requirement of the landlord. The landlord has no children. According to the landlord as well as his other witnesses i.e. his brother-in-law PW-2 and his wife PW-3, the wife now wants to come back and settle in Shimla. There is no reason to disbelieve their statements. Even according to the evidence led by the tenant the accommodation in possession of the landlord consists of two rooms, kitchen, bath room etc. Admittedly, the landlord is also having his office as an Architect in this building. The landlord belongs to the middle class of the Society. It cannot be expected of a landlord who owns sufficient property to reside in a two room set wherein he also runs his office.',
	(int) 46 => '<p>28. The law by now is well settled that the landlord is the best judge of the suitability of the accommodation required by him. This suitability has however to be judged in the context of reasonable expectations. The landlord and his wife who are both well educated can reasonably be expected to entertain guests and they will have visitors to their house. They would obviously require a drawing room, a bed room and a spare bed room for guests. Even at his residence the landlord may require another room for his professional work. This is the minimum accommodation which they would require. Even if the accommodation possessed by the landlord, though not owned by him, at 31, the Mall, Shimla is taken into consideration such accommodation is not sufficient to meet his requirements since admittedly the landlord is running his profession of Architect from some portion of his these premises.',
	(int) 47 => '<p>29. Keeping in view the entire facts and circumstances, I am of the considered view that the learned Appellate Authority gravely erred in rejecting the eviction petition of the landlord solely on the ground that he had not disclosed the factum of being in possession of the premises at 31, the Mall Shimla. Even though I have held that the said premises are residential premises, in view of the above discussion I hold that the landlord cannot be non-suited only on the ground of his being in possession of such premises since same were not owned by him.',
	(int) 48 => '<p>30. In view of the above discussion, the Revision Petition is allowed, the order of the learned Appellate Authority dated 6.5.2003 is seaside and the order of the Rent Controller dated 22.8.2001 is restored.',
	(int) 49 => '<p>31. Keeping in view the fact that the tenant has been in possession of the premises for a long period he is granted time up to 31st October, 2008 to vacate the premises.',
	(int) 50 => '<p>32. No order as to costs.<p>',
	(int) 51 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 52
$i = (int) 39
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

9. In making a claim that the suit premises is required bona fide for his own occupation as a residence for himself and other members of his family dependent on him and that he has no other reasonably suitable accommodation is a requirement of law before the Court can state whether the landlord requires the premises bona fide for his use and occupation. In doing so, the Court must also find out whether the landlord or such other person for whose benefit the premises is required has no other reasonably suitable residential accommodation. It cannot be said that the requirement of the landlord is not intermixed with the question of finding out whether he has any other reasonably suitable accommodation. If he has other reasonably suitable accommodation, ihen necessarily it would mean that he does not require the suit premises and his requirement may not be bona fide. In such circumstances further inquiry would be whether that premises is more suitable than the suit premises. Therefore, the questions raised before the Court would not necessarily depend upon only the pleadings. It could be a good defence that the landlord has other reasonably suitable residential accommodation and thereby defend the claim of the landlord.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Shri Arun Bhanwara Vs Shri S L Srivastava - Citation 891084 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '891084',
			'acts' => '',
			'appealno' => '',
			'appellant' => 'Shri Arun Bhanwara',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Shri Arun Bhanwara Vs. Shri S.L. Srivastava',
			'casenote' => ' - CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908.[C.A. No. 5/1908]. Order 14, Rule 2 [As amended by Amending Act of 1976]: [V.K. Gupta, CJ, Deepak Gupta & Surjit Singh, JJ] Preliminary issue of law and fact  Court framing all issues both of law and facts together and also  tried all the issues together, including the issue relating to jurisdiction of Court  Held, Except in situations perceived or warranted under sub-rule (2) of Rule 2 of Order 14 where a  Court in fact frames only issues of law in the first instance and postpones settlement of other issues, clearly and explicitly in situations where the Court has framed all issues together, both of law as well as facts and has also tried all these issues together, it is not open to the Court to adopt the principle of severability and proceed to decide issues of law first, without taking up simultaneously other issues for decision. This course of action is not available to a Court because sub-rule (1) does not permit the  Court to adopt any such principle of severability and to dispose of a suit only on preliminary issues, or what can be termed as issues of law. Sub-rule (1)  clearly mandates that in a situation contemplated under it, where all the issues have been together and have also been taken up for adjudication during the course of the trial, these must be decided together and the judgment in the suit as a whole must be pronounced by the Court covering all the issues framed in the suit.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => 'Ram Narain Arora v. Asha Rani;',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => '',
			'counseldef' => '',
			'court' => 'Himachal Pradesh',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2008-07-31',
			'deposition' => 'Petition allowed',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => ' Deepak Gupta, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">Deepak Gupta, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. This Revision Petition under Section 25(5) of the H.P. Urban Rent Control Act, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) is directed against the order of the learned Appellate Authority, Shimla in CMA No. 60-S/14 of 2001 whereby the appeal filed by the respondent (hereinafter referred to as the tenant) has been allowed, the order of the Rent Controller has been set-aside and the petition for eviction filed by the present petitioner (hereinafter referred to as the Landlord) on the ground of personal bona fide requirement has been set-aside.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The undisputed facts are that the landlord is owner of the demised premises situated in building known as Tunnel View, Sanjauli, Shimla-6 consisting of two bed rooms with attached bath room and latrine, drawing-cum-dining room, kitchen and balcony. These premises were purchased by the landlord in the year 1986. Thereafter, the landlord had rented out the premises to one Sh. B.K. Chauhan. According to the landlord, when he got married he requested Sh. B.K. Chauhan to vacate the said premises. Sh. Chauhan vacated the said premises but admittedly the landlord did not occupy the same but rented out the same to the tenant in the year 1990.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. In the year 1997 the landlord filed a petition for eviction of the tenant on two grounds; firstly that the tenant is in arrears of rent from 1.11.1990 to 31.7.1997 and secondly that the premises are bona fide required by the landlord for the use and occupation of himself and his family.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. This petition was contested by the tenant. After trial, the Rent Controller ordered the eviction of the tenant on two grounds; (i) that the tenant was in arrears of rent from November, 1999 till date of order i.e. 22nd August, 2001 and (ii) that the landlord required the premises for his own use and occupation.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. The tenant deposited the rent within the time prescribed. He also filed an appeal challenging the finding on the issue of bona fide requirement. The learned Appellate Authority came to the conclusion that the landlord had not made a proper and full disclosure of facts as required under the provisions of the Act and had withheld material facts from the Court viz. that the landlord was in occupation of residential premises on 31, Mall Road in the urban area of Shimla and as such rejected this petition on this short ground.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. Aggrieved by the said order, the landlord has filed the present Revision Petition.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. I have heard Sh. Ramakant Sharma, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sh. Bhupinder Gupta, learned senior Counsel for the tenant.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. It has been urged on behalf of the landlord that the building which is alleged to be in possession of the landlord i.e. 31, the Mall Shimla is not a residential building and secondly that the building is not owned by him.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. On the other hand Sh. Bhupinder Gupta, learned Counsel of the tenant has strenuously urged that the landlord in para 18 has not stated anything about any building being owned by him and has only made an averment that he does not own or possess any other such building within the urban area Shimla. It is contended by Sh. Bhupinder Gupta that the landlord of his own volition did not state anything about the ownership of the building and since he has kept silent about the building which he is in occupation he has made a false averment and therefore his petition for eviction has rightly been rejected.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. I am not at all in agreement with the contention of the landlord that the premises known as 31, the Mall Shimla which are admittedly in the occupation of the landlord are commercial premises only and not being used by him for his residence. As pointed out above, the landlord purchased the demised premises in 1986. They fell vacant when he got married despite that he did not occupy the same and rented out the same to the tenant in the year 1990. The question that arises is where was the landlord living for this entire period. According to the landlord after the year 1994 he has been living with his brother-in-law Rajan (wife's brother) PW-2, since the year 1994. Prior to 1994 the landlord will have this Court to believe that he was living off and on with one friend or the other. This story is impossible to believe. The landlord was married in the year 1999. He is an Architect by profession. His wife is a law graduate. It is not believable that such a person would have no permanent abode and would continue to live as a guest with his friends for almost 5 years after his marriage. Even the story that he has been living with his brother-in-law after the year 1994 does not inspire confidence. It stands proved on record that the brother-in-law PW-2 Rajan lives with his own family i.e. wife and children. From the evidence it is also clear that the parents of the brother-in-law also reside with him, His flat consists of only two rooms. The flat in possession of the landlord at 31, the Mall Shimla, also consists of two rooms, kitchen and bath room. Even assuming that he was running an office in the part of the flat it cannot be believed that he would not live on his own flat on the Mall Road and reside with his brother-in-law in cramped premises. Even in the electoral list the landlord is shown to be a resident of 31, The Mall, Shimla. Therefore, I am of the considered view that the building 31, the Mall, Shimla was also being used as a residence by the landlord.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. Having held so, the question that arises is whether the landlord can be non-suited only on the ground that he has not made any disclosure about the residential accommodation available with him which premises were admittedly not owned by him.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. The short question which arises for decision in this petition is whether the landlord was guilty of suppressing and withholding such relevant facts which would disentitle him from seeking eviction of the tenant. To appreciate these contentions it would be necessary to refer to relevant portion of Section 14(3) of the Act:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Section 14:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1 and 2 xxxxxxxxxxx</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(3) A landlord may apply to the Controller for an order directing the tenant to put the landlord in possession-</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(a) in case of residential building, if</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(i) he required it for his own occupation:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Provided that he is not occupying another residential building owned by him, in the urban area concerned:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Provided further that he has not vacated such a building without sufficient cause within five years of the filing of the application, in the said urban area....</p><p style="text-align: justify;">13. A perusal of the bare provisions of the Act makes it clear that there are certain essential ingredients which the landlord must satisfy before seeking eviction of the tenant under the Act. Not only must he prove that the residential building is bona fide required by him for his own use and occupation but he must also plead and prove that he is not occupying any other residential building owned by him in the urban area concerned and further that he has not vacated such a building without sufficient cause within 5 years of the filing of the application.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">14. Reference may now be made to the relevant allegations made in para 18 of the eviction petition:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(ii) That the petitioner bona fide requires the premises for his own use and occupation and also for the use and occupation of his family.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The petitioner does not own or possess any other such building within the urban area of Simla nor the petitioner has vacated any such premises within five years of the filing of this petition.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The family of the petitioner presently consists of himself and his wife. Due to paucity of accommodation the petitioner has not been able to keep his wife with himself at Simla, where he is working as an Engineer and she has been residing at Chandigarh since 1991 but on account of her ill health she has been brought to Simla by the petitioner. The petitioner at present is seeking temporary shelter, from time to time, with his relations.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">15. The learned Appellate Authority came to the conclusion that the landlord had falsely pleaded that he does not own or possess any other such building within the urban area of Shimla and hence rejected the eviction petition on this ground.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">16. On a close analysis of the proviso to Section 14(3)(a)(i) of the Act it is clear that a landlord is not entitled to seek eviction of a tenant from residential building even in case of bona fide requirement if the landlord is occupying another residential building owned by him in the urban area concerned. One can read three essential ingredients in this proviso i.e. (i) that the landlord is in occupation of another residential building; (ii) that the said residential building is owned by him and (iii) that the said residential building is situated in the concerned urban area.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">17. The question that arises is what is the impact of the landlord not making a disclosure in respect of premises which he is occupying but are not owned by him.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">18. The Apex Court in Onkar Nath v. Ved Vyas ILR 1979 HP 1, held as follows:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">It is common ground that there are three requirements to make out a cause of action for eviction under that provision, and indeed this is apparent from a bare reading of the sub-section. In the present case the finding is to the effect that the landlord requires the residential building for his own occupation. But, the legislation has taken care to insist upon two more conditions, namely; (a) that the landlord is not occupying any other residential building in the area concerned; and (b) that he has not vacated such a building without sufficient cause. There is not a scintilla of evidence nor indeed there is any averment in compliance with these latter conditions. The necessary consequence follows that not merely is there inadequacy of pleadings sufficient to make out a cause of action but total absence of proof of two vital requirements....</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The Supreme Court also said that:.The statute benignly designed to protect tenants from unreasonable evictions has taken case to put restrictions which must be rigorously construed to fulfil the purpose of the statute.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">19. Following the aforesaid judgment and other pronouncements of the Apex Court, a learned Single Judge of this Court in Tara Chand Sharma v. Baij Nath and Ors. 1992 (2) R.C.J. 323, held as follows:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">16. What appears as the legislative intent, in bold relief, is that the landlord, while seeking eviction of a tenant on the ground that he needs a residential building for his own occupation, must come out clearly and honestly with facts relating to the requirement that he is not occupying another residential building owned by him, in the urban area concerned and that he had not vacated such a building without sufficient cause within five years of the filing of the application, in the said urban area. The primal burden of making a clear disclosure would lie upon the landlord, for, the true facts would be in his special knowledge. An order in his favour by the Rent Controller would depend upon the satisfaction of the Rent Controller in regard not only to the claim that the landlord requires the accommodation, from which he wishes to evict a tenant, for his own occupation but also that he was not occupying another residential building owned by him nor had he vacated such building without sufficient cause within five years of the filing of the application in the application in the urban area concerned....</p><p style="text-align: justify;">It was further held as under:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">18. That the landlord should make a full disclosure of the relevant facts, pertaining to the requirements of Sub-section (3)(a)(i) and the two provisos, becomes all the more necessary because the satisfaction of the Rent Controller in regard thereto is the condition precedent for the making of an order in favour of the landlord....</p><p style="text-align: justify;">20. The aforesaid judgment has been followed in a number of other cases including Vijay Kapoor v. Maya Ram 1997 (2) RCR 437, wherein another learned single Judge of this Court following the aforesaid judgment held that the landlord must make complete and proper disclosure of all the material facts.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">21. On the other hand Sh. Ramakant Sharma has relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in Ram Narain Arora v. Asha Rani 1998(2) RCR 268. In that case the Rent Controller came to the conclusion that the landlord had suppressed material information and had not disclosed the fact that he was already in occupation of a house in Subji Mandi. Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act reads as follows:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Section 14(1)(e). That the premises let for residential purposes are required bona fide by the landlord for occupation as a residence for himself or for any member of his family dependent on him, if he is the owner thereof, or for any person for whose benefit the premises are held and that the landlord or such person has no other reasonably suitable residential accommodation.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">22. The difference between Delhi Act and the present Act is that under the Delhi Act the only requirement is that the landlord has no other reasonably suitable accommodation whereas under the Himachal Act the residential premises are required to be owned by the landlord. The Apex Court in Rama Narain Arora's case (supra) held that the nondisclosure of the fact that the landlord was in occupation of certain premises in Subji Mandi was.not a ground to non-suit the landlord in view of the facts and circumstances of the case. The Apex Court held as follows:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. In making a claim that the suit premises is required bona fide for his own occupation as a residence for himself and other members of his family dependent on him and that he has no other reasonably suitable accommodation is a requirement of law before the Court can state whether the landlord requires the premises bona fide for his use and occupation. In doing so, the Court must also find out whether the landlord or such other person for whose benefit the premises is required has no other reasonably suitable residential accommodation. It cannot be said that the requirement of the landlord is not intermixed with the question of finding out whether he has any other reasonably suitable accommodation. If he has other reasonably suitable accommodation, ihen necessarily it would mean that he does not require the suit premises and his requirement may not be bona fide. In such circumstances further inquiry would be whether that premises is more suitable than the suit premises. Therefore, the questions raised before the Court would not necessarily depend upon only the pleadings. It could be a good defence that the landlord has other reasonably suitable residential accommodation and thereby defend the claim of the landlord.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. There cannot be a pedantic or a dogmatic approach in the matter of analysis of pleadings or of the evidence adduced thereto. It is no doubt true that if the pleadings are clearly set out, it would be easy for the Court to decide the matters. But if the pleadings are lacking or vague and if both parties have understood what was the case pleaded and put forth with reference to requirement of law and placed such material before the Court, neither party is prejudiced. If we analyse from this angle, we do not think that the High Court was not justified in interfering with the order made by the Rent Controller.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">23. From the perusal of the judgment of the Apex Court it is apparent that the Rent Controller must approach the matter in a practical manner. In case the non-disclosure is such as that it goes to the very root of the case the Rent Controller would be justified in non-suiting the landlord. However, if the non-disclosure is such that it would not prejudice the rights of the respondent then the landlord should not be non-suited only on this ground.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">24. The decisions of this Court cited hereinabove were delivered prior to the judgment delivered by the Apex Court in Ram Nar'ain Arora's case. Further more both in Tara Chand Sharma's case and Vijay Kapoor's case decided by this Court, no averment had been made ixi respect of other residential buildings owned by a landlord. There was complete non-disclosure as to whether any such residential building owned by the landlord was in his possession or not. In the present case, as I have held above, the residential premises at 31, The Mall, Shimla was not owned by the landlord and hence these two earlier judgments of this Court are distinguishable on facts also.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">25. In the present case, the landlord has been non-suited only on the ground that he did not disclose the fact that he was in occupation of certain premises on the Mall Road. Under law he was not required to disclose this fact. He was only required to disclose the factum of occupying another residential building owned by him in the urban area concerned. True it may be, that it would have been better if the landlord had disclosed all the facts but non-disclosure of a fact which he was not under law required to disclose could not in my opinion be a ground to dismiss his eviction petition.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">26. However, what are the premises in his occupation even as a tenant can be taken into consideration while deciding the question whether he bona fide requires the demised premises for his personal use or occupation or not.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">27. Lastly comes the question with regard to the bona fide requirement of the landlord. The landlord has no children. According to the landlord as well as his other witnesses i.e. his brother-in-law PW-2 and his wife PW-3, the wife now wants to come back and settle in Shimla. There is no reason to disbelieve their statements. Even according to the evidence led by the tenant the accommodation in possession of the landlord consists of two rooms, kitchen, bath room etc. Admittedly, the landlord is also having his office as an Architect in this building. The landlord belongs to the middle class of the Society. It cannot be expected of a landlord who owns sufficient property to reside in a two room set wherein he also runs his office.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">28. The law by now is well settled that the landlord is the best judge of the suitability of the accommodation required by him. This suitability has however to be judged in the context of reasonable expectations. The landlord and his wife who are both well educated can reasonably be expected to entertain guests and they will have visitors to their house. They would obviously require a drawing room, a bed room and a spare bed room for guests. Even at his residence the landlord may require another room for his professional work. This is the minimum accommodation which they would require. Even if the accommodation possessed by the landlord, though not owned by him, at 31, the Mall, Shimla is taken into consideration such accommodation is not sufficient to meet his requirements since admittedly the landlord is running his profession of Architect from some portion of his these premises.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">29. Keeping in view the entire facts and circumstances, I am of the considered view that the learned Appellate Authority gravely erred in rejecting the eviction petition of the landlord solely on the ground that he had not disclosed the factum of being in possession of the premises at 31, the Mall Shimla. Even though I have held that the said premises are residential premises, in view of the above discussion I hold that the landlord cannot be non-suited only on the ground of his being in possession of such premises since same were not owned by him.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">30. In view of the above discussion, the Revision Petition is allowed, the order of the learned Appellate Authority dated 6.5.2003 is seaside and the order of the Rent Controller dated 22.8.2001 is restored.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">31. Keeping in view the fact that the tenant has been in possession of the premises for a long period he is granted time up to 31st October, 2008 to vacate the premises.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">32. No order as to costs.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '2008(2)ShimLC491',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'Shri S.L. Srivastava',
			'sub' => 'Tenancy',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'shri-arun-bhanwara-vs-s-l-srivastava',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '891084',
		(int) 1 => 'shri-arun-bhanwara-vs-s-l-srivastava'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Shri Arun Bhanwara Vs Shri S L Srivastava - Citation 891084 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '891084',
		'acts' => '',
		'appealno' => '',
		'appellant' => 'Shri Arun Bhanwara',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Shri Arun Bhanwara Vs. Shri S.L. Srivastava',
		'casenote' => ' - CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908.[C.A. No. 5/1908]. Order 14, Rule 2 [As amended by Amending Act of 1976]: [V.K. Gupta, CJ, Deepak Gupta & Surjit Singh, JJ] Preliminary issue of law and fact  Court framing all issues both of law and facts together and also  tried all the issues together, including the issue relating to jurisdiction of Court  Held, Except in situations perceived or warranted under sub-rule (2) of Rule 2 of Order 14 where a  Court in fact frames only issues of law in the first instance and postpones settlement of other issues, clearly and explicitly in situations where the Court has framed all issues together, both of law as well as facts and has also tried all these issues together, it is not open to the Court to adopt the principle of severability and proceed to decide issues of law first, without taking up simultaneously other issues for decision. This course of action is not available to a Court because sub-rule (1) does not permit the  Court to adopt any such principle of severability and to dispose of a suit only on preliminary issues, or what can be termed as issues of law. Sub-rule (1)  clearly mandates that in a situation contemplated under it, where all the issues have been together and have also been taken up for adjudication during the course of the trial, these must be decided together and the judgment in the suit as a whole must be pronounced by the Court covering all the issues framed in the suit.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => 'Ram Narain Arora v. Asha Rani;',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => '',
		'counseldef' => '',
		'court' => 'Himachal Pradesh',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2008-07-31',
		'deposition' => 'Petition allowed',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => ' Deepak Gupta, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>Deepak Gupta, J.</p><p>1. This Revision Petition under Section 25(5) of the H.P. Urban Rent Control Act, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) is directed against the order of the learned Appellate Authority, Shimla in CMA No. 60-S/14 of 2001 whereby the appeal filed by the respondent (hereinafter referred to as the tenant) has been allowed, the order of the Rent Controller has been set-aside and the petition for eviction filed by the present petitioner (hereinafter referred to as the Landlord) on the ground of personal bona fide requirement has been set-aside.</p><p>2. The undisputed facts are that the landlord is owner of the demised premises situated in building known as Tunnel View, Sanjauli, Shimla-6 consisting of two bed rooms with attached bath room and latrine, drawing-cum-dining room, kitchen and balcony. These premises were purchased by the landlord in the year 1986. Thereafter, the landlord had rented out the premises to one Sh. B.K. Chauhan. According to the landlord, when he got married he requested Sh. B.K. Chauhan to vacate the said premises. Sh. Chauhan vacated the said premises but admittedly the landlord did not occupy the same but rented out the same to the tenant in the year 1990.</p><p>3. In the year 1997 the landlord filed a petition for eviction of the tenant on two grounds; firstly that the tenant is in arrears of rent from 1.11.1990 to 31.7.1997 and secondly that the premises are bona fide required by the landlord for the use and occupation of himself and his family.</p><p>4. This petition was contested by the tenant. After trial, the Rent Controller ordered the eviction of the tenant on two grounds; (i) that the tenant was in arrears of rent from November, 1999 till date of order i.e. 22nd August, 2001 and (ii) that the landlord required the premises for his own use and occupation.</p><p>5. The tenant deposited the rent within the time prescribed. He also filed an appeal challenging the finding on the issue of bona fide requirement. The learned Appellate Authority came to the conclusion that the landlord had not made a proper and full disclosure of facts as required under the provisions of the Act and had withheld material facts from the Court viz. that the landlord was in occupation of residential premises on 31, Mall Road in the urban area of Shimla and as such rejected this petition on this short ground.</p><p>6. Aggrieved by the said order, the landlord has filed the present Revision Petition.</p><p>7. I have heard Sh. Ramakant Sharma, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sh. Bhupinder Gupta, learned senior Counsel for the tenant.</p><p>8. It has been urged on behalf of the landlord that the building which is alleged to be in possession of the landlord i.e. 31, the Mall Shimla is not a residential building and secondly that the building is not owned by him.</p><p>9. On the other hand Sh. Bhupinder Gupta, learned Counsel of the tenant has strenuously urged that the landlord in para 18 has not stated anything about any building being owned by him and has only made an averment that he does not own or possess any other such building within the urban area Shimla. It is contended by Sh. Bhupinder Gupta that the landlord of his own volition did not state anything about the ownership of the building and since he has kept silent about the building which he is in occupation he has made a false averment and therefore his petition for eviction has rightly been rejected.</p><p>10. I am not at all in agreement with the contention of the landlord that the premises known as 31, the Mall Shimla which are admittedly in the occupation of the landlord are commercial premises only and not being used by him for his residence. As pointed out above, the landlord purchased the demised premises in 1986. They fell vacant when he got married despite that he did not occupy the same and rented out the same to the tenant in the year 1990. The question that arises is where was the landlord living for this entire period. According to the landlord after the year 1994 he has been living with his brother-in-law Rajan (wife's brother) PW-2, since the year 1994. Prior to 1994 the landlord will have this Court to believe that he was living off and on with one friend or the other. This story is impossible to believe. The landlord was married in the year 1999. He is an Architect by profession. His wife is a law graduate. It is not believable that such a person would have no permanent abode and would continue to live as a guest with his friends for almost 5 years after his marriage. Even the story that he has been living with his brother-in-law after the year 1994 does not inspire confidence. It stands proved on record that the brother-in-law PW-2 Rajan lives with his own family i.e. wife and children. From the evidence it is also clear that the parents of the brother-in-law also reside with him, His flat consists of only two rooms. The flat in possession of the landlord at 31, the Mall Shimla, also consists of two rooms, kitchen and bath room. Even assuming that he was running an office in the part of the flat it cannot be believed that he would not live on his own flat on the Mall Road and reside with his brother-in-law in cramped premises. Even in the electoral list the landlord is shown to be a resident of 31, The Mall, Shimla. Therefore, I am of the considered view that the building 31, the Mall, Shimla was also being used as a residence by the landlord.</p><p>11. Having held so, the question that arises is whether the landlord can be non-suited only on the ground that he has not made any disclosure about the residential accommodation available with him which premises were admittedly not owned by him.</p><p>12. The short question which arises for decision in this petition is whether the landlord was guilty of suppressing and withholding such relevant facts which would disentitle him from seeking eviction of the tenant. To appreciate these contentions it would be necessary to refer to relevant portion of Section 14(3) of the Act:</p><p>Section 14:</p><p>1 and 2 xxxxxxxxxxx</p><p>(3) A landlord may apply to the Controller for an order directing the tenant to put the landlord in possession-</p><p>(a) in case of residential building, if</p><p>(i) he required it for his own occupation:</p><p>Provided that he is not occupying another residential building owned by him, in the urban area concerned:</p><p>Provided further that he has not vacated such a building without sufficient cause within five years of the filing of the application, in the said urban area....</p><p>13. A perusal of the bare provisions of the Act makes it clear that there are certain essential ingredients which the landlord must satisfy before seeking eviction of the tenant under the Act. Not only must he prove that the residential building is bona fide required by him for his own use and occupation but he must also plead and prove that he is not occupying any other residential building owned by him in the urban area concerned and further that he has not vacated such a building without sufficient cause within 5 years of the filing of the application.</p><p>14. Reference may now be made to the relevant allegations made in para 18 of the eviction petition:</p><p>(ii) That the petitioner bona fide requires the premises for his own use and occupation and also for the use and occupation of his family.</p><p>The petitioner does not own or possess any other such building within the urban area of Simla nor the petitioner has vacated any such premises within five years of the filing of this petition.</p><p>The family of the petitioner presently consists of himself and his wife. Due to paucity of accommodation the petitioner has not been able to keep his wife with himself at Simla, where he is working as an Engineer and she has been residing at Chandigarh since 1991 but on account of her ill health she has been brought to Simla by the petitioner. The petitioner at present is seeking temporary shelter, from time to time, with his relations.</p><p>15. The learned Appellate Authority came to the conclusion that the landlord had falsely pleaded that he does not own or possess any other such building within the urban area of Shimla and hence rejected the eviction petition on this ground.</p><p>16. On a close analysis of the proviso to Section 14(3)(a)(i) of the Act it is clear that a landlord is not entitled to seek eviction of a tenant from residential building even in case of bona fide requirement if the landlord is occupying another residential building owned by him in the urban area concerned. One can read three essential ingredients in this proviso i.e. (i) that the landlord is in occupation of another residential building; (ii) that the said residential building is owned by him and (iii) that the said residential building is situated in the concerned urban area.</p><p>17. The question that arises is what is the impact of the landlord not making a disclosure in respect of premises which he is occupying but are not owned by him.</p><p>18. The Apex Court in Onkar Nath v. Ved Vyas ILR 1979 HP 1, held as follows:</p><p>It is common ground that there are three requirements to make out a cause of action for eviction under that provision, and indeed this is apparent from a bare reading of the sub-section. In the present case the finding is to the effect that the landlord requires the residential building for his own occupation. But, the legislation has taken care to insist upon two more conditions, namely; (a) that the landlord is not occupying any other residential building in the area concerned; and (b) that he has not vacated such a building without sufficient cause. There is not a scintilla of evidence nor indeed there is any averment in compliance with these latter conditions. The necessary consequence follows that not merely is there inadequacy of pleadings sufficient to make out a cause of action but total absence of proof of two vital requirements....</p><p>The Supreme Court also said that:.The statute benignly designed to protect tenants from unreasonable evictions has taken case to put restrictions which must be rigorously construed to fulfil the purpose of the statute.</p><p>19. Following the aforesaid judgment and other pronouncements of the Apex Court, a learned Single Judge of this Court in Tara Chand Sharma v. Baij Nath and Ors. 1992 (2) R.C.J. 323, held as follows:</p><p>16. What appears as the legislative intent, in bold relief, is that the landlord, while seeking eviction of a tenant on the ground that he needs a residential building for his own occupation, must come out clearly and honestly with facts relating to the requirement that he is not occupying another residential building owned by him, in the urban area concerned and that he had not vacated such a building without sufficient cause within five years of the filing of the application, in the said urban area. The primal burden of making a clear disclosure would lie upon the landlord, for, the true facts would be in his special knowledge. An order in his favour by the Rent Controller would depend upon the satisfaction of the Rent Controller in regard not only to the claim that the landlord requires the accommodation, from which he wishes to evict a tenant, for his own occupation but also that he was not occupying another residential building owned by him nor had he vacated such building without sufficient cause within five years of the filing of the application in the application in the urban area concerned....</p><p>It was further held as under:</p><p>18. That the landlord should make a full disclosure of the relevant facts, pertaining to the requirements of Sub-section (3)(a)(i) and the two provisos, becomes all the more necessary because the satisfaction of the Rent Controller in regard thereto is the condition precedent for the making of an order in favour of the landlord....</p><p>20. The aforesaid judgment has been followed in a number of other cases including Vijay Kapoor v. Maya Ram 1997 (2) RCR 437, wherein another learned single Judge of this Court following the aforesaid judgment held that the landlord must make complete and proper disclosure of all the material facts.</p><p>21. On the other hand Sh. Ramakant Sharma has relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in Ram Narain Arora v. Asha Rani 1998(2) RCR 268. In that case the Rent Controller came to the conclusion that the landlord had suppressed material information and had not disclosed the fact that he was already in occupation of a house in Subji Mandi. Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act reads as follows:</p><p>Section 14(1)(e). That the premises let for residential purposes are required bona fide by the landlord for occupation as a residence for himself or for any member of his family dependent on him, if he is the owner thereof, or for any person for whose benefit the premises are held and that the landlord or such person has no other reasonably suitable residential accommodation.</p><p>22. The difference between Delhi Act and the present Act is that under the Delhi Act the only requirement is that the landlord has no other reasonably suitable accommodation whereas under the Himachal Act the residential premises are required to be owned by the landlord. The Apex Court in Rama Narain Arora's case (supra) held that the nondisclosure of the fact that the landlord was in occupation of certain premises in Subji Mandi was.not a ground to non-suit the landlord in view of the facts and circumstances of the case. The Apex Court held as follows:</p><p>9. In making a claim that the suit premises is required bona fide for his own occupation as a residence for himself and other members of his family dependent on him and that he has no other reasonably suitable accommodation is a requirement of law before the Court can state whether the landlord requires the premises bona fide for his use and occupation. In doing so, the Court must also find out whether the landlord or such other person for whose benefit the premises is required has no other reasonably suitable residential accommodation. It cannot be said that the requirement of the landlord is not intermixed with the question of finding out whether he has any other reasonably suitable accommodation. If he has other reasonably suitable accommodation, ihen necessarily it would mean that he does not require the suit premises and his requirement may not be bona fide. In such circumstances further inquiry would be whether that premises is more suitable than the suit premises. Therefore, the questions raised before the Court would not necessarily depend upon only the pleadings. It could be a good defence that the landlord has other reasonably suitable residential accommodation and thereby defend the claim of the landlord.</p><p>10. There cannot be a pedantic or a dogmatic approach in the matter of analysis of pleadings or of the evidence adduced thereto. It is no doubt true that if the pleadings are clearly set out, it would be easy for the Court to decide the matters. But if the pleadings are lacking or vague and if both parties have understood what was the case pleaded and put forth with reference to requirement of law and placed such material before the Court, neither party is prejudiced. If we analyse from this angle, we do not think that the High Court was not justified in interfering with the order made by the Rent Controller.</p><p>23. From the perusal of the judgment of the Apex Court it is apparent that the Rent Controller must approach the matter in a practical manner. In case the non-disclosure is such as that it goes to the very root of the case the Rent Controller would be justified in non-suiting the landlord. However, if the non-disclosure is such that it would not prejudice the rights of the respondent then the landlord should not be non-suited only on this ground.</p><p>24. The decisions of this Court cited hereinabove were delivered prior to the judgment delivered by the Apex Court in Ram Nar'ain Arora's case. Further more both in Tara Chand Sharma's case and Vijay Kapoor's case decided by this Court, no averment had been made ixi respect of other residential buildings owned by a landlord. There was complete non-disclosure as to whether any such residential building owned by the landlord was in his possession or not. In the present case, as I have held above, the residential premises at 31, The Mall, Shimla was not owned by the landlord and hence these two earlier judgments of this Court are distinguishable on facts also.</p><p>25. In the present case, the landlord has been non-suited only on the ground that he did not disclose the fact that he was in occupation of certain premises on the Mall Road. Under law he was not required to disclose this fact. He was only required to disclose the factum of occupying another residential building owned by him in the urban area concerned. True it may be, that it would have been better if the landlord had disclosed all the facts but non-disclosure of a fact which he was not under law required to disclose could not in my opinion be a ground to dismiss his eviction petition.</p><p>26. However, what are the premises in his occupation even as a tenant can be taken into consideration while deciding the question whether he bona fide requires the demised premises for his personal use or occupation or not.</p><p>27. Lastly comes the question with regard to the bona fide requirement of the landlord. The landlord has no children. According to the landlord as well as his other witnesses i.e. his brother-in-law PW-2 and his wife PW-3, the wife now wants to come back and settle in Shimla. There is no reason to disbelieve their statements. Even according to the evidence led by the tenant the accommodation in possession of the landlord consists of two rooms, kitchen, bath room etc. Admittedly, the landlord is also having his office as an Architect in this building. The landlord belongs to the middle class of the Society. It cannot be expected of a landlord who owns sufficient property to reside in a two room set wherein he also runs his office.</p><p>28. The law by now is well settled that the landlord is the best judge of the suitability of the accommodation required by him. This suitability has however to be judged in the context of reasonable expectations. The landlord and his wife who are both well educated can reasonably be expected to entertain guests and they will have visitors to their house. They would obviously require a drawing room, a bed room and a spare bed room for guests. Even at his residence the landlord may require another room for his professional work. This is the minimum accommodation which they would require. Even if the accommodation possessed by the landlord, though not owned by him, at 31, the Mall, Shimla is taken into consideration such accommodation is not sufficient to meet his requirements since admittedly the landlord is running his profession of Architect from some portion of his these premises.</p><p>29. Keeping in view the entire facts and circumstances, I am of the considered view that the learned Appellate Authority gravely erred in rejecting the eviction petition of the landlord solely on the ground that he had not disclosed the factum of being in possession of the premises at 31, the Mall Shimla. Even though I have held that the said premises are residential premises, in view of the above discussion I hold that the landlord cannot be non-suited only on the ground of his being in possession of such premises since same were not owned by him.</p><p>30. In view of the above discussion, the Revision Petition is allowed, the order of the learned Appellate Authority dated 6.5.2003 is seaside and the order of the Rent Controller dated 22.8.2001 is restored.</p><p>31. Keeping in view the fact that the tenant has been in possession of the premises for a long period he is granted time up to 31st October, 2008 to vacate the premises.</p><p>32. No order as to costs.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '2008(2)ShimLC491',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'Shri S.L. Srivastava',
		'sub' => 'Tenancy',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'shri-arun-bhanwara-vs-s-l-srivastava'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '891084',
	(int) 1 => 'shri-arun-bhanwara-vs-s-l-srivastava'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/891084/shri-arun-bhanwara-vs-s-l-srivastava'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$caseref = 'Ram Narain Arora v. Asha Rani<br>'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>Deepak Gupta, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. This Revision Petition under Section 25(5) of the H.P. Urban Rent Control Act, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) is directed against the order of the learned Appellate Authority, Shimla in CMA No. 60-S/14 of 2001 whereby the appeal filed by the respondent (hereinafter referred to as the tenant) has been allowed, the order of the Rent Controller has been set-aside and the petition for eviction filed by the present petitioner (hereinafter referred to as the Landlord) on the ground of personal bona fide requirement has been set-aside.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. The undisputed facts are that the landlord is owner of the demised premises situated in building known as Tunnel View, Sanjauli, Shimla-6 consisting of two bed rooms with attached bath room and latrine, drawing-cum-dining room, kitchen and balcony. These premises were purchased by the landlord in the year 1986. Thereafter, the landlord had rented out the premises to one Sh. B.K. Chauhan. According to the landlord, when he got married he requested Sh. B.K. Chauhan to vacate the said premises. Sh. Chauhan vacated the said premises but admittedly the landlord did not occupy the same but rented out the same to the tenant in the year 1990.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. In the year 1997 the landlord filed a petition for eviction of the tenant on two grounds; firstly that the tenant is in arrears of rent from 1.11.1990 to 31.7.1997 and secondly that the premises are bona fide required by the landlord for the use and occupation of himself and his family.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>4. This petition was contested by the tenant. After trial, the Rent Controller ordered the eviction of the tenant on two grounds; (i) that the tenant was in arrears of rent from November, 1999 till date of order i.e. 22nd August, 2001 and (ii) that the landlord required the premises for his own use and occupation.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>5. The tenant deposited the rent within the time prescribed. He also filed an appeal challenging the finding on the issue of bona fide requirement. The learned Appellate Authority came to the conclusion that the landlord had not made a proper and full disclosure of facts as required under the provisions of the Act and had withheld material facts from the Court viz. that the landlord was in occupation of residential premises on 31, Mall Road in the urban area of Shimla and as such rejected this petition on this short ground.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>6. Aggrieved by the said order, the landlord has filed the present Revision Petition.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>7. I have heard Sh. Ramakant Sharma, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sh. Bhupinder Gupta, learned senior Counsel for the tenant.',
	(int) 8 => '<p>8. It has been urged on behalf of the landlord that the building which is alleged to be in possession of the landlord i.e. 31, the Mall Shimla is not a residential building and secondly that the building is not owned by him.',
	(int) 9 => '<p>9. On the other hand Sh. Bhupinder Gupta, learned Counsel of the tenant has strenuously urged that the landlord in para 18 has not stated anything about any building being owned by him and has only made an averment that he does not own or possess any other such building within the urban area Shimla. It is contended by Sh. Bhupinder Gupta that the landlord of his own volition did not state anything about the ownership of the building and since he has kept silent about the building which he is in occupation he has made a false averment and therefore his petition for eviction has rightly been rejected.',
	(int) 10 => '<p>10. I am not at all in agreement with the contention of the landlord that the premises known as 31, the Mall Shimla which are admittedly in the occupation of the landlord are commercial premises only and not being used by him for his residence. As pointed out above, the landlord purchased the demised premises in 1986. They fell vacant when he got married despite that he did not occupy the same and rented out the same to the tenant in the year 1990. The question that arises is where was the landlord living for this entire period. According to the landlord after the year 1994 he has been living with his brother-in-law Rajan (wife's brother) PW-2, since the year 1994. Prior to 1994 the landlord will have this Court to believe that he was living off and on with one friend or the other. This story is impossible to believe. The landlord was married in the year 1999. He is an Architect by profession. His wife is a law graduate. It is not believable that such a person would have no permanent abode and would continue to live as a guest with his friends for almost 5 years after his marriage. Even the story that he has been living with his brother-in-law after the year 1994 does not inspire confidence. It stands proved on record that the brother-in-law PW-2 Rajan lives with his own family i.e. wife and children. From the evidence it is also clear that the parents of the brother-in-law also reside with him, His flat consists of only two rooms. The flat in possession of the landlord at 31, the Mall Shimla, also consists of two rooms, kitchen and bath room. Even assuming that he was running an office in the part of the flat it cannot be believed that he would not live on his own flat on the Mall Road and reside with his brother-in-law in cramped premises. Even in the electoral list the landlord is shown to be a resident of 31, The Mall, Shimla. Therefore, I am of the considered view that the building 31, the Mall, Shimla was also being used as a residence by the landlord.',
	(int) 11 => '<p>11. Having held so, the question that arises is whether the landlord can be non-suited only on the ground that he has not made any disclosure about the residential accommodation available with him which premises were admittedly not owned by him.',
	(int) 12 => '<p>12. The short question which arises for decision in this petition is whether the landlord was guilty of suppressing and withholding such relevant facts which would disentitle him from seeking eviction of the tenant. To appreciate these contentions it would be necessary to refer to relevant portion of Section 14(3) of the Act:',
	(int) 13 => '<p>Section 14:',
	(int) 14 => '<p>1 and 2 xxxxxxxxxxx',
	(int) 15 => '<p>(3) A landlord may apply to the Controller for an order directing the tenant to put the landlord in possession-',
	(int) 16 => '<p>(a) in case of residential building, if',
	(int) 17 => '<p>(i) he required it for his own occupation:',
	(int) 18 => '<p>Provided that he is not occupying another residential building owned by him, in the urban area concerned:',
	(int) 19 => '<p>Provided further that he has not vacated such a building without sufficient cause within five years of the filing of the application, in the said urban area....',
	(int) 20 => '<p>13. A perusal of the bare provisions of the Act makes it clear that there are certain essential ingredients which the landlord must satisfy before seeking eviction of the tenant under the Act. Not only must he prove that the residential building is bona fide required by him for his own use and occupation but he must also plead and prove that he is not occupying any other residential building owned by him in the urban area concerned and further that he has not vacated such a building without sufficient cause within 5 years of the filing of the application.',
	(int) 21 => '<p>14. Reference may now be made to the relevant allegations made in para 18 of the eviction petition:',
	(int) 22 => '<p>(ii) That the petitioner bona fide requires the premises for his own use and occupation and also for the use and occupation of his family.',
	(int) 23 => '<p>The petitioner does not own or possess any other such building within the urban area of Simla nor the petitioner has vacated any such premises within five years of the filing of this petition.',
	(int) 24 => '<p>The family of the petitioner presently consists of himself and his wife. Due to paucity of accommodation the petitioner has not been able to keep his wife with himself at Simla, where he is working as an Engineer and she has been residing at Chandigarh since 1991 but on account of her ill health she has been brought to Simla by the petitioner. The petitioner at present is seeking temporary shelter, from time to time, with his relations.',
	(int) 25 => '<p>15. The learned Appellate Authority came to the conclusion that the landlord had falsely pleaded that he does not own or possess any other such building within the urban area of Shimla and hence rejected the eviction petition on this ground.',
	(int) 26 => '<p>16. On a close analysis of the proviso to Section 14(3)(a)(i) of the Act it is clear that a landlord is not entitled to seek eviction of a tenant from residential building even in case of bona fide requirement if the landlord is occupying another residential building owned by him in the urban area concerned. One can read three essential ingredients in this proviso i.e. (i) that the landlord is in occupation of another residential building; (ii) that the said residential building is owned by him and (iii) that the said residential building is situated in the concerned urban area.',
	(int) 27 => '<p>17. The question that arises is what is the impact of the landlord not making a disclosure in respect of premises which he is occupying but are not owned by him.',
	(int) 28 => '<p>18. The Apex Court in Onkar Nath v. Ved Vyas ILR 1979 HP 1, held as follows:',
	(int) 29 => '<p>It is common ground that there are three requirements to make out a cause of action for eviction under that provision, and indeed this is apparent from a bare reading of the sub-section. In the present case the finding is to the effect that the landlord requires the residential building for his own occupation. But, the legislation has taken care to insist upon two more conditions, namely; (a) that the landlord is not occupying any other residential building in the area concerned; and (b) that he has not vacated such a building without sufficient cause. There is not a scintilla of evidence nor indeed there is any averment in compliance with these latter conditions. The necessary consequence follows that not merely is there inadequacy of pleadings sufficient to make out a cause of action but total absence of proof of two vital requirements....',
	(int) 30 => '<p>The Supreme Court also said that:.The statute benignly designed to protect tenants from unreasonable evictions has taken case to put restrictions which must be rigorously construed to fulfil the purpose of the statute.',
	(int) 31 => '<p>19. Following the aforesaid judgment and other pronouncements of the Apex Court, a learned Single Judge of this Court in Tara Chand Sharma v. Baij Nath and Ors. 1992 (2) R.C.J. 323, held as follows:',
	(int) 32 => '<p>16. What appears as the legislative intent, in bold relief, is that the landlord, while seeking eviction of a tenant on the ground that he needs a residential building for his own occupation, must come out clearly and honestly with facts relating to the requirement that he is not occupying another residential building owned by him, in the urban area concerned and that he had not vacated such a building without sufficient cause within five years of the filing of the application, in the said urban area. The primal burden of making a clear disclosure would lie upon the landlord, for, the true facts would be in his special knowledge. An order in his favour by the Rent Controller would depend upon the satisfaction of the Rent Controller in regard not only to the claim that the landlord requires the accommodation, from which he wishes to evict a tenant, for his own occupation but also that he was not occupying another residential building owned by him nor had he vacated such building without sufficient cause within five years of the filing of the application in the application in the urban area concerned....',
	(int) 33 => '<p>It was further held as under:',
	(int) 34 => '<p>18. That the landlord should make a full disclosure of the relevant facts, pertaining to the requirements of Sub-section (3)(a)(i) and the two provisos, becomes all the more necessary because the satisfaction of the Rent Controller in regard thereto is the condition precedent for the making of an order in favour of the landlord....',
	(int) 35 => '<p>20. The aforesaid judgment has been followed in a number of other cases including Vijay Kapoor v. Maya Ram 1997 (2) RCR 437, wherein another learned single Judge of this Court following the aforesaid judgment held that the landlord must make complete and proper disclosure of all the material facts.',
	(int) 36 => '<p>21. On the other hand Sh. Ramakant Sharma has relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in Ram Narain Arora v. Asha Rani 1998(2) RCR 268. In that case the Rent Controller came to the conclusion that the landlord had suppressed material information and had not disclosed the fact that he was already in occupation of a house in Subji Mandi. Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act reads as follows:',
	(int) 37 => '<p>Section 14(1)(e). That the premises let for residential purposes are required bona fide by the landlord for occupation as a residence for himself or for any member of his family dependent on him, if he is the owner thereof, or for any person for whose benefit the premises are held and that the landlord or such person has no other reasonably suitable residential accommodation.',
	(int) 38 => '<p>22. The difference between Delhi Act and the present Act is that under the Delhi Act the only requirement is that the landlord has no other reasonably suitable accommodation whereas under the Himachal Act the residential premises are required to be owned by the landlord. The Apex Court in Rama Narain Arora's case (supra) held that the nondisclosure of the fact that the landlord was in occupation of certain premises in Subji Mandi was.not a ground to non-suit the landlord in view of the facts and circumstances of the case. The Apex Court held as follows:',
	(int) 39 => '<p>9. In making a claim that the suit premises is required bona fide for his own occupation as a residence for himself and other members of his family dependent on him and that he has no other reasonably suitable accommodation is a requirement of law before the Court can state whether the landlord requires the premises bona fide for his use and occupation. In doing so, the Court must also find out whether the landlord or such other person for whose benefit the premises is required has no other reasonably suitable residential accommodation. It cannot be said that the requirement of the landlord is not intermixed with the question of finding out whether he has any other reasonably suitable accommodation. If he has other reasonably suitable accommodation, ihen necessarily it would mean that he does not require the suit premises and his requirement may not be bona fide. In such circumstances further inquiry would be whether that premises is more suitable than the suit premises. Therefore, the questions raised before the Court would not necessarily depend upon only the pleadings. It could be a good defence that the landlord has other reasonably suitable residential accommodation and thereby defend the claim of the landlord.',
	(int) 40 => '<p>10. There cannot be a pedantic or a dogmatic approach in the matter of analysis of pleadings or of the evidence adduced thereto. It is no doubt true that if the pleadings are clearly set out, it would be easy for the Court to decide the matters. But if the pleadings are lacking or vague and if both parties have understood what was the case pleaded and put forth with reference to requirement of law and placed such material before the Court, neither party is prejudiced. If we analyse from this angle, we do not think that the High Court was not justified in interfering with the order made by the Rent Controller.',
	(int) 41 => '<p>23. From the perusal of the judgment of the Apex Court it is apparent that the Rent Controller must approach the matter in a practical manner. In case the non-disclosure is such as that it goes to the very root of the case the Rent Controller would be justified in non-suiting the landlord. However, if the non-disclosure is such that it would not prejudice the rights of the respondent then the landlord should not be non-suited only on this ground.',
	(int) 42 => '<p>24. The decisions of this Court cited hereinabove were delivered prior to the judgment delivered by the Apex Court in Ram Nar'ain Arora's case. Further more both in Tara Chand Sharma's case and Vijay Kapoor's case decided by this Court, no averment had been made ixi respect of other residential buildings owned by a landlord. There was complete non-disclosure as to whether any such residential building owned by the landlord was in his possession or not. In the present case, as I have held above, the residential premises at 31, The Mall, Shimla was not owned by the landlord and hence these two earlier judgments of this Court are distinguishable on facts also.',
	(int) 43 => '<p>25. In the present case, the landlord has been non-suited only on the ground that he did not disclose the fact that he was in occupation of certain premises on the Mall Road. Under law he was not required to disclose this fact. He was only required to disclose the factum of occupying another residential building owned by him in the urban area concerned. True it may be, that it would have been better if the landlord had disclosed all the facts but non-disclosure of a fact which he was not under law required to disclose could not in my opinion be a ground to dismiss his eviction petition.',
	(int) 44 => '<p>26. However, what are the premises in his occupation even as a tenant can be taken into consideration while deciding the question whether he bona fide requires the demised premises for his personal use or occupation or not.',
	(int) 45 => '<p>27. Lastly comes the question with regard to the bona fide requirement of the landlord. The landlord has no children. According to the landlord as well as his other witnesses i.e. his brother-in-law PW-2 and his wife PW-3, the wife now wants to come back and settle in Shimla. There is no reason to disbelieve their statements. Even according to the evidence led by the tenant the accommodation in possession of the landlord consists of two rooms, kitchen, bath room etc. Admittedly, the landlord is also having his office as an Architect in this building. The landlord belongs to the middle class of the Society. It cannot be expected of a landlord who owns sufficient property to reside in a two room set wherein he also runs his office.',
	(int) 46 => '<p>28. The law by now is well settled that the landlord is the best judge of the suitability of the accommodation required by him. This suitability has however to be judged in the context of reasonable expectations. The landlord and his wife who are both well educated can reasonably be expected to entertain guests and they will have visitors to their house. They would obviously require a drawing room, a bed room and a spare bed room for guests. Even at his residence the landlord may require another room for his professional work. This is the minimum accommodation which they would require. Even if the accommodation possessed by the landlord, though not owned by him, at 31, the Mall, Shimla is taken into consideration such accommodation is not sufficient to meet his requirements since admittedly the landlord is running his profession of Architect from some portion of his these premises.',
	(int) 47 => '<p>29. Keeping in view the entire facts and circumstances, I am of the considered view that the learned Appellate Authority gravely erred in rejecting the eviction petition of the landlord solely on the ground that he had not disclosed the factum of being in possession of the premises at 31, the Mall Shimla. Even though I have held that the said premises are residential premises, in view of the above discussion I hold that the landlord cannot be non-suited only on the ground of his being in possession of such premises since same were not owned by him.',
	(int) 48 => '<p>30. In view of the above discussion, the Revision Petition is allowed, the order of the learned Appellate Authority dated 6.5.2003 is seaside and the order of the Rent Controller dated 22.8.2001 is restored.',
	(int) 49 => '<p>31. Keeping in view the fact that the tenant has been in possession of the premises for a long period he is granted time up to 31st October, 2008 to vacate the premises.',
	(int) 50 => '<p>32. No order as to costs.<p>',
	(int) 51 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 52
$i = (int) 40
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

10. There cannot be a pedantic or a dogmatic approach in the matter of analysis of pleadings or of the evidence adduced thereto. It is no doubt true that if the pleadings are clearly set out, it would be easy for the Court to decide the matters. But if the pleadings are lacking or vague and if both parties have understood what was the case pleaded and put forth with reference to requirement of law and placed such material before the Court, neither party is prejudiced. If we analyse from this angle, we do not think that the High Court was not justified in interfering with the order made by the Rent Controller.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Shri Arun Bhanwara Vs Shri S L Srivastava - Citation 891084 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '891084',
			'acts' => '',
			'appealno' => '',
			'appellant' => 'Shri Arun Bhanwara',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Shri Arun Bhanwara Vs. Shri S.L. Srivastava',
			'casenote' => ' - CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908.[C.A. No. 5/1908]. Order 14, Rule 2 [As amended by Amending Act of 1976]: [V.K. Gupta, CJ, Deepak Gupta & Surjit Singh, JJ] Preliminary issue of law and fact  Court framing all issues both of law and facts together and also  tried all the issues together, including the issue relating to jurisdiction of Court  Held, Except in situations perceived or warranted under sub-rule (2) of Rule 2 of Order 14 where a  Court in fact frames only issues of law in the first instance and postpones settlement of other issues, clearly and explicitly in situations where the Court has framed all issues together, both of law as well as facts and has also tried all these issues together, it is not open to the Court to adopt the principle of severability and proceed to decide issues of law first, without taking up simultaneously other issues for decision. This course of action is not available to a Court because sub-rule (1) does not permit the  Court to adopt any such principle of severability and to dispose of a suit only on preliminary issues, or what can be termed as issues of law. Sub-rule (1)  clearly mandates that in a situation contemplated under it, where all the issues have been together and have also been taken up for adjudication during the course of the trial, these must be decided together and the judgment in the suit as a whole must be pronounced by the Court covering all the issues framed in the suit.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => 'Ram Narain Arora v. Asha Rani;',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => '',
			'counseldef' => '',
			'court' => 'Himachal Pradesh',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2008-07-31',
			'deposition' => 'Petition allowed',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => ' Deepak Gupta, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">Deepak Gupta, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. This Revision Petition under Section 25(5) of the H.P. Urban Rent Control Act, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) is directed against the order of the learned Appellate Authority, Shimla in CMA No. 60-S/14 of 2001 whereby the appeal filed by the respondent (hereinafter referred to as the tenant) has been allowed, the order of the Rent Controller has been set-aside and the petition for eviction filed by the present petitioner (hereinafter referred to as the Landlord) on the ground of personal bona fide requirement has been set-aside.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The undisputed facts are that the landlord is owner of the demised premises situated in building known as Tunnel View, Sanjauli, Shimla-6 consisting of two bed rooms with attached bath room and latrine, drawing-cum-dining room, kitchen and balcony. These premises were purchased by the landlord in the year 1986. Thereafter, the landlord had rented out the premises to one Sh. B.K. Chauhan. According to the landlord, when he got married he requested Sh. B.K. Chauhan to vacate the said premises. Sh. Chauhan vacated the said premises but admittedly the landlord did not occupy the same but rented out the same to the tenant in the year 1990.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. In the year 1997 the landlord filed a petition for eviction of the tenant on two grounds; firstly that the tenant is in arrears of rent from 1.11.1990 to 31.7.1997 and secondly that the premises are bona fide required by the landlord for the use and occupation of himself and his family.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. This petition was contested by the tenant. After trial, the Rent Controller ordered the eviction of the tenant on two grounds; (i) that the tenant was in arrears of rent from November, 1999 till date of order i.e. 22nd August, 2001 and (ii) that the landlord required the premises for his own use and occupation.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. The tenant deposited the rent within the time prescribed. He also filed an appeal challenging the finding on the issue of bona fide requirement. The learned Appellate Authority came to the conclusion that the landlord had not made a proper and full disclosure of facts as required under the provisions of the Act and had withheld material facts from the Court viz. that the landlord was in occupation of residential premises on 31, Mall Road in the urban area of Shimla and as such rejected this petition on this short ground.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. Aggrieved by the said order, the landlord has filed the present Revision Petition.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. I have heard Sh. Ramakant Sharma, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sh. Bhupinder Gupta, learned senior Counsel for the tenant.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. It has been urged on behalf of the landlord that the building which is alleged to be in possession of the landlord i.e. 31, the Mall Shimla is not a residential building and secondly that the building is not owned by him.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. On the other hand Sh. Bhupinder Gupta, learned Counsel of the tenant has strenuously urged that the landlord in para 18 has not stated anything about any building being owned by him and has only made an averment that he does not own or possess any other such building within the urban area Shimla. It is contended by Sh. Bhupinder Gupta that the landlord of his own volition did not state anything about the ownership of the building and since he has kept silent about the building which he is in occupation he has made a false averment and therefore his petition for eviction has rightly been rejected.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. I am not at all in agreement with the contention of the landlord that the premises known as 31, the Mall Shimla which are admittedly in the occupation of the landlord are commercial premises only and not being used by him for his residence. As pointed out above, the landlord purchased the demised premises in 1986. They fell vacant when he got married despite that he did not occupy the same and rented out the same to the tenant in the year 1990. The question that arises is where was the landlord living for this entire period. According to the landlord after the year 1994 he has been living with his brother-in-law Rajan (wife's brother) PW-2, since the year 1994. Prior to 1994 the landlord will have this Court to believe that he was living off and on with one friend or the other. This story is impossible to believe. The landlord was married in the year 1999. He is an Architect by profession. His wife is a law graduate. It is not believable that such a person would have no permanent abode and would continue to live as a guest with his friends for almost 5 years after his marriage. Even the story that he has been living with his brother-in-law after the year 1994 does not inspire confidence. It stands proved on record that the brother-in-law PW-2 Rajan lives with his own family i.e. wife and children. From the evidence it is also clear that the parents of the brother-in-law also reside with him, His flat consists of only two rooms. The flat in possession of the landlord at 31, the Mall Shimla, also consists of two rooms, kitchen and bath room. Even assuming that he was running an office in the part of the flat it cannot be believed that he would not live on his own flat on the Mall Road and reside with his brother-in-law in cramped premises. Even in the electoral list the landlord is shown to be a resident of 31, The Mall, Shimla. Therefore, I am of the considered view that the building 31, the Mall, Shimla was also being used as a residence by the landlord.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. Having held so, the question that arises is whether the landlord can be non-suited only on the ground that he has not made any disclosure about the residential accommodation available with him which premises were admittedly not owned by him.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. The short question which arises for decision in this petition is whether the landlord was guilty of suppressing and withholding such relevant facts which would disentitle him from seeking eviction of the tenant. To appreciate these contentions it would be necessary to refer to relevant portion of Section 14(3) of the Act:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Section 14:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1 and 2 xxxxxxxxxxx</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(3) A landlord may apply to the Controller for an order directing the tenant to put the landlord in possession-</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(a) in case of residential building, if</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(i) he required it for his own occupation:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Provided that he is not occupying another residential building owned by him, in the urban area concerned:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Provided further that he has not vacated such a building without sufficient cause within five years of the filing of the application, in the said urban area....</p><p style="text-align: justify;">13. A perusal of the bare provisions of the Act makes it clear that there are certain essential ingredients which the landlord must satisfy before seeking eviction of the tenant under the Act. Not only must he prove that the residential building is bona fide required by him for his own use and occupation but he must also plead and prove that he is not occupying any other residential building owned by him in the urban area concerned and further that he has not vacated such a building without sufficient cause within 5 years of the filing of the application.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">14. Reference may now be made to the relevant allegations made in para 18 of the eviction petition:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(ii) That the petitioner bona fide requires the premises for his own use and occupation and also for the use and occupation of his family.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The petitioner does not own or possess any other such building within the urban area of Simla nor the petitioner has vacated any such premises within five years of the filing of this petition.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The family of the petitioner presently consists of himself and his wife. Due to paucity of accommodation the petitioner has not been able to keep his wife with himself at Simla, where he is working as an Engineer and she has been residing at Chandigarh since 1991 but on account of her ill health she has been brought to Simla by the petitioner. The petitioner at present is seeking temporary shelter, from time to time, with his relations.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">15. The learned Appellate Authority came to the conclusion that the landlord had falsely pleaded that he does not own or possess any other such building within the urban area of Shimla and hence rejected the eviction petition on this ground.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">16. On a close analysis of the proviso to Section 14(3)(a)(i) of the Act it is clear that a landlord is not entitled to seek eviction of a tenant from residential building even in case of bona fide requirement if the landlord is occupying another residential building owned by him in the urban area concerned. One can read three essential ingredients in this proviso i.e. (i) that the landlord is in occupation of another residential building; (ii) that the said residential building is owned by him and (iii) that the said residential building is situated in the concerned urban area.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">17. The question that arises is what is the impact of the landlord not making a disclosure in respect of premises which he is occupying but are not owned by him.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">18. The Apex Court in Onkar Nath v. Ved Vyas ILR 1979 HP 1, held as follows:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">It is common ground that there are three requirements to make out a cause of action for eviction under that provision, and indeed this is apparent from a bare reading of the sub-section. In the present case the finding is to the effect that the landlord requires the residential building for his own occupation. But, the legislation has taken care to insist upon two more conditions, namely; (a) that the landlord is not occupying any other residential building in the area concerned; and (b) that he has not vacated such a building without sufficient cause. There is not a scintilla of evidence nor indeed there is any averment in compliance with these latter conditions. The necessary consequence follows that not merely is there inadequacy of pleadings sufficient to make out a cause of action but total absence of proof of two vital requirements....</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The Supreme Court also said that:.The statute benignly designed to protect tenants from unreasonable evictions has taken case to put restrictions which must be rigorously construed to fulfil the purpose of the statute.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">19. Following the aforesaid judgment and other pronouncements of the Apex Court, a learned Single Judge of this Court in Tara Chand Sharma v. Baij Nath and Ors. 1992 (2) R.C.J. 323, held as follows:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">16. What appears as the legislative intent, in bold relief, is that the landlord, while seeking eviction of a tenant on the ground that he needs a residential building for his own occupation, must come out clearly and honestly with facts relating to the requirement that he is not occupying another residential building owned by him, in the urban area concerned and that he had not vacated such a building without sufficient cause within five years of the filing of the application, in the said urban area. The primal burden of making a clear disclosure would lie upon the landlord, for, the true facts would be in his special knowledge. An order in his favour by the Rent Controller would depend upon the satisfaction of the Rent Controller in regard not only to the claim that the landlord requires the accommodation, from which he wishes to evict a tenant, for his own occupation but also that he was not occupying another residential building owned by him nor had he vacated such building without sufficient cause within five years of the filing of the application in the application in the urban area concerned....</p><p style="text-align: justify;">It was further held as under:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">18. That the landlord should make a full disclosure of the relevant facts, pertaining to the requirements of Sub-section (3)(a)(i) and the two provisos, becomes all the more necessary because the satisfaction of the Rent Controller in regard thereto is the condition precedent for the making of an order in favour of the landlord....</p><p style="text-align: justify;">20. The aforesaid judgment has been followed in a number of other cases including Vijay Kapoor v. Maya Ram 1997 (2) RCR 437, wherein another learned single Judge of this Court following the aforesaid judgment held that the landlord must make complete and proper disclosure of all the material facts.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">21. On the other hand Sh. Ramakant Sharma has relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in Ram Narain Arora v. Asha Rani 1998(2) RCR 268. In that case the Rent Controller came to the conclusion that the landlord had suppressed material information and had not disclosed the fact that he was already in occupation of a house in Subji Mandi. Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act reads as follows:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Section 14(1)(e). That the premises let for residential purposes are required bona fide by the landlord for occupation as a residence for himself or for any member of his family dependent on him, if he is the owner thereof, or for any person for whose benefit the premises are held and that the landlord or such person has no other reasonably suitable residential accommodation.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">22. The difference between Delhi Act and the present Act is that under the Delhi Act the only requirement is that the landlord has no other reasonably suitable accommodation whereas under the Himachal Act the residential premises are required to be owned by the landlord. The Apex Court in Rama Narain Arora's case (supra) held that the nondisclosure of the fact that the landlord was in occupation of certain premises in Subji Mandi was.not a ground to non-suit the landlord in view of the facts and circumstances of the case. The Apex Court held as follows:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. In making a claim that the suit premises is required bona fide for his own occupation as a residence for himself and other members of his family dependent on him and that he has no other reasonably suitable accommodation is a requirement of law before the Court can state whether the landlord requires the premises bona fide for his use and occupation. In doing so, the Court must also find out whether the landlord or such other person for whose benefit the premises is required has no other reasonably suitable residential accommodation. It cannot be said that the requirement of the landlord is not intermixed with the question of finding out whether he has any other reasonably suitable accommodation. If he has other reasonably suitable accommodation, ihen necessarily it would mean that he does not require the suit premises and his requirement may not be bona fide. In such circumstances further inquiry would be whether that premises is more suitable than the suit premises. Therefore, the questions raised before the Court would not necessarily depend upon only the pleadings. It could be a good defence that the landlord has other reasonably suitable residential accommodation and thereby defend the claim of the landlord.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. There cannot be a pedantic or a dogmatic approach in the matter of analysis of pleadings or of the evidence adduced thereto. It is no doubt true that if the pleadings are clearly set out, it would be easy for the Court to decide the matters. But if the pleadings are lacking or vague and if both parties have understood what was the case pleaded and put forth with reference to requirement of law and placed such material before the Court, neither party is prejudiced. If we analyse from this angle, we do not think that the High Court was not justified in interfering with the order made by the Rent Controller.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">23. From the perusal of the judgment of the Apex Court it is apparent that the Rent Controller must approach the matter in a practical manner. In case the non-disclosure is such as that it goes to the very root of the case the Rent Controller would be justified in non-suiting the landlord. However, if the non-disclosure is such that it would not prejudice the rights of the respondent then the landlord should not be non-suited only on this ground.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">24. The decisions of this Court cited hereinabove were delivered prior to the judgment delivered by the Apex Court in Ram Nar'ain Arora's case. Further more both in Tara Chand Sharma's case and Vijay Kapoor's case decided by this Court, no averment had been made ixi respect of other residential buildings owned by a landlord. There was complete non-disclosure as to whether any such residential building owned by the landlord was in his possession or not. In the present case, as I have held above, the residential premises at 31, The Mall, Shimla was not owned by the landlord and hence these two earlier judgments of this Court are distinguishable on facts also.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">25. In the present case, the landlord has been non-suited only on the ground that he did not disclose the fact that he was in occupation of certain premises on the Mall Road. Under law he was not required to disclose this fact. He was only required to disclose the factum of occupying another residential building owned by him in the urban area concerned. True it may be, that it would have been better if the landlord had disclosed all the facts but non-disclosure of a fact which he was not under law required to disclose could not in my opinion be a ground to dismiss his eviction petition.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">26. However, what are the premises in his occupation even as a tenant can be taken into consideration while deciding the question whether he bona fide requires the demised premises for his personal use or occupation or not.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">27. Lastly comes the question with regard to the bona fide requirement of the landlord. The landlord has no children. According to the landlord as well as his other witnesses i.e. his brother-in-law PW-2 and his wife PW-3, the wife now wants to come back and settle in Shimla. There is no reason to disbelieve their statements. Even according to the evidence led by the tenant the accommodation in possession of the landlord consists of two rooms, kitchen, bath room etc. Admittedly, the landlord is also having his office as an Architect in this building. The landlord belongs to the middle class of the Society. It cannot be expected of a landlord who owns sufficient property to reside in a two room set wherein he also runs his office.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">28. The law by now is well settled that the landlord is the best judge of the suitability of the accommodation required by him. This suitability has however to be judged in the context of reasonable expectations. The landlord and his wife who are both well educated can reasonably be expected to entertain guests and they will have visitors to their house. They would obviously require a drawing room, a bed room and a spare bed room for guests. Even at his residence the landlord may require another room for his professional work. This is the minimum accommodation which they would require. Even if the accommodation possessed by the landlord, though not owned by him, at 31, the Mall, Shimla is taken into consideration such accommodation is not sufficient to meet his requirements since admittedly the landlord is running his profession of Architect from some portion of his these premises.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">29. Keeping in view the entire facts and circumstances, I am of the considered view that the learned Appellate Authority gravely erred in rejecting the eviction petition of the landlord solely on the ground that he had not disclosed the factum of being in possession of the premises at 31, the Mall Shimla. Even though I have held that the said premises are residential premises, in view of the above discussion I hold that the landlord cannot be non-suited only on the ground of his being in possession of such premises since same were not owned by him.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">30. In view of the above discussion, the Revision Petition is allowed, the order of the learned Appellate Authority dated 6.5.2003 is seaside and the order of the Rent Controller dated 22.8.2001 is restored.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">31. Keeping in view the fact that the tenant has been in possession of the premises for a long period he is granted time up to 31st October, 2008 to vacate the premises.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">32. No order as to costs.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '2008(2)ShimLC491',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'Shri S.L. Srivastava',
			'sub' => 'Tenancy',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'shri-arun-bhanwara-vs-s-l-srivastava',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '891084',
		(int) 1 => 'shri-arun-bhanwara-vs-s-l-srivastava'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Shri Arun Bhanwara Vs Shri S L Srivastava - Citation 891084 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '891084',
		'acts' => '',
		'appealno' => '',
		'appellant' => 'Shri Arun Bhanwara',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Shri Arun Bhanwara Vs. Shri S.L. Srivastava',
		'casenote' => ' - CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908.[C.A. No. 5/1908]. Order 14, Rule 2 [As amended by Amending Act of 1976]: [V.K. Gupta, CJ, Deepak Gupta & Surjit Singh, JJ] Preliminary issue of law and fact  Court framing all issues both of law and facts together and also  tried all the issues together, including the issue relating to jurisdiction of Court  Held, Except in situations perceived or warranted under sub-rule (2) of Rule 2 of Order 14 where a  Court in fact frames only issues of law in the first instance and postpones settlement of other issues, clearly and explicitly in situations where the Court has framed all issues together, both of law as well as facts and has also tried all these issues together, it is not open to the Court to adopt the principle of severability and proceed to decide issues of law first, without taking up simultaneously other issues for decision. This course of action is not available to a Court because sub-rule (1) does not permit the  Court to adopt any such principle of severability and to dispose of a suit only on preliminary issues, or what can be termed as issues of law. Sub-rule (1)  clearly mandates that in a situation contemplated under it, where all the issues have been together and have also been taken up for adjudication during the course of the trial, these must be decided together and the judgment in the suit as a whole must be pronounced by the Court covering all the issues framed in the suit.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => 'Ram Narain Arora v. Asha Rani;',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => '',
		'counseldef' => '',
		'court' => 'Himachal Pradesh',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2008-07-31',
		'deposition' => 'Petition allowed',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => ' Deepak Gupta, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>Deepak Gupta, J.</p><p>1. This Revision Petition under Section 25(5) of the H.P. Urban Rent Control Act, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) is directed against the order of the learned Appellate Authority, Shimla in CMA No. 60-S/14 of 2001 whereby the appeal filed by the respondent (hereinafter referred to as the tenant) has been allowed, the order of the Rent Controller has been set-aside and the petition for eviction filed by the present petitioner (hereinafter referred to as the Landlord) on the ground of personal bona fide requirement has been set-aside.</p><p>2. The undisputed facts are that the landlord is owner of the demised premises situated in building known as Tunnel View, Sanjauli, Shimla-6 consisting of two bed rooms with attached bath room and latrine, drawing-cum-dining room, kitchen and balcony. These premises were purchased by the landlord in the year 1986. Thereafter, the landlord had rented out the premises to one Sh. B.K. Chauhan. According to the landlord, when he got married he requested Sh. B.K. Chauhan to vacate the said premises. Sh. Chauhan vacated the said premises but admittedly the landlord did not occupy the same but rented out the same to the tenant in the year 1990.</p><p>3. In the year 1997 the landlord filed a petition for eviction of the tenant on two grounds; firstly that the tenant is in arrears of rent from 1.11.1990 to 31.7.1997 and secondly that the premises are bona fide required by the landlord for the use and occupation of himself and his family.</p><p>4. This petition was contested by the tenant. After trial, the Rent Controller ordered the eviction of the tenant on two grounds; (i) that the tenant was in arrears of rent from November, 1999 till date of order i.e. 22nd August, 2001 and (ii) that the landlord required the premises for his own use and occupation.</p><p>5. The tenant deposited the rent within the time prescribed. He also filed an appeal challenging the finding on the issue of bona fide requirement. The learned Appellate Authority came to the conclusion that the landlord had not made a proper and full disclosure of facts as required under the provisions of the Act and had withheld material facts from the Court viz. that the landlord was in occupation of residential premises on 31, Mall Road in the urban area of Shimla and as such rejected this petition on this short ground.</p><p>6. Aggrieved by the said order, the landlord has filed the present Revision Petition.</p><p>7. I have heard Sh. Ramakant Sharma, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sh. Bhupinder Gupta, learned senior Counsel for the tenant.</p><p>8. It has been urged on behalf of the landlord that the building which is alleged to be in possession of the landlord i.e. 31, the Mall Shimla is not a residential building and secondly that the building is not owned by him.</p><p>9. On the other hand Sh. Bhupinder Gupta, learned Counsel of the tenant has strenuously urged that the landlord in para 18 has not stated anything about any building being owned by him and has only made an averment that he does not own or possess any other such building within the urban area Shimla. It is contended by Sh. Bhupinder Gupta that the landlord of his own volition did not state anything about the ownership of the building and since he has kept silent about the building which he is in occupation he has made a false averment and therefore his petition for eviction has rightly been rejected.</p><p>10. I am not at all in agreement with the contention of the landlord that the premises known as 31, the Mall Shimla which are admittedly in the occupation of the landlord are commercial premises only and not being used by him for his residence. As pointed out above, the landlord purchased the demised premises in 1986. They fell vacant when he got married despite that he did not occupy the same and rented out the same to the tenant in the year 1990. The question that arises is where was the landlord living for this entire period. According to the landlord after the year 1994 he has been living with his brother-in-law Rajan (wife's brother) PW-2, since the year 1994. Prior to 1994 the landlord will have this Court to believe that he was living off and on with one friend or the other. This story is impossible to believe. The landlord was married in the year 1999. He is an Architect by profession. His wife is a law graduate. It is not believable that such a person would have no permanent abode and would continue to live as a guest with his friends for almost 5 years after his marriage. Even the story that he has been living with his brother-in-law after the year 1994 does not inspire confidence. It stands proved on record that the brother-in-law PW-2 Rajan lives with his own family i.e. wife and children. From the evidence it is also clear that the parents of the brother-in-law also reside with him, His flat consists of only two rooms. The flat in possession of the landlord at 31, the Mall Shimla, also consists of two rooms, kitchen and bath room. Even assuming that he was running an office in the part of the flat it cannot be believed that he would not live on his own flat on the Mall Road and reside with his brother-in-law in cramped premises. Even in the electoral list the landlord is shown to be a resident of 31, The Mall, Shimla. Therefore, I am of the considered view that the building 31, the Mall, Shimla was also being used as a residence by the landlord.</p><p>11. Having held so, the question that arises is whether the landlord can be non-suited only on the ground that he has not made any disclosure about the residential accommodation available with him which premises were admittedly not owned by him.</p><p>12. The short question which arises for decision in this petition is whether the landlord was guilty of suppressing and withholding such relevant facts which would disentitle him from seeking eviction of the tenant. To appreciate these contentions it would be necessary to refer to relevant portion of Section 14(3) of the Act:</p><p>Section 14:</p><p>1 and 2 xxxxxxxxxxx</p><p>(3) A landlord may apply to the Controller for an order directing the tenant to put the landlord in possession-</p><p>(a) in case of residential building, if</p><p>(i) he required it for his own occupation:</p><p>Provided that he is not occupying another residential building owned by him, in the urban area concerned:</p><p>Provided further that he has not vacated such a building without sufficient cause within five years of the filing of the application, in the said urban area....</p><p>13. A perusal of the bare provisions of the Act makes it clear that there are certain essential ingredients which the landlord must satisfy before seeking eviction of the tenant under the Act. Not only must he prove that the residential building is bona fide required by him for his own use and occupation but he must also plead and prove that he is not occupying any other residential building owned by him in the urban area concerned and further that he has not vacated such a building without sufficient cause within 5 years of the filing of the application.</p><p>14. Reference may now be made to the relevant allegations made in para 18 of the eviction petition:</p><p>(ii) That the petitioner bona fide requires the premises for his own use and occupation and also for the use and occupation of his family.</p><p>The petitioner does not own or possess any other such building within the urban area of Simla nor the petitioner has vacated any such premises within five years of the filing of this petition.</p><p>The family of the petitioner presently consists of himself and his wife. Due to paucity of accommodation the petitioner has not been able to keep his wife with himself at Simla, where he is working as an Engineer and she has been residing at Chandigarh since 1991 but on account of her ill health she has been brought to Simla by the petitioner. The petitioner at present is seeking temporary shelter, from time to time, with his relations.</p><p>15. The learned Appellate Authority came to the conclusion that the landlord had falsely pleaded that he does not own or possess any other such building within the urban area of Shimla and hence rejected the eviction petition on this ground.</p><p>16. On a close analysis of the proviso to Section 14(3)(a)(i) of the Act it is clear that a landlord is not entitled to seek eviction of a tenant from residential building even in case of bona fide requirement if the landlord is occupying another residential building owned by him in the urban area concerned. One can read three essential ingredients in this proviso i.e. (i) that the landlord is in occupation of another residential building; (ii) that the said residential building is owned by him and (iii) that the said residential building is situated in the concerned urban area.</p><p>17. The question that arises is what is the impact of the landlord not making a disclosure in respect of premises which he is occupying but are not owned by him.</p><p>18. The Apex Court in Onkar Nath v. Ved Vyas ILR 1979 HP 1, held as follows:</p><p>It is common ground that there are three requirements to make out a cause of action for eviction under that provision, and indeed this is apparent from a bare reading of the sub-section. In the present case the finding is to the effect that the landlord requires the residential building for his own occupation. But, the legislation has taken care to insist upon two more conditions, namely; (a) that the landlord is not occupying any other residential building in the area concerned; and (b) that he has not vacated such a building without sufficient cause. There is not a scintilla of evidence nor indeed there is any averment in compliance with these latter conditions. The necessary consequence follows that not merely is there inadequacy of pleadings sufficient to make out a cause of action but total absence of proof of two vital requirements....</p><p>The Supreme Court also said that:.The statute benignly designed to protect tenants from unreasonable evictions has taken case to put restrictions which must be rigorously construed to fulfil the purpose of the statute.</p><p>19. Following the aforesaid judgment and other pronouncements of the Apex Court, a learned Single Judge of this Court in Tara Chand Sharma v. Baij Nath and Ors. 1992 (2) R.C.J. 323, held as follows:</p><p>16. What appears as the legislative intent, in bold relief, is that the landlord, while seeking eviction of a tenant on the ground that he needs a residential building for his own occupation, must come out clearly and honestly with facts relating to the requirement that he is not occupying another residential building owned by him, in the urban area concerned and that he had not vacated such a building without sufficient cause within five years of the filing of the application, in the said urban area. The primal burden of making a clear disclosure would lie upon the landlord, for, the true facts would be in his special knowledge. An order in his favour by the Rent Controller would depend upon the satisfaction of the Rent Controller in regard not only to the claim that the landlord requires the accommodation, from which he wishes to evict a tenant, for his own occupation but also that he was not occupying another residential building owned by him nor had he vacated such building without sufficient cause within five years of the filing of the application in the application in the urban area concerned....</p><p>It was further held as under:</p><p>18. That the landlord should make a full disclosure of the relevant facts, pertaining to the requirements of Sub-section (3)(a)(i) and the two provisos, becomes all the more necessary because the satisfaction of the Rent Controller in regard thereto is the condition precedent for the making of an order in favour of the landlord....</p><p>20. The aforesaid judgment has been followed in a number of other cases including Vijay Kapoor v. Maya Ram 1997 (2) RCR 437, wherein another learned single Judge of this Court following the aforesaid judgment held that the landlord must make complete and proper disclosure of all the material facts.</p><p>21. On the other hand Sh. Ramakant Sharma has relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in Ram Narain Arora v. Asha Rani 1998(2) RCR 268. In that case the Rent Controller came to the conclusion that the landlord had suppressed material information and had not disclosed the fact that he was already in occupation of a house in Subji Mandi. Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act reads as follows:</p><p>Section 14(1)(e). That the premises let for residential purposes are required bona fide by the landlord for occupation as a residence for himself or for any member of his family dependent on him, if he is the owner thereof, or for any person for whose benefit the premises are held and that the landlord or such person has no other reasonably suitable residential accommodation.</p><p>22. The difference between Delhi Act and the present Act is that under the Delhi Act the only requirement is that the landlord has no other reasonably suitable accommodation whereas under the Himachal Act the residential premises are required to be owned by the landlord. The Apex Court in Rama Narain Arora's case (supra) held that the nondisclosure of the fact that the landlord was in occupation of certain premises in Subji Mandi was.not a ground to non-suit the landlord in view of the facts and circumstances of the case. The Apex Court held as follows:</p><p>9. In making a claim that the suit premises is required bona fide for his own occupation as a residence for himself and other members of his family dependent on him and that he has no other reasonably suitable accommodation is a requirement of law before the Court can state whether the landlord requires the premises bona fide for his use and occupation. In doing so, the Court must also find out whether the landlord or such other person for whose benefit the premises is required has no other reasonably suitable residential accommodation. It cannot be said that the requirement of the landlord is not intermixed with the question of finding out whether he has any other reasonably suitable accommodation. If he has other reasonably suitable accommodation, ihen necessarily it would mean that he does not require the suit premises and his requirement may not be bona fide. In such circumstances further inquiry would be whether that premises is more suitable than the suit premises. Therefore, the questions raised before the Court would not necessarily depend upon only the pleadings. It could be a good defence that the landlord has other reasonably suitable residential accommodation and thereby defend the claim of the landlord.</p><p>10. There cannot be a pedantic or a dogmatic approach in the matter of analysis of pleadings or of the evidence adduced thereto. It is no doubt true that if the pleadings are clearly set out, it would be easy for the Court to decide the matters. But if the pleadings are lacking or vague and if both parties have understood what was the case pleaded and put forth with reference to requirement of law and placed such material before the Court, neither party is prejudiced. If we analyse from this angle, we do not think that the High Court was not justified in interfering with the order made by the Rent Controller.</p><p>23. From the perusal of the judgment of the Apex Court it is apparent that the Rent Controller must approach the matter in a practical manner. In case the non-disclosure is such as that it goes to the very root of the case the Rent Controller would be justified in non-suiting the landlord. However, if the non-disclosure is such that it would not prejudice the rights of the respondent then the landlord should not be non-suited only on this ground.</p><p>24. The decisions of this Court cited hereinabove were delivered prior to the judgment delivered by the Apex Court in Ram Nar'ain Arora's case. Further more both in Tara Chand Sharma's case and Vijay Kapoor's case decided by this Court, no averment had been made ixi respect of other residential buildings owned by a landlord. There was complete non-disclosure as to whether any such residential building owned by the landlord was in his possession or not. In the present case, as I have held above, the residential premises at 31, The Mall, Shimla was not owned by the landlord and hence these two earlier judgments of this Court are distinguishable on facts also.</p><p>25. In the present case, the landlord has been non-suited only on the ground that he did not disclose the fact that he was in occupation of certain premises on the Mall Road. Under law he was not required to disclose this fact. He was only required to disclose the factum of occupying another residential building owned by him in the urban area concerned. True it may be, that it would have been better if the landlord had disclosed all the facts but non-disclosure of a fact which he was not under law required to disclose could not in my opinion be a ground to dismiss his eviction petition.</p><p>26. However, what are the premises in his occupation even as a tenant can be taken into consideration while deciding the question whether he bona fide requires the demised premises for his personal use or occupation or not.</p><p>27. Lastly comes the question with regard to the bona fide requirement of the landlord. The landlord has no children. According to the landlord as well as his other witnesses i.e. his brother-in-law PW-2 and his wife PW-3, the wife now wants to come back and settle in Shimla. There is no reason to disbelieve their statements. Even according to the evidence led by the tenant the accommodation in possession of the landlord consists of two rooms, kitchen, bath room etc. Admittedly, the landlord is also having his office as an Architect in this building. The landlord belongs to the middle class of the Society. It cannot be expected of a landlord who owns sufficient property to reside in a two room set wherein he also runs his office.</p><p>28. The law by now is well settled that the landlord is the best judge of the suitability of the accommodation required by him. This suitability has however to be judged in the context of reasonable expectations. The landlord and his wife who are both well educated can reasonably be expected to entertain guests and they will have visitors to their house. They would obviously require a drawing room, a bed room and a spare bed room for guests. Even at his residence the landlord may require another room for his professional work. This is the minimum accommodation which they would require. Even if the accommodation possessed by the landlord, though not owned by him, at 31, the Mall, Shimla is taken into consideration such accommodation is not sufficient to meet his requirements since admittedly the landlord is running his profession of Architect from some portion of his these premises.</p><p>29. Keeping in view the entire facts and circumstances, I am of the considered view that the learned Appellate Authority gravely erred in rejecting the eviction petition of the landlord solely on the ground that he had not disclosed the factum of being in possession of the premises at 31, the Mall Shimla. Even though I have held that the said premises are residential premises, in view of the above discussion I hold that the landlord cannot be non-suited only on the ground of his being in possession of such premises since same were not owned by him.</p><p>30. In view of the above discussion, the Revision Petition is allowed, the order of the learned Appellate Authority dated 6.5.2003 is seaside and the order of the Rent Controller dated 22.8.2001 is restored.</p><p>31. Keeping in view the fact that the tenant has been in possession of the premises for a long period he is granted time up to 31st October, 2008 to vacate the premises.</p><p>32. No order as to costs.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '2008(2)ShimLC491',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'Shri S.L. Srivastava',
		'sub' => 'Tenancy',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'shri-arun-bhanwara-vs-s-l-srivastava'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '891084',
	(int) 1 => 'shri-arun-bhanwara-vs-s-l-srivastava'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/891084/shri-arun-bhanwara-vs-s-l-srivastava'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$caseref = 'Ram Narain Arora v. Asha Rani<br>'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>Deepak Gupta, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. This Revision Petition under Section 25(5) of the H.P. Urban Rent Control Act, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) is directed against the order of the learned Appellate Authority, Shimla in CMA No. 60-S/14 of 2001 whereby the appeal filed by the respondent (hereinafter referred to as the tenant) has been allowed, the order of the Rent Controller has been set-aside and the petition for eviction filed by the present petitioner (hereinafter referred to as the Landlord) on the ground of personal bona fide requirement has been set-aside.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. The undisputed facts are that the landlord is owner of the demised premises situated in building known as Tunnel View, Sanjauli, Shimla-6 consisting of two bed rooms with attached bath room and latrine, drawing-cum-dining room, kitchen and balcony. These premises were purchased by the landlord in the year 1986. Thereafter, the landlord had rented out the premises to one Sh. B.K. Chauhan. According to the landlord, when he got married he requested Sh. B.K. Chauhan to vacate the said premises. Sh. Chauhan vacated the said premises but admittedly the landlord did not occupy the same but rented out the same to the tenant in the year 1990.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. In the year 1997 the landlord filed a petition for eviction of the tenant on two grounds; firstly that the tenant is in arrears of rent from 1.11.1990 to 31.7.1997 and secondly that the premises are bona fide required by the landlord for the use and occupation of himself and his family.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>4. This petition was contested by the tenant. After trial, the Rent Controller ordered the eviction of the tenant on two grounds; (i) that the tenant was in arrears of rent from November, 1999 till date of order i.e. 22nd August, 2001 and (ii) that the landlord required the premises for his own use and occupation.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>5. The tenant deposited the rent within the time prescribed. He also filed an appeal challenging the finding on the issue of bona fide requirement. The learned Appellate Authority came to the conclusion that the landlord had not made a proper and full disclosure of facts as required under the provisions of the Act and had withheld material facts from the Court viz. that the landlord was in occupation of residential premises on 31, Mall Road in the urban area of Shimla and as such rejected this petition on this short ground.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>6. Aggrieved by the said order, the landlord has filed the present Revision Petition.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>7. I have heard Sh. Ramakant Sharma, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sh. Bhupinder Gupta, learned senior Counsel for the tenant.',
	(int) 8 => '<p>8. It has been urged on behalf of the landlord that the building which is alleged to be in possession of the landlord i.e. 31, the Mall Shimla is not a residential building and secondly that the building is not owned by him.',
	(int) 9 => '<p>9. On the other hand Sh. Bhupinder Gupta, learned Counsel of the tenant has strenuously urged that the landlord in para 18 has not stated anything about any building being owned by him and has only made an averment that he does not own or possess any other such building within the urban area Shimla. It is contended by Sh. Bhupinder Gupta that the landlord of his own volition did not state anything about the ownership of the building and since he has kept silent about the building which he is in occupation he has made a false averment and therefore his petition for eviction has rightly been rejected.',
	(int) 10 => '<p>10. I am not at all in agreement with the contention of the landlord that the premises known as 31, the Mall Shimla which are admittedly in the occupation of the landlord are commercial premises only and not being used by him for his residence. As pointed out above, the landlord purchased the demised premises in 1986. They fell vacant when he got married despite that he did not occupy the same and rented out the same to the tenant in the year 1990. The question that arises is where was the landlord living for this entire period. According to the landlord after the year 1994 he has been living with his brother-in-law Rajan (wife's brother) PW-2, since the year 1994. Prior to 1994 the landlord will have this Court to believe that he was living off and on with one friend or the other. This story is impossible to believe. The landlord was married in the year 1999. He is an Architect by profession. His wife is a law graduate. It is not believable that such a person would have no permanent abode and would continue to live as a guest with his friends for almost 5 years after his marriage. Even the story that he has been living with his brother-in-law after the year 1994 does not inspire confidence. It stands proved on record that the brother-in-law PW-2 Rajan lives with his own family i.e. wife and children. From the evidence it is also clear that the parents of the brother-in-law also reside with him, His flat consists of only two rooms. The flat in possession of the landlord at 31, the Mall Shimla, also consists of two rooms, kitchen and bath room. Even assuming that he was running an office in the part of the flat it cannot be believed that he would not live on his own flat on the Mall Road and reside with his brother-in-law in cramped premises. Even in the electoral list the landlord is shown to be a resident of 31, The Mall, Shimla. Therefore, I am of the considered view that the building 31, the Mall, Shimla was also being used as a residence by the landlord.',
	(int) 11 => '<p>11. Having held so, the question that arises is whether the landlord can be non-suited only on the ground that he has not made any disclosure about the residential accommodation available with him which premises were admittedly not owned by him.',
	(int) 12 => '<p>12. The short question which arises for decision in this petition is whether the landlord was guilty of suppressing and withholding such relevant facts which would disentitle him from seeking eviction of the tenant. To appreciate these contentions it would be necessary to refer to relevant portion of Section 14(3) of the Act:',
	(int) 13 => '<p>Section 14:',
	(int) 14 => '<p>1 and 2 xxxxxxxxxxx',
	(int) 15 => '<p>(3) A landlord may apply to the Controller for an order directing the tenant to put the landlord in possession-',
	(int) 16 => '<p>(a) in case of residential building, if',
	(int) 17 => '<p>(i) he required it for his own occupation:',
	(int) 18 => '<p>Provided that he is not occupying another residential building owned by him, in the urban area concerned:',
	(int) 19 => '<p>Provided further that he has not vacated such a building without sufficient cause within five years of the filing of the application, in the said urban area....',
	(int) 20 => '<p>13. A perusal of the bare provisions of the Act makes it clear that there are certain essential ingredients which the landlord must satisfy before seeking eviction of the tenant under the Act. Not only must he prove that the residential building is bona fide required by him for his own use and occupation but he must also plead and prove that he is not occupying any other residential building owned by him in the urban area concerned and further that he has not vacated such a building without sufficient cause within 5 years of the filing of the application.',
	(int) 21 => '<p>14. Reference may now be made to the relevant allegations made in para 18 of the eviction petition:',
	(int) 22 => '<p>(ii) That the petitioner bona fide requires the premises for his own use and occupation and also for the use and occupation of his family.',
	(int) 23 => '<p>The petitioner does not own or possess any other such building within the urban area of Simla nor the petitioner has vacated any such premises within five years of the filing of this petition.',
	(int) 24 => '<p>The family of the petitioner presently consists of himself and his wife. Due to paucity of accommodation the petitioner has not been able to keep his wife with himself at Simla, where he is working as an Engineer and she has been residing at Chandigarh since 1991 but on account of her ill health she has been brought to Simla by the petitioner. The petitioner at present is seeking temporary shelter, from time to time, with his relations.',
	(int) 25 => '<p>15. The learned Appellate Authority came to the conclusion that the landlord had falsely pleaded that he does not own or possess any other such building within the urban area of Shimla and hence rejected the eviction petition on this ground.',
	(int) 26 => '<p>16. On a close analysis of the proviso to Section 14(3)(a)(i) of the Act it is clear that a landlord is not entitled to seek eviction of a tenant from residential building even in case of bona fide requirement if the landlord is occupying another residential building owned by him in the urban area concerned. One can read three essential ingredients in this proviso i.e. (i) that the landlord is in occupation of another residential building; (ii) that the said residential building is owned by him and (iii) that the said residential building is situated in the concerned urban area.',
	(int) 27 => '<p>17. The question that arises is what is the impact of the landlord not making a disclosure in respect of premises which he is occupying but are not owned by him.',
	(int) 28 => '<p>18. The Apex Court in Onkar Nath v. Ved Vyas ILR 1979 HP 1, held as follows:',
	(int) 29 => '<p>It is common ground that there are three requirements to make out a cause of action for eviction under that provision, and indeed this is apparent from a bare reading of the sub-section. In the present case the finding is to the effect that the landlord requires the residential building for his own occupation. But, the legislation has taken care to insist upon two more conditions, namely; (a) that the landlord is not occupying any other residential building in the area concerned; and (b) that he has not vacated such a building without sufficient cause. There is not a scintilla of evidence nor indeed there is any averment in compliance with these latter conditions. The necessary consequence follows that not merely is there inadequacy of pleadings sufficient to make out a cause of action but total absence of proof of two vital requirements....',
	(int) 30 => '<p>The Supreme Court also said that:.The statute benignly designed to protect tenants from unreasonable evictions has taken case to put restrictions which must be rigorously construed to fulfil the purpose of the statute.',
	(int) 31 => '<p>19. Following the aforesaid judgment and other pronouncements of the Apex Court, a learned Single Judge of this Court in Tara Chand Sharma v. Baij Nath and Ors. 1992 (2) R.C.J. 323, held as follows:',
	(int) 32 => '<p>16. What appears as the legislative intent, in bold relief, is that the landlord, while seeking eviction of a tenant on the ground that he needs a residential building for his own occupation, must come out clearly and honestly with facts relating to the requirement that he is not occupying another residential building owned by him, in the urban area concerned and that he had not vacated such a building without sufficient cause within five years of the filing of the application, in the said urban area. The primal burden of making a clear disclosure would lie upon the landlord, for, the true facts would be in his special knowledge. An order in his favour by the Rent Controller would depend upon the satisfaction of the Rent Controller in regard not only to the claim that the landlord requires the accommodation, from which he wishes to evict a tenant, for his own occupation but also that he was not occupying another residential building owned by him nor had he vacated such building without sufficient cause within five years of the filing of the application in the application in the urban area concerned....',
	(int) 33 => '<p>It was further held as under:',
	(int) 34 => '<p>18. That the landlord should make a full disclosure of the relevant facts, pertaining to the requirements of Sub-section (3)(a)(i) and the two provisos, becomes all the more necessary because the satisfaction of the Rent Controller in regard thereto is the condition precedent for the making of an order in favour of the landlord....',
	(int) 35 => '<p>20. The aforesaid judgment has been followed in a number of other cases including Vijay Kapoor v. Maya Ram 1997 (2) RCR 437, wherein another learned single Judge of this Court following the aforesaid judgment held that the landlord must make complete and proper disclosure of all the material facts.',
	(int) 36 => '<p>21. On the other hand Sh. Ramakant Sharma has relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in Ram Narain Arora v. Asha Rani 1998(2) RCR 268. In that case the Rent Controller came to the conclusion that the landlord had suppressed material information and had not disclosed the fact that he was already in occupation of a house in Subji Mandi. Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act reads as follows:',
	(int) 37 => '<p>Section 14(1)(e). That the premises let for residential purposes are required bona fide by the landlord for occupation as a residence for himself or for any member of his family dependent on him, if he is the owner thereof, or for any person for whose benefit the premises are held and that the landlord or such person has no other reasonably suitable residential accommodation.',
	(int) 38 => '<p>22. The difference between Delhi Act and the present Act is that under the Delhi Act the only requirement is that the landlord has no other reasonably suitable accommodation whereas under the Himachal Act the residential premises are required to be owned by the landlord. The Apex Court in Rama Narain Arora's case (supra) held that the nondisclosure of the fact that the landlord was in occupation of certain premises in Subji Mandi was.not a ground to non-suit the landlord in view of the facts and circumstances of the case. The Apex Court held as follows:',
	(int) 39 => '<p>9. In making a claim that the suit premises is required bona fide for his own occupation as a residence for himself and other members of his family dependent on him and that he has no other reasonably suitable accommodation is a requirement of law before the Court can state whether the landlord requires the premises bona fide for his use and occupation. In doing so, the Court must also find out whether the landlord or such other person for whose benefit the premises is required has no other reasonably suitable residential accommodation. It cannot be said that the requirement of the landlord is not intermixed with the question of finding out whether he has any other reasonably suitable accommodation. If he has other reasonably suitable accommodation, ihen necessarily it would mean that he does not require the suit premises and his requirement may not be bona fide. In such circumstances further inquiry would be whether that premises is more suitable than the suit premises. Therefore, the questions raised before the Court would not necessarily depend upon only the pleadings. It could be a good defence that the landlord has other reasonably suitable residential accommodation and thereby defend the claim of the landlord.',
	(int) 40 => '<p>10. There cannot be a pedantic or a dogmatic approach in the matter of analysis of pleadings or of the evidence adduced thereto. It is no doubt true that if the pleadings are clearly set out, it would be easy for the Court to decide the matters. But if the pleadings are lacking or vague and if both parties have understood what was the case pleaded and put forth with reference to requirement of law and placed such material before the Court, neither party is prejudiced. If we analyse from this angle, we do not think that the High Court was not justified in interfering with the order made by the Rent Controller.',
	(int) 41 => '<p>23. From the perusal of the judgment of the Apex Court it is apparent that the Rent Controller must approach the matter in a practical manner. In case the non-disclosure is such as that it goes to the very root of the case the Rent Controller would be justified in non-suiting the landlord. However, if the non-disclosure is such that it would not prejudice the rights of the respondent then the landlord should not be non-suited only on this ground.',
	(int) 42 => '<p>24. The decisions of this Court cited hereinabove were delivered prior to the judgment delivered by the Apex Court in Ram Nar'ain Arora's case. Further more both in Tara Chand Sharma's case and Vijay Kapoor's case decided by this Court, no averment had been made ixi respect of other residential buildings owned by a landlord. There was complete non-disclosure as to whether any such residential building owned by the landlord was in his possession or not. In the present case, as I have held above, the residential premises at 31, The Mall, Shimla was not owned by the landlord and hence these two earlier judgments of this Court are distinguishable on facts also.',
	(int) 43 => '<p>25. In the present case, the landlord has been non-suited only on the ground that he did not disclose the fact that he was in occupation of certain premises on the Mall Road. Under law he was not required to disclose this fact. He was only required to disclose the factum of occupying another residential building owned by him in the urban area concerned. True it may be, that it would have been better if the landlord had disclosed all the facts but non-disclosure of a fact which he was not under law required to disclose could not in my opinion be a ground to dismiss his eviction petition.',
	(int) 44 => '<p>26. However, what are the premises in his occupation even as a tenant can be taken into consideration while deciding the question whether he bona fide requires the demised premises for his personal use or occupation or not.',
	(int) 45 => '<p>27. Lastly comes the question with regard to the bona fide requirement of the landlord. The landlord has no children. According to the landlord as well as his other witnesses i.e. his brother-in-law PW-2 and his wife PW-3, the wife now wants to come back and settle in Shimla. There is no reason to disbelieve their statements. Even according to the evidence led by the tenant the accommodation in possession of the landlord consists of two rooms, kitchen, bath room etc. Admittedly, the landlord is also having his office as an Architect in this building. The landlord belongs to the middle class of the Society. It cannot be expected of a landlord who owns sufficient property to reside in a two room set wherein he also runs his office.',
	(int) 46 => '<p>28. The law by now is well settled that the landlord is the best judge of the suitability of the accommodation required by him. This suitability has however to be judged in the context of reasonable expectations. The landlord and his wife who are both well educated can reasonably be expected to entertain guests and they will have visitors to their house. They would obviously require a drawing room, a bed room and a spare bed room for guests. Even at his residence the landlord may require another room for his professional work. This is the minimum accommodation which they would require. Even if the accommodation possessed by the landlord, though not owned by him, at 31, the Mall, Shimla is taken into consideration such accommodation is not sufficient to meet his requirements since admittedly the landlord is running his profession of Architect from some portion of his these premises.',
	(int) 47 => '<p>29. Keeping in view the entire facts and circumstances, I am of the considered view that the learned Appellate Authority gravely erred in rejecting the eviction petition of the landlord solely on the ground that he had not disclosed the factum of being in possession of the premises at 31, the Mall Shimla. Even though I have held that the said premises are residential premises, in view of the above discussion I hold that the landlord cannot be non-suited only on the ground of his being in possession of such premises since same were not owned by him.',
	(int) 48 => '<p>30. In view of the above discussion, the Revision Petition is allowed, the order of the learned Appellate Authority dated 6.5.2003 is seaside and the order of the Rent Controller dated 22.8.2001 is restored.',
	(int) 49 => '<p>31. Keeping in view the fact that the tenant has been in possession of the premises for a long period he is granted time up to 31st October, 2008 to vacate the premises.',
	(int) 50 => '<p>32. No order as to costs.<p>',
	(int) 51 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 52
$i = (int) 41
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

23. From the perusal of the judgment of the Apex Court it is apparent that the Rent Controller must approach the matter in a practical manner. In case the non-disclosure is such as that it goes to the very root of the case the Rent Controller would be justified in non-suiting the landlord. However, if the non-disclosure is such that it would not prejudice the rights of the respondent then the landlord should not be non-suited only on this ground.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Shri Arun Bhanwara Vs Shri S L Srivastava - Citation 891084 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '891084',
			'acts' => '',
			'appealno' => '',
			'appellant' => 'Shri Arun Bhanwara',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Shri Arun Bhanwara Vs. Shri S.L. Srivastava',
			'casenote' => ' - CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908.[C.A. No. 5/1908]. Order 14, Rule 2 [As amended by Amending Act of 1976]: [V.K. Gupta, CJ, Deepak Gupta & Surjit Singh, JJ] Preliminary issue of law and fact  Court framing all issues both of law and facts together and also  tried all the issues together, including the issue relating to jurisdiction of Court  Held, Except in situations perceived or warranted under sub-rule (2) of Rule 2 of Order 14 where a  Court in fact frames only issues of law in the first instance and postpones settlement of other issues, clearly and explicitly in situations where the Court has framed all issues together, both of law as well as facts and has also tried all these issues together, it is not open to the Court to adopt the principle of severability and proceed to decide issues of law first, without taking up simultaneously other issues for decision. This course of action is not available to a Court because sub-rule (1) does not permit the  Court to adopt any such principle of severability and to dispose of a suit only on preliminary issues, or what can be termed as issues of law. Sub-rule (1)  clearly mandates that in a situation contemplated under it, where all the issues have been together and have also been taken up for adjudication during the course of the trial, these must be decided together and the judgment in the suit as a whole must be pronounced by the Court covering all the issues framed in the suit.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => 'Ram Narain Arora v. Asha Rani;',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => '',
			'counseldef' => '',
			'court' => 'Himachal Pradesh',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2008-07-31',
			'deposition' => 'Petition allowed',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => ' Deepak Gupta, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">Deepak Gupta, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. This Revision Petition under Section 25(5) of the H.P. Urban Rent Control Act, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) is directed against the order of the learned Appellate Authority, Shimla in CMA No. 60-S/14 of 2001 whereby the appeal filed by the respondent (hereinafter referred to as the tenant) has been allowed, the order of the Rent Controller has been set-aside and the petition for eviction filed by the present petitioner (hereinafter referred to as the Landlord) on the ground of personal bona fide requirement has been set-aside.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The undisputed facts are that the landlord is owner of the demised premises situated in building known as Tunnel View, Sanjauli, Shimla-6 consisting of two bed rooms with attached bath room and latrine, drawing-cum-dining room, kitchen and balcony. These premises were purchased by the landlord in the year 1986. Thereafter, the landlord had rented out the premises to one Sh. B.K. Chauhan. According to the landlord, when he got married he requested Sh. B.K. Chauhan to vacate the said premises. Sh. Chauhan vacated the said premises but admittedly the landlord did not occupy the same but rented out the same to the tenant in the year 1990.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. In the year 1997 the landlord filed a petition for eviction of the tenant on two grounds; firstly that the tenant is in arrears of rent from 1.11.1990 to 31.7.1997 and secondly that the premises are bona fide required by the landlord for the use and occupation of himself and his family.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. This petition was contested by the tenant. After trial, the Rent Controller ordered the eviction of the tenant on two grounds; (i) that the tenant was in arrears of rent from November, 1999 till date of order i.e. 22nd August, 2001 and (ii) that the landlord required the premises for his own use and occupation.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. The tenant deposited the rent within the time prescribed. He also filed an appeal challenging the finding on the issue of bona fide requirement. The learned Appellate Authority came to the conclusion that the landlord had not made a proper and full disclosure of facts as required under the provisions of the Act and had withheld material facts from the Court viz. that the landlord was in occupation of residential premises on 31, Mall Road in the urban area of Shimla and as such rejected this petition on this short ground.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. Aggrieved by the said order, the landlord has filed the present Revision Petition.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. I have heard Sh. Ramakant Sharma, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sh. Bhupinder Gupta, learned senior Counsel for the tenant.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. It has been urged on behalf of the landlord that the building which is alleged to be in possession of the landlord i.e. 31, the Mall Shimla is not a residential building and secondly that the building is not owned by him.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. On the other hand Sh. Bhupinder Gupta, learned Counsel of the tenant has strenuously urged that the landlord in para 18 has not stated anything about any building being owned by him and has only made an averment that he does not own or possess any other such building within the urban area Shimla. It is contended by Sh. Bhupinder Gupta that the landlord of his own volition did not state anything about the ownership of the building and since he has kept silent about the building which he is in occupation he has made a false averment and therefore his petition for eviction has rightly been rejected.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. I am not at all in agreement with the contention of the landlord that the premises known as 31, the Mall Shimla which are admittedly in the occupation of the landlord are commercial premises only and not being used by him for his residence. As pointed out above, the landlord purchased the demised premises in 1986. They fell vacant when he got married despite that he did not occupy the same and rented out the same to the tenant in the year 1990. The question that arises is where was the landlord living for this entire period. According to the landlord after the year 1994 he has been living with his brother-in-law Rajan (wife's brother) PW-2, since the year 1994. Prior to 1994 the landlord will have this Court to believe that he was living off and on with one friend or the other. This story is impossible to believe. The landlord was married in the year 1999. He is an Architect by profession. His wife is a law graduate. It is not believable that such a person would have no permanent abode and would continue to live as a guest with his friends for almost 5 years after his marriage. Even the story that he has been living with his brother-in-law after the year 1994 does not inspire confidence. It stands proved on record that the brother-in-law PW-2 Rajan lives with his own family i.e. wife and children. From the evidence it is also clear that the parents of the brother-in-law also reside with him, His flat consists of only two rooms. The flat in possession of the landlord at 31, the Mall Shimla, also consists of two rooms, kitchen and bath room. Even assuming that he was running an office in the part of the flat it cannot be believed that he would not live on his own flat on the Mall Road and reside with his brother-in-law in cramped premises. Even in the electoral list the landlord is shown to be a resident of 31, The Mall, Shimla. Therefore, I am of the considered view that the building 31, the Mall, Shimla was also being used as a residence by the landlord.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. Having held so, the question that arises is whether the landlord can be non-suited only on the ground that he has not made any disclosure about the residential accommodation available with him which premises were admittedly not owned by him.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. The short question which arises for decision in this petition is whether the landlord was guilty of suppressing and withholding such relevant facts which would disentitle him from seeking eviction of the tenant. To appreciate these contentions it would be necessary to refer to relevant portion of Section 14(3) of the Act:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Section 14:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1 and 2 xxxxxxxxxxx</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(3) A landlord may apply to the Controller for an order directing the tenant to put the landlord in possession-</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(a) in case of residential building, if</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(i) he required it for his own occupation:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Provided that he is not occupying another residential building owned by him, in the urban area concerned:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Provided further that he has not vacated such a building without sufficient cause within five years of the filing of the application, in the said urban area....</p><p style="text-align: justify;">13. A perusal of the bare provisions of the Act makes it clear that there are certain essential ingredients which the landlord must satisfy before seeking eviction of the tenant under the Act. Not only must he prove that the residential building is bona fide required by him for his own use and occupation but he must also plead and prove that he is not occupying any other residential building owned by him in the urban area concerned and further that he has not vacated such a building without sufficient cause within 5 years of the filing of the application.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">14. Reference may now be made to the relevant allegations made in para 18 of the eviction petition:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(ii) That the petitioner bona fide requires the premises for his own use and occupation and also for the use and occupation of his family.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The petitioner does not own or possess any other such building within the urban area of Simla nor the petitioner has vacated any such premises within five years of the filing of this petition.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The family of the petitioner presently consists of himself and his wife. Due to paucity of accommodation the petitioner has not been able to keep his wife with himself at Simla, where he is working as an Engineer and she has been residing at Chandigarh since 1991 but on account of her ill health she has been brought to Simla by the petitioner. The petitioner at present is seeking temporary shelter, from time to time, with his relations.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">15. The learned Appellate Authority came to the conclusion that the landlord had falsely pleaded that he does not own or possess any other such building within the urban area of Shimla and hence rejected the eviction petition on this ground.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">16. On a close analysis of the proviso to Section 14(3)(a)(i) of the Act it is clear that a landlord is not entitled to seek eviction of a tenant from residential building even in case of bona fide requirement if the landlord is occupying another residential building owned by him in the urban area concerned. One can read three essential ingredients in this proviso i.e. (i) that the landlord is in occupation of another residential building; (ii) that the said residential building is owned by him and (iii) that the said residential building is situated in the concerned urban area.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">17. The question that arises is what is the impact of the landlord not making a disclosure in respect of premises which he is occupying but are not owned by him.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">18. The Apex Court in Onkar Nath v. Ved Vyas ILR 1979 HP 1, held as follows:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">It is common ground that there are three requirements to make out a cause of action for eviction under that provision, and indeed this is apparent from a bare reading of the sub-section. In the present case the finding is to the effect that the landlord requires the residential building for his own occupation. But, the legislation has taken care to insist upon two more conditions, namely; (a) that the landlord is not occupying any other residential building in the area concerned; and (b) that he has not vacated such a building without sufficient cause. There is not a scintilla of evidence nor indeed there is any averment in compliance with these latter conditions. The necessary consequence follows that not merely is there inadequacy of pleadings sufficient to make out a cause of action but total absence of proof of two vital requirements....</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The Supreme Court also said that:.The statute benignly designed to protect tenants from unreasonable evictions has taken case to put restrictions which must be rigorously construed to fulfil the purpose of the statute.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">19. Following the aforesaid judgment and other pronouncements of the Apex Court, a learned Single Judge of this Court in Tara Chand Sharma v. Baij Nath and Ors. 1992 (2) R.C.J. 323, held as follows:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">16. What appears as the legislative intent, in bold relief, is that the landlord, while seeking eviction of a tenant on the ground that he needs a residential building for his own occupation, must come out clearly and honestly with facts relating to the requirement that he is not occupying another residential building owned by him, in the urban area concerned and that he had not vacated such a building without sufficient cause within five years of the filing of the application, in the said urban area. The primal burden of making a clear disclosure would lie upon the landlord, for, the true facts would be in his special knowledge. An order in his favour by the Rent Controller would depend upon the satisfaction of the Rent Controller in regard not only to the claim that the landlord requires the accommodation, from which he wishes to evict a tenant, for his own occupation but also that he was not occupying another residential building owned by him nor had he vacated such building without sufficient cause within five years of the filing of the application in the application in the urban area concerned....</p><p style="text-align: justify;">It was further held as under:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">18. That the landlord should make a full disclosure of the relevant facts, pertaining to the requirements of Sub-section (3)(a)(i) and the two provisos, becomes all the more necessary because the satisfaction of the Rent Controller in regard thereto is the condition precedent for the making of an order in favour of the landlord....</p><p style="text-align: justify;">20. The aforesaid judgment has been followed in a number of other cases including Vijay Kapoor v. Maya Ram 1997 (2) RCR 437, wherein another learned single Judge of this Court following the aforesaid judgment held that the landlord must make complete and proper disclosure of all the material facts.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">21. On the other hand Sh. Ramakant Sharma has relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in Ram Narain Arora v. Asha Rani 1998(2) RCR 268. In that case the Rent Controller came to the conclusion that the landlord had suppressed material information and had not disclosed the fact that he was already in occupation of a house in Subji Mandi. Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act reads as follows:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Section 14(1)(e). That the premises let for residential purposes are required bona fide by the landlord for occupation as a residence for himself or for any member of his family dependent on him, if he is the owner thereof, or for any person for whose benefit the premises are held and that the landlord or such person has no other reasonably suitable residential accommodation.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">22. The difference between Delhi Act and the present Act is that under the Delhi Act the only requirement is that the landlord has no other reasonably suitable accommodation whereas under the Himachal Act the residential premises are required to be owned by the landlord. The Apex Court in Rama Narain Arora's case (supra) held that the nondisclosure of the fact that the landlord was in occupation of certain premises in Subji Mandi was.not a ground to non-suit the landlord in view of the facts and circumstances of the case. The Apex Court held as follows:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. In making a claim that the suit premises is required bona fide for his own occupation as a residence for himself and other members of his family dependent on him and that he has no other reasonably suitable accommodation is a requirement of law before the Court can state whether the landlord requires the premises bona fide for his use and occupation. In doing so, the Court must also find out whether the landlord or such other person for whose benefit the premises is required has no other reasonably suitable residential accommodation. It cannot be said that the requirement of the landlord is not intermixed with the question of finding out whether he has any other reasonably suitable accommodation. If he has other reasonably suitable accommodation, ihen necessarily it would mean that he does not require the suit premises and his requirement may not be bona fide. In such circumstances further inquiry would be whether that premises is more suitable than the suit premises. Therefore, the questions raised before the Court would not necessarily depend upon only the pleadings. It could be a good defence that the landlord has other reasonably suitable residential accommodation and thereby defend the claim of the landlord.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. There cannot be a pedantic or a dogmatic approach in the matter of analysis of pleadings or of the evidence adduced thereto. It is no doubt true that if the pleadings are clearly set out, it would be easy for the Court to decide the matters. But if the pleadings are lacking or vague and if both parties have understood what was the case pleaded and put forth with reference to requirement of law and placed such material before the Court, neither party is prejudiced. If we analyse from this angle, we do not think that the High Court was not justified in interfering with the order made by the Rent Controller.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">23. From the perusal of the judgment of the Apex Court it is apparent that the Rent Controller must approach the matter in a practical manner. In case the non-disclosure is such as that it goes to the very root of the case the Rent Controller would be justified in non-suiting the landlord. However, if the non-disclosure is such that it would not prejudice the rights of the respondent then the landlord should not be non-suited only on this ground.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">24. The decisions of this Court cited hereinabove were delivered prior to the judgment delivered by the Apex Court in Ram Nar'ain Arora's case. Further more both in Tara Chand Sharma's case and Vijay Kapoor's case decided by this Court, no averment had been made ixi respect of other residential buildings owned by a landlord. There was complete non-disclosure as to whether any such residential building owned by the landlord was in his possession or not. In the present case, as I have held above, the residential premises at 31, The Mall, Shimla was not owned by the landlord and hence these two earlier judgments of this Court are distinguishable on facts also.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">25. In the present case, the landlord has been non-suited only on the ground that he did not disclose the fact that he was in occupation of certain premises on the Mall Road. Under law he was not required to disclose this fact. He was only required to disclose the factum of occupying another residential building owned by him in the urban area concerned. True it may be, that it would have been better if the landlord had disclosed all the facts but non-disclosure of a fact which he was not under law required to disclose could not in my opinion be a ground to dismiss his eviction petition.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">26. However, what are the premises in his occupation even as a tenant can be taken into consideration while deciding the question whether he bona fide requires the demised premises for his personal use or occupation or not.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">27. Lastly comes the question with regard to the bona fide requirement of the landlord. The landlord has no children. According to the landlord as well as his other witnesses i.e. his brother-in-law PW-2 and his wife PW-3, the wife now wants to come back and settle in Shimla. There is no reason to disbelieve their statements. Even according to the evidence led by the tenant the accommodation in possession of the landlord consists of two rooms, kitchen, bath room etc. Admittedly, the landlord is also having his office as an Architect in this building. The landlord belongs to the middle class of the Society. It cannot be expected of a landlord who owns sufficient property to reside in a two room set wherein he also runs his office.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">28. The law by now is well settled that the landlord is the best judge of the suitability of the accommodation required by him. This suitability has however to be judged in the context of reasonable expectations. The landlord and his wife who are both well educated can reasonably be expected to entertain guests and they will have visitors to their house. They would obviously require a drawing room, a bed room and a spare bed room for guests. Even at his residence the landlord may require another room for his professional work. This is the minimum accommodation which they would require. Even if the accommodation possessed by the landlord, though not owned by him, at 31, the Mall, Shimla is taken into consideration such accommodation is not sufficient to meet his requirements since admittedly the landlord is running his profession of Architect from some portion of his these premises.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">29. Keeping in view the entire facts and circumstances, I am of the considered view that the learned Appellate Authority gravely erred in rejecting the eviction petition of the landlord solely on the ground that he had not disclosed the factum of being in possession of the premises at 31, the Mall Shimla. Even though I have held that the said premises are residential premises, in view of the above discussion I hold that the landlord cannot be non-suited only on the ground of his being in possession of such premises since same were not owned by him.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">30. In view of the above discussion, the Revision Petition is allowed, the order of the learned Appellate Authority dated 6.5.2003 is seaside and the order of the Rent Controller dated 22.8.2001 is restored.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">31. Keeping in view the fact that the tenant has been in possession of the premises for a long period he is granted time up to 31st October, 2008 to vacate the premises.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">32. No order as to costs.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '2008(2)ShimLC491',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'Shri S.L. Srivastava',
			'sub' => 'Tenancy',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'shri-arun-bhanwara-vs-s-l-srivastava',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '891084',
		(int) 1 => 'shri-arun-bhanwara-vs-s-l-srivastava'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Shri Arun Bhanwara Vs Shri S L Srivastava - Citation 891084 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '891084',
		'acts' => '',
		'appealno' => '',
		'appellant' => 'Shri Arun Bhanwara',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Shri Arun Bhanwara Vs. Shri S.L. Srivastava',
		'casenote' => ' - CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908.[C.A. No. 5/1908]. Order 14, Rule 2 [As amended by Amending Act of 1976]: [V.K. Gupta, CJ, Deepak Gupta & Surjit Singh, JJ] Preliminary issue of law and fact  Court framing all issues both of law and facts together and also  tried all the issues together, including the issue relating to jurisdiction of Court  Held, Except in situations perceived or warranted under sub-rule (2) of Rule 2 of Order 14 where a  Court in fact frames only issues of law in the first instance and postpones settlement of other issues, clearly and explicitly in situations where the Court has framed all issues together, both of law as well as facts and has also tried all these issues together, it is not open to the Court to adopt the principle of severability and proceed to decide issues of law first, without taking up simultaneously other issues for decision. This course of action is not available to a Court because sub-rule (1) does not permit the  Court to adopt any such principle of severability and to dispose of a suit only on preliminary issues, or what can be termed as issues of law. Sub-rule (1)  clearly mandates that in a situation contemplated under it, where all the issues have been together and have also been taken up for adjudication during the course of the trial, these must be decided together and the judgment in the suit as a whole must be pronounced by the Court covering all the issues framed in the suit.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => 'Ram Narain Arora v. Asha Rani;',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => '',
		'counseldef' => '',
		'court' => 'Himachal Pradesh',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2008-07-31',
		'deposition' => 'Petition allowed',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => ' Deepak Gupta, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>Deepak Gupta, J.</p><p>1. This Revision Petition under Section 25(5) of the H.P. Urban Rent Control Act, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) is directed against the order of the learned Appellate Authority, Shimla in CMA No. 60-S/14 of 2001 whereby the appeal filed by the respondent (hereinafter referred to as the tenant) has been allowed, the order of the Rent Controller has been set-aside and the petition for eviction filed by the present petitioner (hereinafter referred to as the Landlord) on the ground of personal bona fide requirement has been set-aside.</p><p>2. The undisputed facts are that the landlord is owner of the demised premises situated in building known as Tunnel View, Sanjauli, Shimla-6 consisting of two bed rooms with attached bath room and latrine, drawing-cum-dining room, kitchen and balcony. These premises were purchased by the landlord in the year 1986. Thereafter, the landlord had rented out the premises to one Sh. B.K. Chauhan. According to the landlord, when he got married he requested Sh. B.K. Chauhan to vacate the said premises. Sh. Chauhan vacated the said premises but admittedly the landlord did not occupy the same but rented out the same to the tenant in the year 1990.</p><p>3. In the year 1997 the landlord filed a petition for eviction of the tenant on two grounds; firstly that the tenant is in arrears of rent from 1.11.1990 to 31.7.1997 and secondly that the premises are bona fide required by the landlord for the use and occupation of himself and his family.</p><p>4. This petition was contested by the tenant. After trial, the Rent Controller ordered the eviction of the tenant on two grounds; (i) that the tenant was in arrears of rent from November, 1999 till date of order i.e. 22nd August, 2001 and (ii) that the landlord required the premises for his own use and occupation.</p><p>5. The tenant deposited the rent within the time prescribed. He also filed an appeal challenging the finding on the issue of bona fide requirement. The learned Appellate Authority came to the conclusion that the landlord had not made a proper and full disclosure of facts as required under the provisions of the Act and had withheld material facts from the Court viz. that the landlord was in occupation of residential premises on 31, Mall Road in the urban area of Shimla and as such rejected this petition on this short ground.</p><p>6. Aggrieved by the said order, the landlord has filed the present Revision Petition.</p><p>7. I have heard Sh. Ramakant Sharma, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sh. Bhupinder Gupta, learned senior Counsel for the tenant.</p><p>8. It has been urged on behalf of the landlord that the building which is alleged to be in possession of the landlord i.e. 31, the Mall Shimla is not a residential building and secondly that the building is not owned by him.</p><p>9. On the other hand Sh. Bhupinder Gupta, learned Counsel of the tenant has strenuously urged that the landlord in para 18 has not stated anything about any building being owned by him and has only made an averment that he does not own or possess any other such building within the urban area Shimla. It is contended by Sh. Bhupinder Gupta that the landlord of his own volition did not state anything about the ownership of the building and since he has kept silent about the building which he is in occupation he has made a false averment and therefore his petition for eviction has rightly been rejected.</p><p>10. I am not at all in agreement with the contention of the landlord that the premises known as 31, the Mall Shimla which are admittedly in the occupation of the landlord are commercial premises only and not being used by him for his residence. As pointed out above, the landlord purchased the demised premises in 1986. They fell vacant when he got married despite that he did not occupy the same and rented out the same to the tenant in the year 1990. The question that arises is where was the landlord living for this entire period. According to the landlord after the year 1994 he has been living with his brother-in-law Rajan (wife's brother) PW-2, since the year 1994. Prior to 1994 the landlord will have this Court to believe that he was living off and on with one friend or the other. This story is impossible to believe. The landlord was married in the year 1999. He is an Architect by profession. His wife is a law graduate. It is not believable that such a person would have no permanent abode and would continue to live as a guest with his friends for almost 5 years after his marriage. Even the story that he has been living with his brother-in-law after the year 1994 does not inspire confidence. It stands proved on record that the brother-in-law PW-2 Rajan lives with his own family i.e. wife and children. From the evidence it is also clear that the parents of the brother-in-law also reside with him, His flat consists of only two rooms. The flat in possession of the landlord at 31, the Mall Shimla, also consists of two rooms, kitchen and bath room. Even assuming that he was running an office in the part of the flat it cannot be believed that he would not live on his own flat on the Mall Road and reside with his brother-in-law in cramped premises. Even in the electoral list the landlord is shown to be a resident of 31, The Mall, Shimla. Therefore, I am of the considered view that the building 31, the Mall, Shimla was also being used as a residence by the landlord.</p><p>11. Having held so, the question that arises is whether the landlord can be non-suited only on the ground that he has not made any disclosure about the residential accommodation available with him which premises were admittedly not owned by him.</p><p>12. The short question which arises for decision in this petition is whether the landlord was guilty of suppressing and withholding such relevant facts which would disentitle him from seeking eviction of the tenant. To appreciate these contentions it would be necessary to refer to relevant portion of Section 14(3) of the Act:</p><p>Section 14:</p><p>1 and 2 xxxxxxxxxxx</p><p>(3) A landlord may apply to the Controller for an order directing the tenant to put the landlord in possession-</p><p>(a) in case of residential building, if</p><p>(i) he required it for his own occupation:</p><p>Provided that he is not occupying another residential building owned by him, in the urban area concerned:</p><p>Provided further that he has not vacated such a building without sufficient cause within five years of the filing of the application, in the said urban area....</p><p>13. A perusal of the bare provisions of the Act makes it clear that there are certain essential ingredients which the landlord must satisfy before seeking eviction of the tenant under the Act. Not only must he prove that the residential building is bona fide required by him for his own use and occupation but he must also plead and prove that he is not occupying any other residential building owned by him in the urban area concerned and further that he has not vacated such a building without sufficient cause within 5 years of the filing of the application.</p><p>14. Reference may now be made to the relevant allegations made in para 18 of the eviction petition:</p><p>(ii) That the petitioner bona fide requires the premises for his own use and occupation and also for the use and occupation of his family.</p><p>The petitioner does not own or possess any other such building within the urban area of Simla nor the petitioner has vacated any such premises within five years of the filing of this petition.</p><p>The family of the petitioner presently consists of himself and his wife. Due to paucity of accommodation the petitioner has not been able to keep his wife with himself at Simla, where he is working as an Engineer and she has been residing at Chandigarh since 1991 but on account of her ill health she has been brought to Simla by the petitioner. The petitioner at present is seeking temporary shelter, from time to time, with his relations.</p><p>15. The learned Appellate Authority came to the conclusion that the landlord had falsely pleaded that he does not own or possess any other such building within the urban area of Shimla and hence rejected the eviction petition on this ground.</p><p>16. On a close analysis of the proviso to Section 14(3)(a)(i) of the Act it is clear that a landlord is not entitled to seek eviction of a tenant from residential building even in case of bona fide requirement if the landlord is occupying another residential building owned by him in the urban area concerned. One can read three essential ingredients in this proviso i.e. (i) that the landlord is in occupation of another residential building; (ii) that the said residential building is owned by him and (iii) that the said residential building is situated in the concerned urban area.</p><p>17. The question that arises is what is the impact of the landlord not making a disclosure in respect of premises which he is occupying but are not owned by him.</p><p>18. The Apex Court in Onkar Nath v. Ved Vyas ILR 1979 HP 1, held as follows:</p><p>It is common ground that there are three requirements to make out a cause of action for eviction under that provision, and indeed this is apparent from a bare reading of the sub-section. In the present case the finding is to the effect that the landlord requires the residential building for his own occupation. But, the legislation has taken care to insist upon two more conditions, namely; (a) that the landlord is not occupying any other residential building in the area concerned; and (b) that he has not vacated such a building without sufficient cause. There is not a scintilla of evidence nor indeed there is any averment in compliance with these latter conditions. The necessary consequence follows that not merely is there inadequacy of pleadings sufficient to make out a cause of action but total absence of proof of two vital requirements....</p><p>The Supreme Court also said that:.The statute benignly designed to protect tenants from unreasonable evictions has taken case to put restrictions which must be rigorously construed to fulfil the purpose of the statute.</p><p>19. Following the aforesaid judgment and other pronouncements of the Apex Court, a learned Single Judge of this Court in Tara Chand Sharma v. Baij Nath and Ors. 1992 (2) R.C.J. 323, held as follows:</p><p>16. What appears as the legislative intent, in bold relief, is that the landlord, while seeking eviction of a tenant on the ground that he needs a residential building for his own occupation, must come out clearly and honestly with facts relating to the requirement that he is not occupying another residential building owned by him, in the urban area concerned and that he had not vacated such a building without sufficient cause within five years of the filing of the application, in the said urban area. The primal burden of making a clear disclosure would lie upon the landlord, for, the true facts would be in his special knowledge. An order in his favour by the Rent Controller would depend upon the satisfaction of the Rent Controller in regard not only to the claim that the landlord requires the accommodation, from which he wishes to evict a tenant, for his own occupation but also that he was not occupying another residential building owned by him nor had he vacated such building without sufficient cause within five years of the filing of the application in the application in the urban area concerned....</p><p>It was further held as under:</p><p>18. That the landlord should make a full disclosure of the relevant facts, pertaining to the requirements of Sub-section (3)(a)(i) and the two provisos, becomes all the more necessary because the satisfaction of the Rent Controller in regard thereto is the condition precedent for the making of an order in favour of the landlord....</p><p>20. The aforesaid judgment has been followed in a number of other cases including Vijay Kapoor v. Maya Ram 1997 (2) RCR 437, wherein another learned single Judge of this Court following the aforesaid judgment held that the landlord must make complete and proper disclosure of all the material facts.</p><p>21. On the other hand Sh. Ramakant Sharma has relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in Ram Narain Arora v. Asha Rani 1998(2) RCR 268. In that case the Rent Controller came to the conclusion that the landlord had suppressed material information and had not disclosed the fact that he was already in occupation of a house in Subji Mandi. Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act reads as follows:</p><p>Section 14(1)(e). That the premises let for residential purposes are required bona fide by the landlord for occupation as a residence for himself or for any member of his family dependent on him, if he is the owner thereof, or for any person for whose benefit the premises are held and that the landlord or such person has no other reasonably suitable residential accommodation.</p><p>22. The difference between Delhi Act and the present Act is that under the Delhi Act the only requirement is that the landlord has no other reasonably suitable accommodation whereas under the Himachal Act the residential premises are required to be owned by the landlord. The Apex Court in Rama Narain Arora's case (supra) held that the nondisclosure of the fact that the landlord was in occupation of certain premises in Subji Mandi was.not a ground to non-suit the landlord in view of the facts and circumstances of the case. The Apex Court held as follows:</p><p>9. In making a claim that the suit premises is required bona fide for his own occupation as a residence for himself and other members of his family dependent on him and that he has no other reasonably suitable accommodation is a requirement of law before the Court can state whether the landlord requires the premises bona fide for his use and occupation. In doing so, the Court must also find out whether the landlord or such other person for whose benefit the premises is required has no other reasonably suitable residential accommodation. It cannot be said that the requirement of the landlord is not intermixed with the question of finding out whether he has any other reasonably suitable accommodation. If he has other reasonably suitable accommodation, ihen necessarily it would mean that he does not require the suit premises and his requirement may not be bona fide. In such circumstances further inquiry would be whether that premises is more suitable than the suit premises. Therefore, the questions raised before the Court would not necessarily depend upon only the pleadings. It could be a good defence that the landlord has other reasonably suitable residential accommodation and thereby defend the claim of the landlord.</p><p>10. There cannot be a pedantic or a dogmatic approach in the matter of analysis of pleadings or of the evidence adduced thereto. It is no doubt true that if the pleadings are clearly set out, it would be easy for the Court to decide the matters. But if the pleadings are lacking or vague and if both parties have understood what was the case pleaded and put forth with reference to requirement of law and placed such material before the Court, neither party is prejudiced. If we analyse from this angle, we do not think that the High Court was not justified in interfering with the order made by the Rent Controller.</p><p>23. From the perusal of the judgment of the Apex Court it is apparent that the Rent Controller must approach the matter in a practical manner. In case the non-disclosure is such as that it goes to the very root of the case the Rent Controller would be justified in non-suiting the landlord. However, if the non-disclosure is such that it would not prejudice the rights of the respondent then the landlord should not be non-suited only on this ground.</p><p>24. The decisions of this Court cited hereinabove were delivered prior to the judgment delivered by the Apex Court in Ram Nar'ain Arora's case. Further more both in Tara Chand Sharma's case and Vijay Kapoor's case decided by this Court, no averment had been made ixi respect of other residential buildings owned by a landlord. There was complete non-disclosure as to whether any such residential building owned by the landlord was in his possession or not. In the present case, as I have held above, the residential premises at 31, The Mall, Shimla was not owned by the landlord and hence these two earlier judgments of this Court are distinguishable on facts also.</p><p>25. In the present case, the landlord has been non-suited only on the ground that he did not disclose the fact that he was in occupation of certain premises on the Mall Road. Under law he was not required to disclose this fact. He was only required to disclose the factum of occupying another residential building owned by him in the urban area concerned. True it may be, that it would have been better if the landlord had disclosed all the facts but non-disclosure of a fact which he was not under law required to disclose could not in my opinion be a ground to dismiss his eviction petition.</p><p>26. However, what are the premises in his occupation even as a tenant can be taken into consideration while deciding the question whether he bona fide requires the demised premises for his personal use or occupation or not.</p><p>27. Lastly comes the question with regard to the bona fide requirement of the landlord. The landlord has no children. According to the landlord as well as his other witnesses i.e. his brother-in-law PW-2 and his wife PW-3, the wife now wants to come back and settle in Shimla. There is no reason to disbelieve their statements. Even according to the evidence led by the tenant the accommodation in possession of the landlord consists of two rooms, kitchen, bath room etc. Admittedly, the landlord is also having his office as an Architect in this building. The landlord belongs to the middle class of the Society. It cannot be expected of a landlord who owns sufficient property to reside in a two room set wherein he also runs his office.</p><p>28. The law by now is well settled that the landlord is the best judge of the suitability of the accommodation required by him. This suitability has however to be judged in the context of reasonable expectations. The landlord and his wife who are both well educated can reasonably be expected to entertain guests and they will have visitors to their house. They would obviously require a drawing room, a bed room and a spare bed room for guests. Even at his residence the landlord may require another room for his professional work. This is the minimum accommodation which they would require. Even if the accommodation possessed by the landlord, though not owned by him, at 31, the Mall, Shimla is taken into consideration such accommodation is not sufficient to meet his requirements since admittedly the landlord is running his profession of Architect from some portion of his these premises.</p><p>29. Keeping in view the entire facts and circumstances, I am of the considered view that the learned Appellate Authority gravely erred in rejecting the eviction petition of the landlord solely on the ground that he had not disclosed the factum of being in possession of the premises at 31, the Mall Shimla. Even though I have held that the said premises are residential premises, in view of the above discussion I hold that the landlord cannot be non-suited only on the ground of his being in possession of such premises since same were not owned by him.</p><p>30. In view of the above discussion, the Revision Petition is allowed, the order of the learned Appellate Authority dated 6.5.2003 is seaside and the order of the Rent Controller dated 22.8.2001 is restored.</p><p>31. Keeping in view the fact that the tenant has been in possession of the premises for a long period he is granted time up to 31st October, 2008 to vacate the premises.</p><p>32. No order as to costs.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '2008(2)ShimLC491',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'Shri S.L. Srivastava',
		'sub' => 'Tenancy',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'shri-arun-bhanwara-vs-s-l-srivastava'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '891084',
	(int) 1 => 'shri-arun-bhanwara-vs-s-l-srivastava'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/891084/shri-arun-bhanwara-vs-s-l-srivastava'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$caseref = 'Ram Narain Arora v. Asha Rani<br>'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>Deepak Gupta, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. This Revision Petition under Section 25(5) of the H.P. Urban Rent Control Act, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) is directed against the order of the learned Appellate Authority, Shimla in CMA No. 60-S/14 of 2001 whereby the appeal filed by the respondent (hereinafter referred to as the tenant) has been allowed, the order of the Rent Controller has been set-aside and the petition for eviction filed by the present petitioner (hereinafter referred to as the Landlord) on the ground of personal bona fide requirement has been set-aside.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. The undisputed facts are that the landlord is owner of the demised premises situated in building known as Tunnel View, Sanjauli, Shimla-6 consisting of two bed rooms with attached bath room and latrine, drawing-cum-dining room, kitchen and balcony. These premises were purchased by the landlord in the year 1986. Thereafter, the landlord had rented out the premises to one Sh. B.K. Chauhan. According to the landlord, when he got married he requested Sh. B.K. Chauhan to vacate the said premises. Sh. Chauhan vacated the said premises but admittedly the landlord did not occupy the same but rented out the same to the tenant in the year 1990.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. In the year 1997 the landlord filed a petition for eviction of the tenant on two grounds; firstly that the tenant is in arrears of rent from 1.11.1990 to 31.7.1997 and secondly that the premises are bona fide required by the landlord for the use and occupation of himself and his family.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>4. This petition was contested by the tenant. After trial, the Rent Controller ordered the eviction of the tenant on two grounds; (i) that the tenant was in arrears of rent from November, 1999 till date of order i.e. 22nd August, 2001 and (ii) that the landlord required the premises for his own use and occupation.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>5. The tenant deposited the rent within the time prescribed. He also filed an appeal challenging the finding on the issue of bona fide requirement. The learned Appellate Authority came to the conclusion that the landlord had not made a proper and full disclosure of facts as required under the provisions of the Act and had withheld material facts from the Court viz. that the landlord was in occupation of residential premises on 31, Mall Road in the urban area of Shimla and as such rejected this petition on this short ground.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>6. Aggrieved by the said order, the landlord has filed the present Revision Petition.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>7. I have heard Sh. Ramakant Sharma, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sh. Bhupinder Gupta, learned senior Counsel for the tenant.',
	(int) 8 => '<p>8. It has been urged on behalf of the landlord that the building which is alleged to be in possession of the landlord i.e. 31, the Mall Shimla is not a residential building and secondly that the building is not owned by him.',
	(int) 9 => '<p>9. On the other hand Sh. Bhupinder Gupta, learned Counsel of the tenant has strenuously urged that the landlord in para 18 has not stated anything about any building being owned by him and has only made an averment that he does not own or possess any other such building within the urban area Shimla. It is contended by Sh. Bhupinder Gupta that the landlord of his own volition did not state anything about the ownership of the building and since he has kept silent about the building which he is in occupation he has made a false averment and therefore his petition for eviction has rightly been rejected.',
	(int) 10 => '<p>10. I am not at all in agreement with the contention of the landlord that the premises known as 31, the Mall Shimla which are admittedly in the occupation of the landlord are commercial premises only and not being used by him for his residence. As pointed out above, the landlord purchased the demised premises in 1986. They fell vacant when he got married despite that he did not occupy the same and rented out the same to the tenant in the year 1990. The question that arises is where was the landlord living for this entire period. According to the landlord after the year 1994 he has been living with his brother-in-law Rajan (wife's brother) PW-2, since the year 1994. Prior to 1994 the landlord will have this Court to believe that he was living off and on with one friend or the other. This story is impossible to believe. The landlord was married in the year 1999. He is an Architect by profession. His wife is a law graduate. It is not believable that such a person would have no permanent abode and would continue to live as a guest with his friends for almost 5 years after his marriage. Even the story that he has been living with his brother-in-law after the year 1994 does not inspire confidence. It stands proved on record that the brother-in-law PW-2 Rajan lives with his own family i.e. wife and children. From the evidence it is also clear that the parents of the brother-in-law also reside with him, His flat consists of only two rooms. The flat in possession of the landlord at 31, the Mall Shimla, also consists of two rooms, kitchen and bath room. Even assuming that he was running an office in the part of the flat it cannot be believed that he would not live on his own flat on the Mall Road and reside with his brother-in-law in cramped premises. Even in the electoral list the landlord is shown to be a resident of 31, The Mall, Shimla. Therefore, I am of the considered view that the building 31, the Mall, Shimla was also being used as a residence by the landlord.',
	(int) 11 => '<p>11. Having held so, the question that arises is whether the landlord can be non-suited only on the ground that he has not made any disclosure about the residential accommodation available with him which premises were admittedly not owned by him.',
	(int) 12 => '<p>12. The short question which arises for decision in this petition is whether the landlord was guilty of suppressing and withholding such relevant facts which would disentitle him from seeking eviction of the tenant. To appreciate these contentions it would be necessary to refer to relevant portion of Section 14(3) of the Act:',
	(int) 13 => '<p>Section 14:',
	(int) 14 => '<p>1 and 2 xxxxxxxxxxx',
	(int) 15 => '<p>(3) A landlord may apply to the Controller for an order directing the tenant to put the landlord in possession-',
	(int) 16 => '<p>(a) in case of residential building, if',
	(int) 17 => '<p>(i) he required it for his own occupation:',
	(int) 18 => '<p>Provided that he is not occupying another residential building owned by him, in the urban area concerned:',
	(int) 19 => '<p>Provided further that he has not vacated such a building without sufficient cause within five years of the filing of the application, in the said urban area....',
	(int) 20 => '<p>13. A perusal of the bare provisions of the Act makes it clear that there are certain essential ingredients which the landlord must satisfy before seeking eviction of the tenant under the Act. Not only must he prove that the residential building is bona fide required by him for his own use and occupation but he must also plead and prove that he is not occupying any other residential building owned by him in the urban area concerned and further that he has not vacated such a building without sufficient cause within 5 years of the filing of the application.',
	(int) 21 => '<p>14. Reference may now be made to the relevant allegations made in para 18 of the eviction petition:',
	(int) 22 => '<p>(ii) That the petitioner bona fide requires the premises for his own use and occupation and also for the use and occupation of his family.',
	(int) 23 => '<p>The petitioner does not own or possess any other such building within the urban area of Simla nor the petitioner has vacated any such premises within five years of the filing of this petition.',
	(int) 24 => '<p>The family of the petitioner presently consists of himself and his wife. Due to paucity of accommodation the petitioner has not been able to keep his wife with himself at Simla, where he is working as an Engineer and she has been residing at Chandigarh since 1991 but on account of her ill health she has been brought to Simla by the petitioner. The petitioner at present is seeking temporary shelter, from time to time, with his relations.',
	(int) 25 => '<p>15. The learned Appellate Authority came to the conclusion that the landlord had falsely pleaded that he does not own or possess any other such building within the urban area of Shimla and hence rejected the eviction petition on this ground.',
	(int) 26 => '<p>16. On a close analysis of the proviso to Section 14(3)(a)(i) of the Act it is clear that a landlord is not entitled to seek eviction of a tenant from residential building even in case of bona fide requirement if the landlord is occupying another residential building owned by him in the urban area concerned. One can read three essential ingredients in this proviso i.e. (i) that the landlord is in occupation of another residential building; (ii) that the said residential building is owned by him and (iii) that the said residential building is situated in the concerned urban area.',
	(int) 27 => '<p>17. The question that arises is what is the impact of the landlord not making a disclosure in respect of premises which he is occupying but are not owned by him.',
	(int) 28 => '<p>18. The Apex Court in Onkar Nath v. Ved Vyas ILR 1979 HP 1, held as follows:',
	(int) 29 => '<p>It is common ground that there are three requirements to make out a cause of action for eviction under that provision, and indeed this is apparent from a bare reading of the sub-section. In the present case the finding is to the effect that the landlord requires the residential building for his own occupation. But, the legislation has taken care to insist upon two more conditions, namely; (a) that the landlord is not occupying any other residential building in the area concerned; and (b) that he has not vacated such a building without sufficient cause. There is not a scintilla of evidence nor indeed there is any averment in compliance with these latter conditions. The necessary consequence follows that not merely is there inadequacy of pleadings sufficient to make out a cause of action but total absence of proof of two vital requirements....',
	(int) 30 => '<p>The Supreme Court also said that:.The statute benignly designed to protect tenants from unreasonable evictions has taken case to put restrictions which must be rigorously construed to fulfil the purpose of the statute.',
	(int) 31 => '<p>19. Following the aforesaid judgment and other pronouncements of the Apex Court, a learned Single Judge of this Court in Tara Chand Sharma v. Baij Nath and Ors. 1992 (2) R.C.J. 323, held as follows:',
	(int) 32 => '<p>16. What appears as the legislative intent, in bold relief, is that the landlord, while seeking eviction of a tenant on the ground that he needs a residential building for his own occupation, must come out clearly and honestly with facts relating to the requirement that he is not occupying another residential building owned by him, in the urban area concerned and that he had not vacated such a building without sufficient cause within five years of the filing of the application, in the said urban area. The primal burden of making a clear disclosure would lie upon the landlord, for, the true facts would be in his special knowledge. An order in his favour by the Rent Controller would depend upon the satisfaction of the Rent Controller in regard not only to the claim that the landlord requires the accommodation, from which he wishes to evict a tenant, for his own occupation but also that he was not occupying another residential building owned by him nor had he vacated such building without sufficient cause within five years of the filing of the application in the application in the urban area concerned....',
	(int) 33 => '<p>It was further held as under:',
	(int) 34 => '<p>18. That the landlord should make a full disclosure of the relevant facts, pertaining to the requirements of Sub-section (3)(a)(i) and the two provisos, becomes all the more necessary because the satisfaction of the Rent Controller in regard thereto is the condition precedent for the making of an order in favour of the landlord....',
	(int) 35 => '<p>20. The aforesaid judgment has been followed in a number of other cases including Vijay Kapoor v. Maya Ram 1997 (2) RCR 437, wherein another learned single Judge of this Court following the aforesaid judgment held that the landlord must make complete and proper disclosure of all the material facts.',
	(int) 36 => '<p>21. On the other hand Sh. Ramakant Sharma has relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in Ram Narain Arora v. Asha Rani 1998(2) RCR 268. In that case the Rent Controller came to the conclusion that the landlord had suppressed material information and had not disclosed the fact that he was already in occupation of a house in Subji Mandi. Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act reads as follows:',
	(int) 37 => '<p>Section 14(1)(e). That the premises let for residential purposes are required bona fide by the landlord for occupation as a residence for himself or for any member of his family dependent on him, if he is the owner thereof, or for any person for whose benefit the premises are held and that the landlord or such person has no other reasonably suitable residential accommodation.',
	(int) 38 => '<p>22. The difference between Delhi Act and the present Act is that under the Delhi Act the only requirement is that the landlord has no other reasonably suitable accommodation whereas under the Himachal Act the residential premises are required to be owned by the landlord. The Apex Court in Rama Narain Arora's case (supra) held that the nondisclosure of the fact that the landlord was in occupation of certain premises in Subji Mandi was.not a ground to non-suit the landlord in view of the facts and circumstances of the case. The Apex Court held as follows:',
	(int) 39 => '<p>9. In making a claim that the suit premises is required bona fide for his own occupation as a residence for himself and other members of his family dependent on him and that he has no other reasonably suitable accommodation is a requirement of law before the Court can state whether the landlord requires the premises bona fide for his use and occupation. In doing so, the Court must also find out whether the landlord or such other person for whose benefit the premises is required has no other reasonably suitable residential accommodation. It cannot be said that the requirement of the landlord is not intermixed with the question of finding out whether he has any other reasonably suitable accommodation. If he has other reasonably suitable accommodation, ihen necessarily it would mean that he does not require the suit premises and his requirement may not be bona fide. In such circumstances further inquiry would be whether that premises is more suitable than the suit premises. Therefore, the questions raised before the Court would not necessarily depend upon only the pleadings. It could be a good defence that the landlord has other reasonably suitable residential accommodation and thereby defend the claim of the landlord.',
	(int) 40 => '<p>10. There cannot be a pedantic or a dogmatic approach in the matter of analysis of pleadings or of the evidence adduced thereto. It is no doubt true that if the pleadings are clearly set out, it would be easy for the Court to decide the matters. But if the pleadings are lacking or vague and if both parties have understood what was the case pleaded and put forth with reference to requirement of law and placed such material before the Court, neither party is prejudiced. If we analyse from this angle, we do not think that the High Court was not justified in interfering with the order made by the Rent Controller.',
	(int) 41 => '<p>23. From the perusal of the judgment of the Apex Court it is apparent that the Rent Controller must approach the matter in a practical manner. In case the non-disclosure is such as that it goes to the very root of the case the Rent Controller would be justified in non-suiting the landlord. However, if the non-disclosure is such that it would not prejudice the rights of the respondent then the landlord should not be non-suited only on this ground.',
	(int) 42 => '<p>24. The decisions of this Court cited hereinabove were delivered prior to the judgment delivered by the Apex Court in Ram Nar'ain Arora's case. Further more both in Tara Chand Sharma's case and Vijay Kapoor's case decided by this Court, no averment had been made ixi respect of other residential buildings owned by a landlord. There was complete non-disclosure as to whether any such residential building owned by the landlord was in his possession or not. In the present case, as I have held above, the residential premises at 31, The Mall, Shimla was not owned by the landlord and hence these two earlier judgments of this Court are distinguishable on facts also.',
	(int) 43 => '<p>25. In the present case, the landlord has been non-suited only on the ground that he did not disclose the fact that he was in occupation of certain premises on the Mall Road. Under law he was not required to disclose this fact. He was only required to disclose the factum of occupying another residential building owned by him in the urban area concerned. True it may be, that it would have been better if the landlord had disclosed all the facts but non-disclosure of a fact which he was not under law required to disclose could not in my opinion be a ground to dismiss his eviction petition.',
	(int) 44 => '<p>26. However, what are the premises in his occupation even as a tenant can be taken into consideration while deciding the question whether he bona fide requires the demised premises for his personal use or occupation or not.',
	(int) 45 => '<p>27. Lastly comes the question with regard to the bona fide requirement of the landlord. The landlord has no children. According to the landlord as well as his other witnesses i.e. his brother-in-law PW-2 and his wife PW-3, the wife now wants to come back and settle in Shimla. There is no reason to disbelieve their statements. Even according to the evidence led by the tenant the accommodation in possession of the landlord consists of two rooms, kitchen, bath room etc. Admittedly, the landlord is also having his office as an Architect in this building. The landlord belongs to the middle class of the Society. It cannot be expected of a landlord who owns sufficient property to reside in a two room set wherein he also runs his office.',
	(int) 46 => '<p>28. The law by now is well settled that the landlord is the best judge of the suitability of the accommodation required by him. This suitability has however to be judged in the context of reasonable expectations. The landlord and his wife who are both well educated can reasonably be expected to entertain guests and they will have visitors to their house. They would obviously require a drawing room, a bed room and a spare bed room for guests. Even at his residence the landlord may require another room for his professional work. This is the minimum accommodation which they would require. Even if the accommodation possessed by the landlord, though not owned by him, at 31, the Mall, Shimla is taken into consideration such accommodation is not sufficient to meet his requirements since admittedly the landlord is running his profession of Architect from some portion of his these premises.',
	(int) 47 => '<p>29. Keeping in view the entire facts and circumstances, I am of the considered view that the learned Appellate Authority gravely erred in rejecting the eviction petition of the landlord solely on the ground that he had not disclosed the factum of being in possession of the premises at 31, the Mall Shimla. Even though I have held that the said premises are residential premises, in view of the above discussion I hold that the landlord cannot be non-suited only on the ground of his being in possession of such premises since same were not owned by him.',
	(int) 48 => '<p>30. In view of the above discussion, the Revision Petition is allowed, the order of the learned Appellate Authority dated 6.5.2003 is seaside and the order of the Rent Controller dated 22.8.2001 is restored.',
	(int) 49 => '<p>31. Keeping in view the fact that the tenant has been in possession of the premises for a long period he is granted time up to 31st October, 2008 to vacate the premises.',
	(int) 50 => '<p>32. No order as to costs.<p>',
	(int) 51 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 52
$i = (int) 42
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

24. The decisions of this Court cited hereinabove were delivered prior to the judgment delivered by the Apex Court in Ram Nar'ain Arora's case. Further more both in Tara Chand Sharma's case and Vijay Kapoor's case decided by this Court, no averment had been made ixi respect of other residential buildings owned by a landlord. There was complete non-disclosure as to whether any such residential building owned by the landlord was in his possession or not. In the present case, as I have held above, the residential premises at 31, The Mall, Shimla was not owned by the landlord and hence these two earlier judgments of this Court are distinguishable on facts also.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Shri Arun Bhanwara Vs Shri S L Srivastava - Citation 891084 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '891084',
			'acts' => '',
			'appealno' => '',
			'appellant' => 'Shri Arun Bhanwara',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Shri Arun Bhanwara Vs. Shri S.L. Srivastava',
			'casenote' => ' - CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908.[C.A. No. 5/1908]. Order 14, Rule 2 [As amended by Amending Act of 1976]: [V.K. Gupta, CJ, Deepak Gupta & Surjit Singh, JJ] Preliminary issue of law and fact  Court framing all issues both of law and facts together and also  tried all the issues together, including the issue relating to jurisdiction of Court  Held, Except in situations perceived or warranted under sub-rule (2) of Rule 2 of Order 14 where a  Court in fact frames only issues of law in the first instance and postpones settlement of other issues, clearly and explicitly in situations where the Court has framed all issues together, both of law as well as facts and has also tried all these issues together, it is not open to the Court to adopt the principle of severability and proceed to decide issues of law first, without taking up simultaneously other issues for decision. This course of action is not available to a Court because sub-rule (1) does not permit the  Court to adopt any such principle of severability and to dispose of a suit only on preliminary issues, or what can be termed as issues of law. Sub-rule (1)  clearly mandates that in a situation contemplated under it, where all the issues have been together and have also been taken up for adjudication during the course of the trial, these must be decided together and the judgment in the suit as a whole must be pronounced by the Court covering all the issues framed in the suit.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => 'Ram Narain Arora v. Asha Rani;',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => '',
			'counseldef' => '',
			'court' => 'Himachal Pradesh',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2008-07-31',
			'deposition' => 'Petition allowed',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => ' Deepak Gupta, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">Deepak Gupta, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. This Revision Petition under Section 25(5) of the H.P. Urban Rent Control Act, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) is directed against the order of the learned Appellate Authority, Shimla in CMA No. 60-S/14 of 2001 whereby the appeal filed by the respondent (hereinafter referred to as the tenant) has been allowed, the order of the Rent Controller has been set-aside and the petition for eviction filed by the present petitioner (hereinafter referred to as the Landlord) on the ground of personal bona fide requirement has been set-aside.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The undisputed facts are that the landlord is owner of the demised premises situated in building known as Tunnel View, Sanjauli, Shimla-6 consisting of two bed rooms with attached bath room and latrine, drawing-cum-dining room, kitchen and balcony. These premises were purchased by the landlord in the year 1986. Thereafter, the landlord had rented out the premises to one Sh. B.K. Chauhan. According to the landlord, when he got married he requested Sh. B.K. Chauhan to vacate the said premises. Sh. Chauhan vacated the said premises but admittedly the landlord did not occupy the same but rented out the same to the tenant in the year 1990.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. In the year 1997 the landlord filed a petition for eviction of the tenant on two grounds; firstly that the tenant is in arrears of rent from 1.11.1990 to 31.7.1997 and secondly that the premises are bona fide required by the landlord for the use and occupation of himself and his family.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. This petition was contested by the tenant. After trial, the Rent Controller ordered the eviction of the tenant on two grounds; (i) that the tenant was in arrears of rent from November, 1999 till date of order i.e. 22nd August, 2001 and (ii) that the landlord required the premises for his own use and occupation.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. The tenant deposited the rent within the time prescribed. He also filed an appeal challenging the finding on the issue of bona fide requirement. The learned Appellate Authority came to the conclusion that the landlord had not made a proper and full disclosure of facts as required under the provisions of the Act and had withheld material facts from the Court viz. that the landlord was in occupation of residential premises on 31, Mall Road in the urban area of Shimla and as such rejected this petition on this short ground.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. Aggrieved by the said order, the landlord has filed the present Revision Petition.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. I have heard Sh. Ramakant Sharma, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sh. Bhupinder Gupta, learned senior Counsel for the tenant.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. It has been urged on behalf of the landlord that the building which is alleged to be in possession of the landlord i.e. 31, the Mall Shimla is not a residential building and secondly that the building is not owned by him.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. On the other hand Sh. Bhupinder Gupta, learned Counsel of the tenant has strenuously urged that the landlord in para 18 has not stated anything about any building being owned by him and has only made an averment that he does not own or possess any other such building within the urban area Shimla. It is contended by Sh. Bhupinder Gupta that the landlord of his own volition did not state anything about the ownership of the building and since he has kept silent about the building which he is in occupation he has made a false averment and therefore his petition for eviction has rightly been rejected.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. I am not at all in agreement with the contention of the landlord that the premises known as 31, the Mall Shimla which are admittedly in the occupation of the landlord are commercial premises only and not being used by him for his residence. As pointed out above, the landlord purchased the demised premises in 1986. They fell vacant when he got married despite that he did not occupy the same and rented out the same to the tenant in the year 1990. The question that arises is where was the landlord living for this entire period. According to the landlord after the year 1994 he has been living with his brother-in-law Rajan (wife's brother) PW-2, since the year 1994. Prior to 1994 the landlord will have this Court to believe that he was living off and on with one friend or the other. This story is impossible to believe. The landlord was married in the year 1999. He is an Architect by profession. His wife is a law graduate. It is not believable that such a person would have no permanent abode and would continue to live as a guest with his friends for almost 5 years after his marriage. Even the story that he has been living with his brother-in-law after the year 1994 does not inspire confidence. It stands proved on record that the brother-in-law PW-2 Rajan lives with his own family i.e. wife and children. From the evidence it is also clear that the parents of the brother-in-law also reside with him, His flat consists of only two rooms. The flat in possession of the landlord at 31, the Mall Shimla, also consists of two rooms, kitchen and bath room. Even assuming that he was running an office in the part of the flat it cannot be believed that he would not live on his own flat on the Mall Road and reside with his brother-in-law in cramped premises. Even in the electoral list the landlord is shown to be a resident of 31, The Mall, Shimla. Therefore, I am of the considered view that the building 31, the Mall, Shimla was also being used as a residence by the landlord.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. Having held so, the question that arises is whether the landlord can be non-suited only on the ground that he has not made any disclosure about the residential accommodation available with him which premises were admittedly not owned by him.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. The short question which arises for decision in this petition is whether the landlord was guilty of suppressing and withholding such relevant facts which would disentitle him from seeking eviction of the tenant. To appreciate these contentions it would be necessary to refer to relevant portion of Section 14(3) of the Act:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Section 14:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1 and 2 xxxxxxxxxxx</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(3) A landlord may apply to the Controller for an order directing the tenant to put the landlord in possession-</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(a) in case of residential building, if</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(i) he required it for his own occupation:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Provided that he is not occupying another residential building owned by him, in the urban area concerned:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Provided further that he has not vacated such a building without sufficient cause within five years of the filing of the application, in the said urban area....</p><p style="text-align: justify;">13. A perusal of the bare provisions of the Act makes it clear that there are certain essential ingredients which the landlord must satisfy before seeking eviction of the tenant under the Act. Not only must he prove that the residential building is bona fide required by him for his own use and occupation but he must also plead and prove that he is not occupying any other residential building owned by him in the urban area concerned and further that he has not vacated such a building without sufficient cause within 5 years of the filing of the application.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">14. Reference may now be made to the relevant allegations made in para 18 of the eviction petition:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(ii) That the petitioner bona fide requires the premises for his own use and occupation and also for the use and occupation of his family.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The petitioner does not own or possess any other such building within the urban area of Simla nor the petitioner has vacated any such premises within five years of the filing of this petition.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The family of the petitioner presently consists of himself and his wife. Due to paucity of accommodation the petitioner has not been able to keep his wife with himself at Simla, where he is working as an Engineer and she has been residing at Chandigarh since 1991 but on account of her ill health she has been brought to Simla by the petitioner. The petitioner at present is seeking temporary shelter, from time to time, with his relations.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">15. The learned Appellate Authority came to the conclusion that the landlord had falsely pleaded that he does not own or possess any other such building within the urban area of Shimla and hence rejected the eviction petition on this ground.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">16. On a close analysis of the proviso to Section 14(3)(a)(i) of the Act it is clear that a landlord is not entitled to seek eviction of a tenant from residential building even in case of bona fide requirement if the landlord is occupying another residential building owned by him in the urban area concerned. One can read three essential ingredients in this proviso i.e. (i) that the landlord is in occupation of another residential building; (ii) that the said residential building is owned by him and (iii) that the said residential building is situated in the concerned urban area.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">17. The question that arises is what is the impact of the landlord not making a disclosure in respect of premises which he is occupying but are not owned by him.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">18. The Apex Court in Onkar Nath v. Ved Vyas ILR 1979 HP 1, held as follows:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">It is common ground that there are three requirements to make out a cause of action for eviction under that provision, and indeed this is apparent from a bare reading of the sub-section. In the present case the finding is to the effect that the landlord requires the residential building for his own occupation. But, the legislation has taken care to insist upon two more conditions, namely; (a) that the landlord is not occupying any other residential building in the area concerned; and (b) that he has not vacated such a building without sufficient cause. There is not a scintilla of evidence nor indeed there is any averment in compliance with these latter conditions. The necessary consequence follows that not merely is there inadequacy of pleadings sufficient to make out a cause of action but total absence of proof of two vital requirements....</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The Supreme Court also said that:.The statute benignly designed to protect tenants from unreasonable evictions has taken case to put restrictions which must be rigorously construed to fulfil the purpose of the statute.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">19. Following the aforesaid judgment and other pronouncements of the Apex Court, a learned Single Judge of this Court in Tara Chand Sharma v. Baij Nath and Ors. 1992 (2) R.C.J. 323, held as follows:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">16. What appears as the legislative intent, in bold relief, is that the landlord, while seeking eviction of a tenant on the ground that he needs a residential building for his own occupation, must come out clearly and honestly with facts relating to the requirement that he is not occupying another residential building owned by him, in the urban area concerned and that he had not vacated such a building without sufficient cause within five years of the filing of the application, in the said urban area. The primal burden of making a clear disclosure would lie upon the landlord, for, the true facts would be in his special knowledge. An order in his favour by the Rent Controller would depend upon the satisfaction of the Rent Controller in regard not only to the claim that the landlord requires the accommodation, from which he wishes to evict a tenant, for his own occupation but also that he was not occupying another residential building owned by him nor had he vacated such building without sufficient cause within five years of the filing of the application in the application in the urban area concerned....</p><p style="text-align: justify;">It was further held as under:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">18. That the landlord should make a full disclosure of the relevant facts, pertaining to the requirements of Sub-section (3)(a)(i) and the two provisos, becomes all the more necessary because the satisfaction of the Rent Controller in regard thereto is the condition precedent for the making of an order in favour of the landlord....</p><p style="text-align: justify;">20. The aforesaid judgment has been followed in a number of other cases including Vijay Kapoor v. Maya Ram 1997 (2) RCR 437, wherein another learned single Judge of this Court following the aforesaid judgment held that the landlord must make complete and proper disclosure of all the material facts.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">21. On the other hand Sh. Ramakant Sharma has relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in Ram Narain Arora v. Asha Rani 1998(2) RCR 268. In that case the Rent Controller came to the conclusion that the landlord had suppressed material information and had not disclosed the fact that he was already in occupation of a house in Subji Mandi. Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act reads as follows:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Section 14(1)(e). That the premises let for residential purposes are required bona fide by the landlord for occupation as a residence for himself or for any member of his family dependent on him, if he is the owner thereof, or for any person for whose benefit the premises are held and that the landlord or such person has no other reasonably suitable residential accommodation.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">22. The difference between Delhi Act and the present Act is that under the Delhi Act the only requirement is that the landlord has no other reasonably suitable accommodation whereas under the Himachal Act the residential premises are required to be owned by the landlord. The Apex Court in Rama Narain Arora's case (supra) held that the nondisclosure of the fact that the landlord was in occupation of certain premises in Subji Mandi was.not a ground to non-suit the landlord in view of the facts and circumstances of the case. The Apex Court held as follows:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. In making a claim that the suit premises is required bona fide for his own occupation as a residence for himself and other members of his family dependent on him and that he has no other reasonably suitable accommodation is a requirement of law before the Court can state whether the landlord requires the premises bona fide for his use and occupation. In doing so, the Court must also find out whether the landlord or such other person for whose benefit the premises is required has no other reasonably suitable residential accommodation. It cannot be said that the requirement of the landlord is not intermixed with the question of finding out whether he has any other reasonably suitable accommodation. If he has other reasonably suitable accommodation, ihen necessarily it would mean that he does not require the suit premises and his requirement may not be bona fide. In such circumstances further inquiry would be whether that premises is more suitable than the suit premises. Therefore, the questions raised before the Court would not necessarily depend upon only the pleadings. It could be a good defence that the landlord has other reasonably suitable residential accommodation and thereby defend the claim of the landlord.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. There cannot be a pedantic or a dogmatic approach in the matter of analysis of pleadings or of the evidence adduced thereto. It is no doubt true that if the pleadings are clearly set out, it would be easy for the Court to decide the matters. But if the pleadings are lacking or vague and if both parties have understood what was the case pleaded and put forth with reference to requirement of law and placed such material before the Court, neither party is prejudiced. If we analyse from this angle, we do not think that the High Court was not justified in interfering with the order made by the Rent Controller.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">23. From the perusal of the judgment of the Apex Court it is apparent that the Rent Controller must approach the matter in a practical manner. In case the non-disclosure is such as that it goes to the very root of the case the Rent Controller would be justified in non-suiting the landlord. However, if the non-disclosure is such that it would not prejudice the rights of the respondent then the landlord should not be non-suited only on this ground.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">24. The decisions of this Court cited hereinabove were delivered prior to the judgment delivered by the Apex Court in Ram Nar'ain Arora's case. Further more both in Tara Chand Sharma's case and Vijay Kapoor's case decided by this Court, no averment had been made ixi respect of other residential buildings owned by a landlord. There was complete non-disclosure as to whether any such residential building owned by the landlord was in his possession or not. In the present case, as I have held above, the residential premises at 31, The Mall, Shimla was not owned by the landlord and hence these two earlier judgments of this Court are distinguishable on facts also.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">25. In the present case, the landlord has been non-suited only on the ground that he did not disclose the fact that he was in occupation of certain premises on the Mall Road. Under law he was not required to disclose this fact. He was only required to disclose the factum of occupying another residential building owned by him in the urban area concerned. True it may be, that it would have been better if the landlord had disclosed all the facts but non-disclosure of a fact which he was not under law required to disclose could not in my opinion be a ground to dismiss his eviction petition.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">26. However, what are the premises in his occupation even as a tenant can be taken into consideration while deciding the question whether he bona fide requires the demised premises for his personal use or occupation or not.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">27. Lastly comes the question with regard to the bona fide requirement of the landlord. The landlord has no children. According to the landlord as well as his other witnesses i.e. his brother-in-law PW-2 and his wife PW-3, the wife now wants to come back and settle in Shimla. There is no reason to disbelieve their statements. Even according to the evidence led by the tenant the accommodation in possession of the landlord consists of two rooms, kitchen, bath room etc. Admittedly, the landlord is also having his office as an Architect in this building. The landlord belongs to the middle class of the Society. It cannot be expected of a landlord who owns sufficient property to reside in a two room set wherein he also runs his office.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">28. The law by now is well settled that the landlord is the best judge of the suitability of the accommodation required by him. This suitability has however to be judged in the context of reasonable expectations. The landlord and his wife who are both well educated can reasonably be expected to entertain guests and they will have visitors to their house. They would obviously require a drawing room, a bed room and a spare bed room for guests. Even at his residence the landlord may require another room for his professional work. This is the minimum accommodation which they would require. Even if the accommodation possessed by the landlord, though not owned by him, at 31, the Mall, Shimla is taken into consideration such accommodation is not sufficient to meet his requirements since admittedly the landlord is running his profession of Architect from some portion of his these premises.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">29. Keeping in view the entire facts and circumstances, I am of the considered view that the learned Appellate Authority gravely erred in rejecting the eviction petition of the landlord solely on the ground that he had not disclosed the factum of being in possession of the premises at 31, the Mall Shimla. Even though I have held that the said premises are residential premises, in view of the above discussion I hold that the landlord cannot be non-suited only on the ground of his being in possession of such premises since same were not owned by him.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">30. In view of the above discussion, the Revision Petition is allowed, the order of the learned Appellate Authority dated 6.5.2003 is seaside and the order of the Rent Controller dated 22.8.2001 is restored.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">31. Keeping in view the fact that the tenant has been in possession of the premises for a long period he is granted time up to 31st October, 2008 to vacate the premises.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">32. No order as to costs.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '2008(2)ShimLC491',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'Shri S.L. Srivastava',
			'sub' => 'Tenancy',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'shri-arun-bhanwara-vs-s-l-srivastava',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '891084',
		(int) 1 => 'shri-arun-bhanwara-vs-s-l-srivastava'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Shri Arun Bhanwara Vs Shri S L Srivastava - Citation 891084 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '891084',
		'acts' => '',
		'appealno' => '',
		'appellant' => 'Shri Arun Bhanwara',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Shri Arun Bhanwara Vs. Shri S.L. Srivastava',
		'casenote' => ' - CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908.[C.A. No. 5/1908]. Order 14, Rule 2 [As amended by Amending Act of 1976]: [V.K. Gupta, CJ, Deepak Gupta & Surjit Singh, JJ] Preliminary issue of law and fact  Court framing all issues both of law and facts together and also  tried all the issues together, including the issue relating to jurisdiction of Court  Held, Except in situations perceived or warranted under sub-rule (2) of Rule 2 of Order 14 where a  Court in fact frames only issues of law in the first instance and postpones settlement of other issues, clearly and explicitly in situations where the Court has framed all issues together, both of law as well as facts and has also tried all these issues together, it is not open to the Court to adopt the principle of severability and proceed to decide issues of law first, without taking up simultaneously other issues for decision. This course of action is not available to a Court because sub-rule (1) does not permit the  Court to adopt any such principle of severability and to dispose of a suit only on preliminary issues, or what can be termed as issues of law. Sub-rule (1)  clearly mandates that in a situation contemplated under it, where all the issues have been together and have also been taken up for adjudication during the course of the trial, these must be decided together and the judgment in the suit as a whole must be pronounced by the Court covering all the issues framed in the suit.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => 'Ram Narain Arora v. Asha Rani;',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => '',
		'counseldef' => '',
		'court' => 'Himachal Pradesh',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2008-07-31',
		'deposition' => 'Petition allowed',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => ' Deepak Gupta, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>Deepak Gupta, J.</p><p>1. This Revision Petition under Section 25(5) of the H.P. Urban Rent Control Act, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) is directed against the order of the learned Appellate Authority, Shimla in CMA No. 60-S/14 of 2001 whereby the appeal filed by the respondent (hereinafter referred to as the tenant) has been allowed, the order of the Rent Controller has been set-aside and the petition for eviction filed by the present petitioner (hereinafter referred to as the Landlord) on the ground of personal bona fide requirement has been set-aside.</p><p>2. The undisputed facts are that the landlord is owner of the demised premises situated in building known as Tunnel View, Sanjauli, Shimla-6 consisting of two bed rooms with attached bath room and latrine, drawing-cum-dining room, kitchen and balcony. These premises were purchased by the landlord in the year 1986. Thereafter, the landlord had rented out the premises to one Sh. B.K. Chauhan. According to the landlord, when he got married he requested Sh. B.K. Chauhan to vacate the said premises. Sh. Chauhan vacated the said premises but admittedly the landlord did not occupy the same but rented out the same to the tenant in the year 1990.</p><p>3. In the year 1997 the landlord filed a petition for eviction of the tenant on two grounds; firstly that the tenant is in arrears of rent from 1.11.1990 to 31.7.1997 and secondly that the premises are bona fide required by the landlord for the use and occupation of himself and his family.</p><p>4. This petition was contested by the tenant. After trial, the Rent Controller ordered the eviction of the tenant on two grounds; (i) that the tenant was in arrears of rent from November, 1999 till date of order i.e. 22nd August, 2001 and (ii) that the landlord required the premises for his own use and occupation.</p><p>5. The tenant deposited the rent within the time prescribed. He also filed an appeal challenging the finding on the issue of bona fide requirement. The learned Appellate Authority came to the conclusion that the landlord had not made a proper and full disclosure of facts as required under the provisions of the Act and had withheld material facts from the Court viz. that the landlord was in occupation of residential premises on 31, Mall Road in the urban area of Shimla and as such rejected this petition on this short ground.</p><p>6. Aggrieved by the said order, the landlord has filed the present Revision Petition.</p><p>7. I have heard Sh. Ramakant Sharma, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sh. Bhupinder Gupta, learned senior Counsel for the tenant.</p><p>8. It has been urged on behalf of the landlord that the building which is alleged to be in possession of the landlord i.e. 31, the Mall Shimla is not a residential building and secondly that the building is not owned by him.</p><p>9. On the other hand Sh. Bhupinder Gupta, learned Counsel of the tenant has strenuously urged that the landlord in para 18 has not stated anything about any building being owned by him and has only made an averment that he does not own or possess any other such building within the urban area Shimla. It is contended by Sh. Bhupinder Gupta that the landlord of his own volition did not state anything about the ownership of the building and since he has kept silent about the building which he is in occupation he has made a false averment and therefore his petition for eviction has rightly been rejected.</p><p>10. I am not at all in agreement with the contention of the landlord that the premises known as 31, the Mall Shimla which are admittedly in the occupation of the landlord are commercial premises only and not being used by him for his residence. As pointed out above, the landlord purchased the demised premises in 1986. They fell vacant when he got married despite that he did not occupy the same and rented out the same to the tenant in the year 1990. The question that arises is where was the landlord living for this entire period. According to the landlord after the year 1994 he has been living with his brother-in-law Rajan (wife's brother) PW-2, since the year 1994. Prior to 1994 the landlord will have this Court to believe that he was living off and on with one friend or the other. This story is impossible to believe. The landlord was married in the year 1999. He is an Architect by profession. His wife is a law graduate. It is not believable that such a person would have no permanent abode and would continue to live as a guest with his friends for almost 5 years after his marriage. Even the story that he has been living with his brother-in-law after the year 1994 does not inspire confidence. It stands proved on record that the brother-in-law PW-2 Rajan lives with his own family i.e. wife and children. From the evidence it is also clear that the parents of the brother-in-law also reside with him, His flat consists of only two rooms. The flat in possession of the landlord at 31, the Mall Shimla, also consists of two rooms, kitchen and bath room. Even assuming that he was running an office in the part of the flat it cannot be believed that he would not live on his own flat on the Mall Road and reside with his brother-in-law in cramped premises. Even in the electoral list the landlord is shown to be a resident of 31, The Mall, Shimla. Therefore, I am of the considered view that the building 31, the Mall, Shimla was also being used as a residence by the landlord.</p><p>11. Having held so, the question that arises is whether the landlord can be non-suited only on the ground that he has not made any disclosure about the residential accommodation available with him which premises were admittedly not owned by him.</p><p>12. The short question which arises for decision in this petition is whether the landlord was guilty of suppressing and withholding such relevant facts which would disentitle him from seeking eviction of the tenant. To appreciate these contentions it would be necessary to refer to relevant portion of Section 14(3) of the Act:</p><p>Section 14:</p><p>1 and 2 xxxxxxxxxxx</p><p>(3) A landlord may apply to the Controller for an order directing the tenant to put the landlord in possession-</p><p>(a) in case of residential building, if</p><p>(i) he required it for his own occupation:</p><p>Provided that he is not occupying another residential building owned by him, in the urban area concerned:</p><p>Provided further that he has not vacated such a building without sufficient cause within five years of the filing of the application, in the said urban area....</p><p>13. A perusal of the bare provisions of the Act makes it clear that there are certain essential ingredients which the landlord must satisfy before seeking eviction of the tenant under the Act. Not only must he prove that the residential building is bona fide required by him for his own use and occupation but he must also plead and prove that he is not occupying any other residential building owned by him in the urban area concerned and further that he has not vacated such a building without sufficient cause within 5 years of the filing of the application.</p><p>14. Reference may now be made to the relevant allegations made in para 18 of the eviction petition:</p><p>(ii) That the petitioner bona fide requires the premises for his own use and occupation and also for the use and occupation of his family.</p><p>The petitioner does not own or possess any other such building within the urban area of Simla nor the petitioner has vacated any such premises within five years of the filing of this petition.</p><p>The family of the petitioner presently consists of himself and his wife. Due to paucity of accommodation the petitioner has not been able to keep his wife with himself at Simla, where he is working as an Engineer and she has been residing at Chandigarh since 1991 but on account of her ill health she has been brought to Simla by the petitioner. The petitioner at present is seeking temporary shelter, from time to time, with his relations.</p><p>15. The learned Appellate Authority came to the conclusion that the landlord had falsely pleaded that he does not own or possess any other such building within the urban area of Shimla and hence rejected the eviction petition on this ground.</p><p>16. On a close analysis of the proviso to Section 14(3)(a)(i) of the Act it is clear that a landlord is not entitled to seek eviction of a tenant from residential building even in case of bona fide requirement if the landlord is occupying another residential building owned by him in the urban area concerned. One can read three essential ingredients in this proviso i.e. (i) that the landlord is in occupation of another residential building; (ii) that the said residential building is owned by him and (iii) that the said residential building is situated in the concerned urban area.</p><p>17. The question that arises is what is the impact of the landlord not making a disclosure in respect of premises which he is occupying but are not owned by him.</p><p>18. The Apex Court in Onkar Nath v. Ved Vyas ILR 1979 HP 1, held as follows:</p><p>It is common ground that there are three requirements to make out a cause of action for eviction under that provision, and indeed this is apparent from a bare reading of the sub-section. In the present case the finding is to the effect that the landlord requires the residential building for his own occupation. But, the legislation has taken care to insist upon two more conditions, namely; (a) that the landlord is not occupying any other residential building in the area concerned; and (b) that he has not vacated such a building without sufficient cause. There is not a scintilla of evidence nor indeed there is any averment in compliance with these latter conditions. The necessary consequence follows that not merely is there inadequacy of pleadings sufficient to make out a cause of action but total absence of proof of two vital requirements....</p><p>The Supreme Court also said that:.The statute benignly designed to protect tenants from unreasonable evictions has taken case to put restrictions which must be rigorously construed to fulfil the purpose of the statute.</p><p>19. Following the aforesaid judgment and other pronouncements of the Apex Court, a learned Single Judge of this Court in Tara Chand Sharma v. Baij Nath and Ors. 1992 (2) R.C.J. 323, held as follows:</p><p>16. What appears as the legislative intent, in bold relief, is that the landlord, while seeking eviction of a tenant on the ground that he needs a residential building for his own occupation, must come out clearly and honestly with facts relating to the requirement that he is not occupying another residential building owned by him, in the urban area concerned and that he had not vacated such a building without sufficient cause within five years of the filing of the application, in the said urban area. The primal burden of making a clear disclosure would lie upon the landlord, for, the true facts would be in his special knowledge. An order in his favour by the Rent Controller would depend upon the satisfaction of the Rent Controller in regard not only to the claim that the landlord requires the accommodation, from which he wishes to evict a tenant, for his own occupation but also that he was not occupying another residential building owned by him nor had he vacated such building without sufficient cause within five years of the filing of the application in the application in the urban area concerned....</p><p>It was further held as under:</p><p>18. That the landlord should make a full disclosure of the relevant facts, pertaining to the requirements of Sub-section (3)(a)(i) and the two provisos, becomes all the more necessary because the satisfaction of the Rent Controller in regard thereto is the condition precedent for the making of an order in favour of the landlord....</p><p>20. The aforesaid judgment has been followed in a number of other cases including Vijay Kapoor v. Maya Ram 1997 (2) RCR 437, wherein another learned single Judge of this Court following the aforesaid judgment held that the landlord must make complete and proper disclosure of all the material facts.</p><p>21. On the other hand Sh. Ramakant Sharma has relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in Ram Narain Arora v. Asha Rani 1998(2) RCR 268. In that case the Rent Controller came to the conclusion that the landlord had suppressed material information and had not disclosed the fact that he was already in occupation of a house in Subji Mandi. Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act reads as follows:</p><p>Section 14(1)(e). That the premises let for residential purposes are required bona fide by the landlord for occupation as a residence for himself or for any member of his family dependent on him, if he is the owner thereof, or for any person for whose benefit the premises are held and that the landlord or such person has no other reasonably suitable residential accommodation.</p><p>22. The difference between Delhi Act and the present Act is that under the Delhi Act the only requirement is that the landlord has no other reasonably suitable accommodation whereas under the Himachal Act the residential premises are required to be owned by the landlord. The Apex Court in Rama Narain Arora's case (supra) held that the nondisclosure of the fact that the landlord was in occupation of certain premises in Subji Mandi was.not a ground to non-suit the landlord in view of the facts and circumstances of the case. The Apex Court held as follows:</p><p>9. In making a claim that the suit premises is required bona fide for his own occupation as a residence for himself and other members of his family dependent on him and that he has no other reasonably suitable accommodation is a requirement of law before the Court can state whether the landlord requires the premises bona fide for his use and occupation. In doing so, the Court must also find out whether the landlord or such other person for whose benefit the premises is required has no other reasonably suitable residential accommodation. It cannot be said that the requirement of the landlord is not intermixed with the question of finding out whether he has any other reasonably suitable accommodation. If he has other reasonably suitable accommodation, ihen necessarily it would mean that he does not require the suit premises and his requirement may not be bona fide. In such circumstances further inquiry would be whether that premises is more suitable than the suit premises. Therefore, the questions raised before the Court would not necessarily depend upon only the pleadings. It could be a good defence that the landlord has other reasonably suitable residential accommodation and thereby defend the claim of the landlord.</p><p>10. There cannot be a pedantic or a dogmatic approach in the matter of analysis of pleadings or of the evidence adduced thereto. It is no doubt true that if the pleadings are clearly set out, it would be easy for the Court to decide the matters. But if the pleadings are lacking or vague and if both parties have understood what was the case pleaded and put forth with reference to requirement of law and placed such material before the Court, neither party is prejudiced. If we analyse from this angle, we do not think that the High Court was not justified in interfering with the order made by the Rent Controller.</p><p>23. From the perusal of the judgment of the Apex Court it is apparent that the Rent Controller must approach the matter in a practical manner. In case the non-disclosure is such as that it goes to the very root of the case the Rent Controller would be justified in non-suiting the landlord. However, if the non-disclosure is such that it would not prejudice the rights of the respondent then the landlord should not be non-suited only on this ground.</p><p>24. The decisions of this Court cited hereinabove were delivered prior to the judgment delivered by the Apex Court in Ram Nar'ain Arora's case. Further more both in Tara Chand Sharma's case and Vijay Kapoor's case decided by this Court, no averment had been made ixi respect of other residential buildings owned by a landlord. There was complete non-disclosure as to whether any such residential building owned by the landlord was in his possession or not. In the present case, as I have held above, the residential premises at 31, The Mall, Shimla was not owned by the landlord and hence these two earlier judgments of this Court are distinguishable on facts also.</p><p>25. In the present case, the landlord has been non-suited only on the ground that he did not disclose the fact that he was in occupation of certain premises on the Mall Road. Under law he was not required to disclose this fact. He was only required to disclose the factum of occupying another residential building owned by him in the urban area concerned. True it may be, that it would have been better if the landlord had disclosed all the facts but non-disclosure of a fact which he was not under law required to disclose could not in my opinion be a ground to dismiss his eviction petition.</p><p>26. However, what are the premises in his occupation even as a tenant can be taken into consideration while deciding the question whether he bona fide requires the demised premises for his personal use or occupation or not.</p><p>27. Lastly comes the question with regard to the bona fide requirement of the landlord. The landlord has no children. According to the landlord as well as his other witnesses i.e. his brother-in-law PW-2 and his wife PW-3, the wife now wants to come back and settle in Shimla. There is no reason to disbelieve their statements. Even according to the evidence led by the tenant the accommodation in possession of the landlord consists of two rooms, kitchen, bath room etc. Admittedly, the landlord is also having his office as an Architect in this building. The landlord belongs to the middle class of the Society. It cannot be expected of a landlord who owns sufficient property to reside in a two room set wherein he also runs his office.</p><p>28. The law by now is well settled that the landlord is the best judge of the suitability of the accommodation required by him. This suitability has however to be judged in the context of reasonable expectations. The landlord and his wife who are both well educated can reasonably be expected to entertain guests and they will have visitors to their house. They would obviously require a drawing room, a bed room and a spare bed room for guests. Even at his residence the landlord may require another room for his professional work. This is the minimum accommodation which they would require. Even if the accommodation possessed by the landlord, though not owned by him, at 31, the Mall, Shimla is taken into consideration such accommodation is not sufficient to meet his requirements since admittedly the landlord is running his profession of Architect from some portion of his these premises.</p><p>29. Keeping in view the entire facts and circumstances, I am of the considered view that the learned Appellate Authority gravely erred in rejecting the eviction petition of the landlord solely on the ground that he had not disclosed the factum of being in possession of the premises at 31, the Mall Shimla. Even though I have held that the said premises are residential premises, in view of the above discussion I hold that the landlord cannot be non-suited only on the ground of his being in possession of such premises since same were not owned by him.</p><p>30. In view of the above discussion, the Revision Petition is allowed, the order of the learned Appellate Authority dated 6.5.2003 is seaside and the order of the Rent Controller dated 22.8.2001 is restored.</p><p>31. Keeping in view the fact that the tenant has been in possession of the premises for a long period he is granted time up to 31st October, 2008 to vacate the premises.</p><p>32. No order as to costs.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '2008(2)ShimLC491',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'Shri S.L. Srivastava',
		'sub' => 'Tenancy',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'shri-arun-bhanwara-vs-s-l-srivastava'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '891084',
	(int) 1 => 'shri-arun-bhanwara-vs-s-l-srivastava'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/891084/shri-arun-bhanwara-vs-s-l-srivastava'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$caseref = 'Ram Narain Arora v. Asha Rani<br>'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>Deepak Gupta, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. This Revision Petition under Section 25(5) of the H.P. Urban Rent Control Act, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) is directed against the order of the learned Appellate Authority, Shimla in CMA No. 60-S/14 of 2001 whereby the appeal filed by the respondent (hereinafter referred to as the tenant) has been allowed, the order of the Rent Controller has been set-aside and the petition for eviction filed by the present petitioner (hereinafter referred to as the Landlord) on the ground of personal bona fide requirement has been set-aside.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. The undisputed facts are that the landlord is owner of the demised premises situated in building known as Tunnel View, Sanjauli, Shimla-6 consisting of two bed rooms with attached bath room and latrine, drawing-cum-dining room, kitchen and balcony. These premises were purchased by the landlord in the year 1986. Thereafter, the landlord had rented out the premises to one Sh. B.K. Chauhan. According to the landlord, when he got married he requested Sh. B.K. Chauhan to vacate the said premises. Sh. Chauhan vacated the said premises but admittedly the landlord did not occupy the same but rented out the same to the tenant in the year 1990.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. In the year 1997 the landlord filed a petition for eviction of the tenant on two grounds; firstly that the tenant is in arrears of rent from 1.11.1990 to 31.7.1997 and secondly that the premises are bona fide required by the landlord for the use and occupation of himself and his family.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>4. This petition was contested by the tenant. After trial, the Rent Controller ordered the eviction of the tenant on two grounds; (i) that the tenant was in arrears of rent from November, 1999 till date of order i.e. 22nd August, 2001 and (ii) that the landlord required the premises for his own use and occupation.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>5. The tenant deposited the rent within the time prescribed. He also filed an appeal challenging the finding on the issue of bona fide requirement. The learned Appellate Authority came to the conclusion that the landlord had not made a proper and full disclosure of facts as required under the provisions of the Act and had withheld material facts from the Court viz. that the landlord was in occupation of residential premises on 31, Mall Road in the urban area of Shimla and as such rejected this petition on this short ground.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>6. Aggrieved by the said order, the landlord has filed the present Revision Petition.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>7. I have heard Sh. Ramakant Sharma, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sh. Bhupinder Gupta, learned senior Counsel for the tenant.',
	(int) 8 => '<p>8. It has been urged on behalf of the landlord that the building which is alleged to be in possession of the landlord i.e. 31, the Mall Shimla is not a residential building and secondly that the building is not owned by him.',
	(int) 9 => '<p>9. On the other hand Sh. Bhupinder Gupta, learned Counsel of the tenant has strenuously urged that the landlord in para 18 has not stated anything about any building being owned by him and has only made an averment that he does not own or possess any other such building within the urban area Shimla. It is contended by Sh. Bhupinder Gupta that the landlord of his own volition did not state anything about the ownership of the building and since he has kept silent about the building which he is in occupation he has made a false averment and therefore his petition for eviction has rightly been rejected.',
	(int) 10 => '<p>10. I am not at all in agreement with the contention of the landlord that the premises known as 31, the Mall Shimla which are admittedly in the occupation of the landlord are commercial premises only and not being used by him for his residence. As pointed out above, the landlord purchased the demised premises in 1986. They fell vacant when he got married despite that he did not occupy the same and rented out the same to the tenant in the year 1990. The question that arises is where was the landlord living for this entire period. According to the landlord after the year 1994 he has been living with his brother-in-law Rajan (wife's brother) PW-2, since the year 1994. Prior to 1994 the landlord will have this Court to believe that he was living off and on with one friend or the other. This story is impossible to believe. The landlord was married in the year 1999. He is an Architect by profession. His wife is a law graduate. It is not believable that such a person would have no permanent abode and would continue to live as a guest with his friends for almost 5 years after his marriage. Even the story that he has been living with his brother-in-law after the year 1994 does not inspire confidence. It stands proved on record that the brother-in-law PW-2 Rajan lives with his own family i.e. wife and children. From the evidence it is also clear that the parents of the brother-in-law also reside with him, His flat consists of only two rooms. The flat in possession of the landlord at 31, the Mall Shimla, also consists of two rooms, kitchen and bath room. Even assuming that he was running an office in the part of the flat it cannot be believed that he would not live on his own flat on the Mall Road and reside with his brother-in-law in cramped premises. Even in the electoral list the landlord is shown to be a resident of 31, The Mall, Shimla. Therefore, I am of the considered view that the building 31, the Mall, Shimla was also being used as a residence by the landlord.',
	(int) 11 => '<p>11. Having held so, the question that arises is whether the landlord can be non-suited only on the ground that he has not made any disclosure about the residential accommodation available with him which premises were admittedly not owned by him.',
	(int) 12 => '<p>12. The short question which arises for decision in this petition is whether the landlord was guilty of suppressing and withholding such relevant facts which would disentitle him from seeking eviction of the tenant. To appreciate these contentions it would be necessary to refer to relevant portion of Section 14(3) of the Act:',
	(int) 13 => '<p>Section 14:',
	(int) 14 => '<p>1 and 2 xxxxxxxxxxx',
	(int) 15 => '<p>(3) A landlord may apply to the Controller for an order directing the tenant to put the landlord in possession-',
	(int) 16 => '<p>(a) in case of residential building, if',
	(int) 17 => '<p>(i) he required it for his own occupation:',
	(int) 18 => '<p>Provided that he is not occupying another residential building owned by him, in the urban area concerned:',
	(int) 19 => '<p>Provided further that he has not vacated such a building without sufficient cause within five years of the filing of the application, in the said urban area....',
	(int) 20 => '<p>13. A perusal of the bare provisions of the Act makes it clear that there are certain essential ingredients which the landlord must satisfy before seeking eviction of the tenant under the Act. Not only must he prove that the residential building is bona fide required by him for his own use and occupation but he must also plead and prove that he is not occupying any other residential building owned by him in the urban area concerned and further that he has not vacated such a building without sufficient cause within 5 years of the filing of the application.',
	(int) 21 => '<p>14. Reference may now be made to the relevant allegations made in para 18 of the eviction petition:',
	(int) 22 => '<p>(ii) That the petitioner bona fide requires the premises for his own use and occupation and also for the use and occupation of his family.',
	(int) 23 => '<p>The petitioner does not own or possess any other such building within the urban area of Simla nor the petitioner has vacated any such premises within five years of the filing of this petition.',
	(int) 24 => '<p>The family of the petitioner presently consists of himself and his wife. Due to paucity of accommodation the petitioner has not been able to keep his wife with himself at Simla, where he is working as an Engineer and she has been residing at Chandigarh since 1991 but on account of her ill health she has been brought to Simla by the petitioner. The petitioner at present is seeking temporary shelter, from time to time, with his relations.',
	(int) 25 => '<p>15. The learned Appellate Authority came to the conclusion that the landlord had falsely pleaded that he does not own or possess any other such building within the urban area of Shimla and hence rejected the eviction petition on this ground.',
	(int) 26 => '<p>16. On a close analysis of the proviso to Section 14(3)(a)(i) of the Act it is clear that a landlord is not entitled to seek eviction of a tenant from residential building even in case of bona fide requirement if the landlord is occupying another residential building owned by him in the urban area concerned. One can read three essential ingredients in this proviso i.e. (i) that the landlord is in occupation of another residential building; (ii) that the said residential building is owned by him and (iii) that the said residential building is situated in the concerned urban area.',
	(int) 27 => '<p>17. The question that arises is what is the impact of the landlord not making a disclosure in respect of premises which he is occupying but are not owned by him.',
	(int) 28 => '<p>18. The Apex Court in Onkar Nath v. Ved Vyas ILR 1979 HP 1, held as follows:',
	(int) 29 => '<p>It is common ground that there are three requirements to make out a cause of action for eviction under that provision, and indeed this is apparent from a bare reading of the sub-section. In the present case the finding is to the effect that the landlord requires the residential building for his own occupation. But, the legislation has taken care to insist upon two more conditions, namely; (a) that the landlord is not occupying any other residential building in the area concerned; and (b) that he has not vacated such a building without sufficient cause. There is not a scintilla of evidence nor indeed there is any averment in compliance with these latter conditions. The necessary consequence follows that not merely is there inadequacy of pleadings sufficient to make out a cause of action but total absence of proof of two vital requirements....',
	(int) 30 => '<p>The Supreme Court also said that:.The statute benignly designed to protect tenants from unreasonable evictions has taken case to put restrictions which must be rigorously construed to fulfil the purpose of the statute.',
	(int) 31 => '<p>19. Following the aforesaid judgment and other pronouncements of the Apex Court, a learned Single Judge of this Court in Tara Chand Sharma v. Baij Nath and Ors. 1992 (2) R.C.J. 323, held as follows:',
	(int) 32 => '<p>16. What appears as the legislative intent, in bold relief, is that the landlord, while seeking eviction of a tenant on the ground that he needs a residential building for his own occupation, must come out clearly and honestly with facts relating to the requirement that he is not occupying another residential building owned by him, in the urban area concerned and that he had not vacated such a building without sufficient cause within five years of the filing of the application, in the said urban area. The primal burden of making a clear disclosure would lie upon the landlord, for, the true facts would be in his special knowledge. An order in his favour by the Rent Controller would depend upon the satisfaction of the Rent Controller in regard not only to the claim that the landlord requires the accommodation, from which he wishes to evict a tenant, for his own occupation but also that he was not occupying another residential building owned by him nor had he vacated such building without sufficient cause within five years of the filing of the application in the application in the urban area concerned....',
	(int) 33 => '<p>It was further held as under:',
	(int) 34 => '<p>18. That the landlord should make a full disclosure of the relevant facts, pertaining to the requirements of Sub-section (3)(a)(i) and the two provisos, becomes all the more necessary because the satisfaction of the Rent Controller in regard thereto is the condition precedent for the making of an order in favour of the landlord....',
	(int) 35 => '<p>20. The aforesaid judgment has been followed in a number of other cases including Vijay Kapoor v. Maya Ram 1997 (2) RCR 437, wherein another learned single Judge of this Court following the aforesaid judgment held that the landlord must make complete and proper disclosure of all the material facts.',
	(int) 36 => '<p>21. On the other hand Sh. Ramakant Sharma has relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in Ram Narain Arora v. Asha Rani 1998(2) RCR 268. In that case the Rent Controller came to the conclusion that the landlord had suppressed material information and had not disclosed the fact that he was already in occupation of a house in Subji Mandi. Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act reads as follows:',
	(int) 37 => '<p>Section 14(1)(e). That the premises let for residential purposes are required bona fide by the landlord for occupation as a residence for himself or for any member of his family dependent on him, if he is the owner thereof, or for any person for whose benefit the premises are held and that the landlord or such person has no other reasonably suitable residential accommodation.',
	(int) 38 => '<p>22. The difference between Delhi Act and the present Act is that under the Delhi Act the only requirement is that the landlord has no other reasonably suitable accommodation whereas under the Himachal Act the residential premises are required to be owned by the landlord. The Apex Court in Rama Narain Arora's case (supra) held that the nondisclosure of the fact that the landlord was in occupation of certain premises in Subji Mandi was.not a ground to non-suit the landlord in view of the facts and circumstances of the case. The Apex Court held as follows:',
	(int) 39 => '<p>9. In making a claim that the suit premises is required bona fide for his own occupation as a residence for himself and other members of his family dependent on him and that he has no other reasonably suitable accommodation is a requirement of law before the Court can state whether the landlord requires the premises bona fide for his use and occupation. In doing so, the Court must also find out whether the landlord or such other person for whose benefit the premises is required has no other reasonably suitable residential accommodation. It cannot be said that the requirement of the landlord is not intermixed with the question of finding out whether he has any other reasonably suitable accommodation. If he has other reasonably suitable accommodation, ihen necessarily it would mean that he does not require the suit premises and his requirement may not be bona fide. In such circumstances further inquiry would be whether that premises is more suitable than the suit premises. Therefore, the questions raised before the Court would not necessarily depend upon only the pleadings. It could be a good defence that the landlord has other reasonably suitable residential accommodation and thereby defend the claim of the landlord.',
	(int) 40 => '<p>10. There cannot be a pedantic or a dogmatic approach in the matter of analysis of pleadings or of the evidence adduced thereto. It is no doubt true that if the pleadings are clearly set out, it would be easy for the Court to decide the matters. But if the pleadings are lacking or vague and if both parties have understood what was the case pleaded and put forth with reference to requirement of law and placed such material before the Court, neither party is prejudiced. If we analyse from this angle, we do not think that the High Court was not justified in interfering with the order made by the Rent Controller.',
	(int) 41 => '<p>23. From the perusal of the judgment of the Apex Court it is apparent that the Rent Controller must approach the matter in a practical manner. In case the non-disclosure is such as that it goes to the very root of the case the Rent Controller would be justified in non-suiting the landlord. However, if the non-disclosure is such that it would not prejudice the rights of the respondent then the landlord should not be non-suited only on this ground.',
	(int) 42 => '<p>24. The decisions of this Court cited hereinabove were delivered prior to the judgment delivered by the Apex Court in Ram Nar'ain Arora's case. Further more both in Tara Chand Sharma's case and Vijay Kapoor's case decided by this Court, no averment had been made ixi respect of other residential buildings owned by a landlord. There was complete non-disclosure as to whether any such residential building owned by the landlord was in his possession or not. In the present case, as I have held above, the residential premises at 31, The Mall, Shimla was not owned by the landlord and hence these two earlier judgments of this Court are distinguishable on facts also.',
	(int) 43 => '<p>25. In the present case, the landlord has been non-suited only on the ground that he did not disclose the fact that he was in occupation of certain premises on the Mall Road. Under law he was not required to disclose this fact. He was only required to disclose the factum of occupying another residential building owned by him in the urban area concerned. True it may be, that it would have been better if the landlord had disclosed all the facts but non-disclosure of a fact which he was not under law required to disclose could not in my opinion be a ground to dismiss his eviction petition.',
	(int) 44 => '<p>26. However, what are the premises in his occupation even as a tenant can be taken into consideration while deciding the question whether he bona fide requires the demised premises for his personal use or occupation or not.',
	(int) 45 => '<p>27. Lastly comes the question with regard to the bona fide requirement of the landlord. The landlord has no children. According to the landlord as well as his other witnesses i.e. his brother-in-law PW-2 and his wife PW-3, the wife now wants to come back and settle in Shimla. There is no reason to disbelieve their statements. Even according to the evidence led by the tenant the accommodation in possession of the landlord consists of two rooms, kitchen, bath room etc. Admittedly, the landlord is also having his office as an Architect in this building. The landlord belongs to the middle class of the Society. It cannot be expected of a landlord who owns sufficient property to reside in a two room set wherein he also runs his office.',
	(int) 46 => '<p>28. The law by now is well settled that the landlord is the best judge of the suitability of the accommodation required by him. This suitability has however to be judged in the context of reasonable expectations. The landlord and his wife who are both well educated can reasonably be expected to entertain guests and they will have visitors to their house. They would obviously require a drawing room, a bed room and a spare bed room for guests. Even at his residence the landlord may require another room for his professional work. This is the minimum accommodation which they would require. Even if the accommodation possessed by the landlord, though not owned by him, at 31, the Mall, Shimla is taken into consideration such accommodation is not sufficient to meet his requirements since admittedly the landlord is running his profession of Architect from some portion of his these premises.',
	(int) 47 => '<p>29. Keeping in view the entire facts and circumstances, I am of the considered view that the learned Appellate Authority gravely erred in rejecting the eviction petition of the landlord solely on the ground that he had not disclosed the factum of being in possession of the premises at 31, the Mall Shimla. Even though I have held that the said premises are residential premises, in view of the above discussion I hold that the landlord cannot be non-suited only on the ground of his being in possession of such premises since same were not owned by him.',
	(int) 48 => '<p>30. In view of the above discussion, the Revision Petition is allowed, the order of the learned Appellate Authority dated 6.5.2003 is seaside and the order of the Rent Controller dated 22.8.2001 is restored.',
	(int) 49 => '<p>31. Keeping in view the fact that the tenant has been in possession of the premises for a long period he is granted time up to 31st October, 2008 to vacate the premises.',
	(int) 50 => '<p>32. No order as to costs.<p>',
	(int) 51 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 52
$i = (int) 43
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

25. In the present case, the landlord has been non-suited only on the ground that he did not disclose the fact that he was in occupation of certain premises on the Mall Road. Under law he was not required to disclose this fact. He was only required to disclose the factum of occupying another residential building owned by him in the urban area concerned. True it may be, that it would have been better if the landlord had disclosed all the facts but non-disclosure of a fact which he was not under law required to disclose could not in my opinion be a ground to dismiss his eviction petition.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Shri Arun Bhanwara Vs Shri S L Srivastava - Citation 891084 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '891084',
			'acts' => '',
			'appealno' => '',
			'appellant' => 'Shri Arun Bhanwara',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Shri Arun Bhanwara Vs. Shri S.L. Srivastava',
			'casenote' => ' - CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908.[C.A. No. 5/1908]. Order 14, Rule 2 [As amended by Amending Act of 1976]: [V.K. Gupta, CJ, Deepak Gupta & Surjit Singh, JJ] Preliminary issue of law and fact  Court framing all issues both of law and facts together and also  tried all the issues together, including the issue relating to jurisdiction of Court  Held, Except in situations perceived or warranted under sub-rule (2) of Rule 2 of Order 14 where a  Court in fact frames only issues of law in the first instance and postpones settlement of other issues, clearly and explicitly in situations where the Court has framed all issues together, both of law as well as facts and has also tried all these issues together, it is not open to the Court to adopt the principle of severability and proceed to decide issues of law first, without taking up simultaneously other issues for decision. This course of action is not available to a Court because sub-rule (1) does not permit the  Court to adopt any such principle of severability and to dispose of a suit only on preliminary issues, or what can be termed as issues of law. Sub-rule (1)  clearly mandates that in a situation contemplated under it, where all the issues have been together and have also been taken up for adjudication during the course of the trial, these must be decided together and the judgment in the suit as a whole must be pronounced by the Court covering all the issues framed in the suit.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => 'Ram Narain Arora v. Asha Rani;',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => '',
			'counseldef' => '',
			'court' => 'Himachal Pradesh',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2008-07-31',
			'deposition' => 'Petition allowed',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => ' Deepak Gupta, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">Deepak Gupta, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. This Revision Petition under Section 25(5) of the H.P. Urban Rent Control Act, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) is directed against the order of the learned Appellate Authority, Shimla in CMA No. 60-S/14 of 2001 whereby the appeal filed by the respondent (hereinafter referred to as the tenant) has been allowed, the order of the Rent Controller has been set-aside and the petition for eviction filed by the present petitioner (hereinafter referred to as the Landlord) on the ground of personal bona fide requirement has been set-aside.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The undisputed facts are that the landlord is owner of the demised premises situated in building known as Tunnel View, Sanjauli, Shimla-6 consisting of two bed rooms with attached bath room and latrine, drawing-cum-dining room, kitchen and balcony. These premises were purchased by the landlord in the year 1986. Thereafter, the landlord had rented out the premises to one Sh. B.K. Chauhan. According to the landlord, when he got married he requested Sh. B.K. Chauhan to vacate the said premises. Sh. Chauhan vacated the said premises but admittedly the landlord did not occupy the same but rented out the same to the tenant in the year 1990.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. In the year 1997 the landlord filed a petition for eviction of the tenant on two grounds; firstly that the tenant is in arrears of rent from 1.11.1990 to 31.7.1997 and secondly that the premises are bona fide required by the landlord for the use and occupation of himself and his family.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. This petition was contested by the tenant. After trial, the Rent Controller ordered the eviction of the tenant on two grounds; (i) that the tenant was in arrears of rent from November, 1999 till date of order i.e. 22nd August, 2001 and (ii) that the landlord required the premises for his own use and occupation.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. The tenant deposited the rent within the time prescribed. He also filed an appeal challenging the finding on the issue of bona fide requirement. The learned Appellate Authority came to the conclusion that the landlord had not made a proper and full disclosure of facts as required under the provisions of the Act and had withheld material facts from the Court viz. that the landlord was in occupation of residential premises on 31, Mall Road in the urban area of Shimla and as such rejected this petition on this short ground.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. Aggrieved by the said order, the landlord has filed the present Revision Petition.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. I have heard Sh. Ramakant Sharma, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sh. Bhupinder Gupta, learned senior Counsel for the tenant.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. It has been urged on behalf of the landlord that the building which is alleged to be in possession of the landlord i.e. 31, the Mall Shimla is not a residential building and secondly that the building is not owned by him.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. On the other hand Sh. Bhupinder Gupta, learned Counsel of the tenant has strenuously urged that the landlord in para 18 has not stated anything about any building being owned by him and has only made an averment that he does not own or possess any other such building within the urban area Shimla. It is contended by Sh. Bhupinder Gupta that the landlord of his own volition did not state anything about the ownership of the building and since he has kept silent about the building which he is in occupation he has made a false averment and therefore his petition for eviction has rightly been rejected.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. I am not at all in agreement with the contention of the landlord that the premises known as 31, the Mall Shimla which are admittedly in the occupation of the landlord are commercial premises only and not being used by him for his residence. As pointed out above, the landlord purchased the demised premises in 1986. They fell vacant when he got married despite that he did not occupy the same and rented out the same to the tenant in the year 1990. The question that arises is where was the landlord living for this entire period. According to the landlord after the year 1994 he has been living with his brother-in-law Rajan (wife's brother) PW-2, since the year 1994. Prior to 1994 the landlord will have this Court to believe that he was living off and on with one friend or the other. This story is impossible to believe. The landlord was married in the year 1999. He is an Architect by profession. His wife is a law graduate. It is not believable that such a person would have no permanent abode and would continue to live as a guest with his friends for almost 5 years after his marriage. Even the story that he has been living with his brother-in-law after the year 1994 does not inspire confidence. It stands proved on record that the brother-in-law PW-2 Rajan lives with his own family i.e. wife and children. From the evidence it is also clear that the parents of the brother-in-law also reside with him, His flat consists of only two rooms. The flat in possession of the landlord at 31, the Mall Shimla, also consists of two rooms, kitchen and bath room. Even assuming that he was running an office in the part of the flat it cannot be believed that he would not live on his own flat on the Mall Road and reside with his brother-in-law in cramped premises. Even in the electoral list the landlord is shown to be a resident of 31, The Mall, Shimla. Therefore, I am of the considered view that the building 31, the Mall, Shimla was also being used as a residence by the landlord.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. Having held so, the question that arises is whether the landlord can be non-suited only on the ground that he has not made any disclosure about the residential accommodation available with him which premises were admittedly not owned by him.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. The short question which arises for decision in this petition is whether the landlord was guilty of suppressing and withholding such relevant facts which would disentitle him from seeking eviction of the tenant. To appreciate these contentions it would be necessary to refer to relevant portion of Section 14(3) of the Act:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Section 14:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1 and 2 xxxxxxxxxxx</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(3) A landlord may apply to the Controller for an order directing the tenant to put the landlord in possession-</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(a) in case of residential building, if</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(i) he required it for his own occupation:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Provided that he is not occupying another residential building owned by him, in the urban area concerned:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Provided further that he has not vacated such a building without sufficient cause within five years of the filing of the application, in the said urban area....</p><p style="text-align: justify;">13. A perusal of the bare provisions of the Act makes it clear that there are certain essential ingredients which the landlord must satisfy before seeking eviction of the tenant under the Act. Not only must he prove that the residential building is bona fide required by him for his own use and occupation but he must also plead and prove that he is not occupying any other residential building owned by him in the urban area concerned and further that he has not vacated such a building without sufficient cause within 5 years of the filing of the application.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">14. Reference may now be made to the relevant allegations made in para 18 of the eviction petition:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(ii) That the petitioner bona fide requires the premises for his own use and occupation and also for the use and occupation of his family.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The petitioner does not own or possess any other such building within the urban area of Simla nor the petitioner has vacated any such premises within five years of the filing of this petition.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The family of the petitioner presently consists of himself and his wife. Due to paucity of accommodation the petitioner has not been able to keep his wife with himself at Simla, where he is working as an Engineer and she has been residing at Chandigarh since 1991 but on account of her ill health she has been brought to Simla by the petitioner. The petitioner at present is seeking temporary shelter, from time to time, with his relations.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">15. The learned Appellate Authority came to the conclusion that the landlord had falsely pleaded that he does not own or possess any other such building within the urban area of Shimla and hence rejected the eviction petition on this ground.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">16. On a close analysis of the proviso to Section 14(3)(a)(i) of the Act it is clear that a landlord is not entitled to seek eviction of a tenant from residential building even in case of bona fide requirement if the landlord is occupying another residential building owned by him in the urban area concerned. One can read three essential ingredients in this proviso i.e. (i) that the landlord is in occupation of another residential building; (ii) that the said residential building is owned by him and (iii) that the said residential building is situated in the concerned urban area.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">17. The question that arises is what is the impact of the landlord not making a disclosure in respect of premises which he is occupying but are not owned by him.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">18. The Apex Court in Onkar Nath v. Ved Vyas ILR 1979 HP 1, held as follows:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">It is common ground that there are three requirements to make out a cause of action for eviction under that provision, and indeed this is apparent from a bare reading of the sub-section. In the present case the finding is to the effect that the landlord requires the residential building for his own occupation. But, the legislation has taken care to insist upon two more conditions, namely; (a) that the landlord is not occupying any other residential building in the area concerned; and (b) that he has not vacated such a building without sufficient cause. There is not a scintilla of evidence nor indeed there is any averment in compliance with these latter conditions. The necessary consequence follows that not merely is there inadequacy of pleadings sufficient to make out a cause of action but total absence of proof of two vital requirements....</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The Supreme Court also said that:.The statute benignly designed to protect tenants from unreasonable evictions has taken case to put restrictions which must be rigorously construed to fulfil the purpose of the statute.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">19. Following the aforesaid judgment and other pronouncements of the Apex Court, a learned Single Judge of this Court in Tara Chand Sharma v. Baij Nath and Ors. 1992 (2) R.C.J. 323, held as follows:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">16. What appears as the legislative intent, in bold relief, is that the landlord, while seeking eviction of a tenant on the ground that he needs a residential building for his own occupation, must come out clearly and honestly with facts relating to the requirement that he is not occupying another residential building owned by him, in the urban area concerned and that he had not vacated such a building without sufficient cause within five years of the filing of the application, in the said urban area. The primal burden of making a clear disclosure would lie upon the landlord, for, the true facts would be in his special knowledge. An order in his favour by the Rent Controller would depend upon the satisfaction of the Rent Controller in regard not only to the claim that the landlord requires the accommodation, from which he wishes to evict a tenant, for his own occupation but also that he was not occupying another residential building owned by him nor had he vacated such building without sufficient cause within five years of the filing of the application in the application in the urban area concerned....</p><p style="text-align: justify;">It was further held as under:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">18. That the landlord should make a full disclosure of the relevant facts, pertaining to the requirements of Sub-section (3)(a)(i) and the two provisos, becomes all the more necessary because the satisfaction of the Rent Controller in regard thereto is the condition precedent for the making of an order in favour of the landlord....</p><p style="text-align: justify;">20. The aforesaid judgment has been followed in a number of other cases including Vijay Kapoor v. Maya Ram 1997 (2) RCR 437, wherein another learned single Judge of this Court following the aforesaid judgment held that the landlord must make complete and proper disclosure of all the material facts.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">21. On the other hand Sh. Ramakant Sharma has relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in Ram Narain Arora v. Asha Rani 1998(2) RCR 268. In that case the Rent Controller came to the conclusion that the landlord had suppressed material information and had not disclosed the fact that he was already in occupation of a house in Subji Mandi. Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act reads as follows:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Section 14(1)(e). That the premises let for residential purposes are required bona fide by the landlord for occupation as a residence for himself or for any member of his family dependent on him, if he is the owner thereof, or for any person for whose benefit the premises are held and that the landlord or such person has no other reasonably suitable residential accommodation.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">22. The difference between Delhi Act and the present Act is that under the Delhi Act the only requirement is that the landlord has no other reasonably suitable accommodation whereas under the Himachal Act the residential premises are required to be owned by the landlord. The Apex Court in Rama Narain Arora's case (supra) held that the nondisclosure of the fact that the landlord was in occupation of certain premises in Subji Mandi was.not a ground to non-suit the landlord in view of the facts and circumstances of the case. The Apex Court held as follows:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. In making a claim that the suit premises is required bona fide for his own occupation as a residence for himself and other members of his family dependent on him and that he has no other reasonably suitable accommodation is a requirement of law before the Court can state whether the landlord requires the premises bona fide for his use and occupation. In doing so, the Court must also find out whether the landlord or such other person for whose benefit the premises is required has no other reasonably suitable residential accommodation. It cannot be said that the requirement of the landlord is not intermixed with the question of finding out whether he has any other reasonably suitable accommodation. If he has other reasonably suitable accommodation, ihen necessarily it would mean that he does not require the suit premises and his requirement may not be bona fide. In such circumstances further inquiry would be whether that premises is more suitable than the suit premises. Therefore, the questions raised before the Court would not necessarily depend upon only the pleadings. It could be a good defence that the landlord has other reasonably suitable residential accommodation and thereby defend the claim of the landlord.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. There cannot be a pedantic or a dogmatic approach in the matter of analysis of pleadings or of the evidence adduced thereto. It is no doubt true that if the pleadings are clearly set out, it would be easy for the Court to decide the matters. But if the pleadings are lacking or vague and if both parties have understood what was the case pleaded and put forth with reference to requirement of law and placed such material before the Court, neither party is prejudiced. If we analyse from this angle, we do not think that the High Court was not justified in interfering with the order made by the Rent Controller.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">23. From the perusal of the judgment of the Apex Court it is apparent that the Rent Controller must approach the matter in a practical manner. In case the non-disclosure is such as that it goes to the very root of the case the Rent Controller would be justified in non-suiting the landlord. However, if the non-disclosure is such that it would not prejudice the rights of the respondent then the landlord should not be non-suited only on this ground.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">24. The decisions of this Court cited hereinabove were delivered prior to the judgment delivered by the Apex Court in Ram Nar'ain Arora's case. Further more both in Tara Chand Sharma's case and Vijay Kapoor's case decided by this Court, no averment had been made ixi respect of other residential buildings owned by a landlord. There was complete non-disclosure as to whether any such residential building owned by the landlord was in his possession or not. In the present case, as I have held above, the residential premises at 31, The Mall, Shimla was not owned by the landlord and hence these two earlier judgments of this Court are distinguishable on facts also.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">25. In the present case, the landlord has been non-suited only on the ground that he did not disclose the fact that he was in occupation of certain premises on the Mall Road. Under law he was not required to disclose this fact. He was only required to disclose the factum of occupying another residential building owned by him in the urban area concerned. True it may be, that it would have been better if the landlord had disclosed all the facts but non-disclosure of a fact which he was not under law required to disclose could not in my opinion be a ground to dismiss his eviction petition.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">26. However, what are the premises in his occupation even as a tenant can be taken into consideration while deciding the question whether he bona fide requires the demised premises for his personal use or occupation or not.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">27. Lastly comes the question with regard to the bona fide requirement of the landlord. The landlord has no children. According to the landlord as well as his other witnesses i.e. his brother-in-law PW-2 and his wife PW-3, the wife now wants to come back and settle in Shimla. There is no reason to disbelieve their statements. Even according to the evidence led by the tenant the accommodation in possession of the landlord consists of two rooms, kitchen, bath room etc. Admittedly, the landlord is also having his office as an Architect in this building. The landlord belongs to the middle class of the Society. It cannot be expected of a landlord who owns sufficient property to reside in a two room set wherein he also runs his office.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">28. The law by now is well settled that the landlord is the best judge of the suitability of the accommodation required by him. This suitability has however to be judged in the context of reasonable expectations. The landlord and his wife who are both well educated can reasonably be expected to entertain guests and they will have visitors to their house. They would obviously require a drawing room, a bed room and a spare bed room for guests. Even at his residence the landlord may require another room for his professional work. This is the minimum accommodation which they would require. Even if the accommodation possessed by the landlord, though not owned by him, at 31, the Mall, Shimla is taken into consideration such accommodation is not sufficient to meet his requirements since admittedly the landlord is running his profession of Architect from some portion of his these premises.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">29. Keeping in view the entire facts and circumstances, I am of the considered view that the learned Appellate Authority gravely erred in rejecting the eviction petition of the landlord solely on the ground that he had not disclosed the factum of being in possession of the premises at 31, the Mall Shimla. Even though I have held that the said premises are residential premises, in view of the above discussion I hold that the landlord cannot be non-suited only on the ground of his being in possession of such premises since same were not owned by him.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">30. In view of the above discussion, the Revision Petition is allowed, the order of the learned Appellate Authority dated 6.5.2003 is seaside and the order of the Rent Controller dated 22.8.2001 is restored.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">31. Keeping in view the fact that the tenant has been in possession of the premises for a long period he is granted time up to 31st October, 2008 to vacate the premises.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">32. No order as to costs.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '2008(2)ShimLC491',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'Shri S.L. Srivastava',
			'sub' => 'Tenancy',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'shri-arun-bhanwara-vs-s-l-srivastava',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '891084',
		(int) 1 => 'shri-arun-bhanwara-vs-s-l-srivastava'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Shri Arun Bhanwara Vs Shri S L Srivastava - Citation 891084 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '891084',
		'acts' => '',
		'appealno' => '',
		'appellant' => 'Shri Arun Bhanwara',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Shri Arun Bhanwara Vs. Shri S.L. Srivastava',
		'casenote' => ' - CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908.[C.A. No. 5/1908]. Order 14, Rule 2 [As amended by Amending Act of 1976]: [V.K. Gupta, CJ, Deepak Gupta & Surjit Singh, JJ] Preliminary issue of law and fact  Court framing all issues both of law and facts together and also  tried all the issues together, including the issue relating to jurisdiction of Court  Held, Except in situations perceived or warranted under sub-rule (2) of Rule 2 of Order 14 where a  Court in fact frames only issues of law in the first instance and postpones settlement of other issues, clearly and explicitly in situations where the Court has framed all issues together, both of law as well as facts and has also tried all these issues together, it is not open to the Court to adopt the principle of severability and proceed to decide issues of law first, without taking up simultaneously other issues for decision. This course of action is not available to a Court because sub-rule (1) does not permit the  Court to adopt any such principle of severability and to dispose of a suit only on preliminary issues, or what can be termed as issues of law. Sub-rule (1)  clearly mandates that in a situation contemplated under it, where all the issues have been together and have also been taken up for adjudication during the course of the trial, these must be decided together and the judgment in the suit as a whole must be pronounced by the Court covering all the issues framed in the suit.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => 'Ram Narain Arora v. Asha Rani;',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => '',
		'counseldef' => '',
		'court' => 'Himachal Pradesh',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2008-07-31',
		'deposition' => 'Petition allowed',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => ' Deepak Gupta, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>Deepak Gupta, J.</p><p>1. This Revision Petition under Section 25(5) of the H.P. Urban Rent Control Act, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) is directed against the order of the learned Appellate Authority, Shimla in CMA No. 60-S/14 of 2001 whereby the appeal filed by the respondent (hereinafter referred to as the tenant) has been allowed, the order of the Rent Controller has been set-aside and the petition for eviction filed by the present petitioner (hereinafter referred to as the Landlord) on the ground of personal bona fide requirement has been set-aside.</p><p>2. The undisputed facts are that the landlord is owner of the demised premises situated in building known as Tunnel View, Sanjauli, Shimla-6 consisting of two bed rooms with attached bath room and latrine, drawing-cum-dining room, kitchen and balcony. These premises were purchased by the landlord in the year 1986. Thereafter, the landlord had rented out the premises to one Sh. B.K. Chauhan. According to the landlord, when he got married he requested Sh. B.K. Chauhan to vacate the said premises. Sh. Chauhan vacated the said premises but admittedly the landlord did not occupy the same but rented out the same to the tenant in the year 1990.</p><p>3. In the year 1997 the landlord filed a petition for eviction of the tenant on two grounds; firstly that the tenant is in arrears of rent from 1.11.1990 to 31.7.1997 and secondly that the premises are bona fide required by the landlord for the use and occupation of himself and his family.</p><p>4. This petition was contested by the tenant. After trial, the Rent Controller ordered the eviction of the tenant on two grounds; (i) that the tenant was in arrears of rent from November, 1999 till date of order i.e. 22nd August, 2001 and (ii) that the landlord required the premises for his own use and occupation.</p><p>5. The tenant deposited the rent within the time prescribed. He also filed an appeal challenging the finding on the issue of bona fide requirement. The learned Appellate Authority came to the conclusion that the landlord had not made a proper and full disclosure of facts as required under the provisions of the Act and had withheld material facts from the Court viz. that the landlord was in occupation of residential premises on 31, Mall Road in the urban area of Shimla and as such rejected this petition on this short ground.</p><p>6. Aggrieved by the said order, the landlord has filed the present Revision Petition.</p><p>7. I have heard Sh. Ramakant Sharma, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sh. Bhupinder Gupta, learned senior Counsel for the tenant.</p><p>8. It has been urged on behalf of the landlord that the building which is alleged to be in possession of the landlord i.e. 31, the Mall Shimla is not a residential building and secondly that the building is not owned by him.</p><p>9. On the other hand Sh. Bhupinder Gupta, learned Counsel of the tenant has strenuously urged that the landlord in para 18 has not stated anything about any building being owned by him and has only made an averment that he does not own or possess any other such building within the urban area Shimla. It is contended by Sh. Bhupinder Gupta that the landlord of his own volition did not state anything about the ownership of the building and since he has kept silent about the building which he is in occupation he has made a false averment and therefore his petition for eviction has rightly been rejected.</p><p>10. I am not at all in agreement with the contention of the landlord that the premises known as 31, the Mall Shimla which are admittedly in the occupation of the landlord are commercial premises only and not being used by him for his residence. As pointed out above, the landlord purchased the demised premises in 1986. They fell vacant when he got married despite that he did not occupy the same and rented out the same to the tenant in the year 1990. The question that arises is where was the landlord living for this entire period. According to the landlord after the year 1994 he has been living with his brother-in-law Rajan (wife's brother) PW-2, since the year 1994. Prior to 1994 the landlord will have this Court to believe that he was living off and on with one friend or the other. This story is impossible to believe. The landlord was married in the year 1999. He is an Architect by profession. His wife is a law graduate. It is not believable that such a person would have no permanent abode and would continue to live as a guest with his friends for almost 5 years after his marriage. Even the story that he has been living with his brother-in-law after the year 1994 does not inspire confidence. It stands proved on record that the brother-in-law PW-2 Rajan lives with his own family i.e. wife and children. From the evidence it is also clear that the parents of the brother-in-law also reside with him, His flat consists of only two rooms. The flat in possession of the landlord at 31, the Mall Shimla, also consists of two rooms, kitchen and bath room. Even assuming that he was running an office in the part of the flat it cannot be believed that he would not live on his own flat on the Mall Road and reside with his brother-in-law in cramped premises. Even in the electoral list the landlord is shown to be a resident of 31, The Mall, Shimla. Therefore, I am of the considered view that the building 31, the Mall, Shimla was also being used as a residence by the landlord.</p><p>11. Having held so, the question that arises is whether the landlord can be non-suited only on the ground that he has not made any disclosure about the residential accommodation available with him which premises were admittedly not owned by him.</p><p>12. The short question which arises for decision in this petition is whether the landlord was guilty of suppressing and withholding such relevant facts which would disentitle him from seeking eviction of the tenant. To appreciate these contentions it would be necessary to refer to relevant portion of Section 14(3) of the Act:</p><p>Section 14:</p><p>1 and 2 xxxxxxxxxxx</p><p>(3) A landlord may apply to the Controller for an order directing the tenant to put the landlord in possession-</p><p>(a) in case of residential building, if</p><p>(i) he required it for his own occupation:</p><p>Provided that he is not occupying another residential building owned by him, in the urban area concerned:</p><p>Provided further that he has not vacated such a building without sufficient cause within five years of the filing of the application, in the said urban area....</p><p>13. A perusal of the bare provisions of the Act makes it clear that there are certain essential ingredients which the landlord must satisfy before seeking eviction of the tenant under the Act. Not only must he prove that the residential building is bona fide required by him for his own use and occupation but he must also plead and prove that he is not occupying any other residential building owned by him in the urban area concerned and further that he has not vacated such a building without sufficient cause within 5 years of the filing of the application.</p><p>14. Reference may now be made to the relevant allegations made in para 18 of the eviction petition:</p><p>(ii) That the petitioner bona fide requires the premises for his own use and occupation and also for the use and occupation of his family.</p><p>The petitioner does not own or possess any other such building within the urban area of Simla nor the petitioner has vacated any such premises within five years of the filing of this petition.</p><p>The family of the petitioner presently consists of himself and his wife. Due to paucity of accommodation the petitioner has not been able to keep his wife with himself at Simla, where he is working as an Engineer and she has been residing at Chandigarh since 1991 but on account of her ill health she has been brought to Simla by the petitioner. The petitioner at present is seeking temporary shelter, from time to time, with his relations.</p><p>15. The learned Appellate Authority came to the conclusion that the landlord had falsely pleaded that he does not own or possess any other such building within the urban area of Shimla and hence rejected the eviction petition on this ground.</p><p>16. On a close analysis of the proviso to Section 14(3)(a)(i) of the Act it is clear that a landlord is not entitled to seek eviction of a tenant from residential building even in case of bona fide requirement if the landlord is occupying another residential building owned by him in the urban area concerned. One can read three essential ingredients in this proviso i.e. (i) that the landlord is in occupation of another residential building; (ii) that the said residential building is owned by him and (iii) that the said residential building is situated in the concerned urban area.</p><p>17. The question that arises is what is the impact of the landlord not making a disclosure in respect of premises which he is occupying but are not owned by him.</p><p>18. The Apex Court in Onkar Nath v. Ved Vyas ILR 1979 HP 1, held as follows:</p><p>It is common ground that there are three requirements to make out a cause of action for eviction under that provision, and indeed this is apparent from a bare reading of the sub-section. In the present case the finding is to the effect that the landlord requires the residential building for his own occupation. But, the legislation has taken care to insist upon two more conditions, namely; (a) that the landlord is not occupying any other residential building in the area concerned; and (b) that he has not vacated such a building without sufficient cause. There is not a scintilla of evidence nor indeed there is any averment in compliance with these latter conditions. The necessary consequence follows that not merely is there inadequacy of pleadings sufficient to make out a cause of action but total absence of proof of two vital requirements....</p><p>The Supreme Court also said that:.The statute benignly designed to protect tenants from unreasonable evictions has taken case to put restrictions which must be rigorously construed to fulfil the purpose of the statute.</p><p>19. Following the aforesaid judgment and other pronouncements of the Apex Court, a learned Single Judge of this Court in Tara Chand Sharma v. Baij Nath and Ors. 1992 (2) R.C.J. 323, held as follows:</p><p>16. What appears as the legislative intent, in bold relief, is that the landlord, while seeking eviction of a tenant on the ground that he needs a residential building for his own occupation, must come out clearly and honestly with facts relating to the requirement that he is not occupying another residential building owned by him, in the urban area concerned and that he had not vacated such a building without sufficient cause within five years of the filing of the application, in the said urban area. The primal burden of making a clear disclosure would lie upon the landlord, for, the true facts would be in his special knowledge. An order in his favour by the Rent Controller would depend upon the satisfaction of the Rent Controller in regard not only to the claim that the landlord requires the accommodation, from which he wishes to evict a tenant, for his own occupation but also that he was not occupying another residential building owned by him nor had he vacated such building without sufficient cause within five years of the filing of the application in the application in the urban area concerned....</p><p>It was further held as under:</p><p>18. That the landlord should make a full disclosure of the relevant facts, pertaining to the requirements of Sub-section (3)(a)(i) and the two provisos, becomes all the more necessary because the satisfaction of the Rent Controller in regard thereto is the condition precedent for the making of an order in favour of the landlord....</p><p>20. The aforesaid judgment has been followed in a number of other cases including Vijay Kapoor v. Maya Ram 1997 (2) RCR 437, wherein another learned single Judge of this Court following the aforesaid judgment held that the landlord must make complete and proper disclosure of all the material facts.</p><p>21. On the other hand Sh. Ramakant Sharma has relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in Ram Narain Arora v. Asha Rani 1998(2) RCR 268. In that case the Rent Controller came to the conclusion that the landlord had suppressed material information and had not disclosed the fact that he was already in occupation of a house in Subji Mandi. Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act reads as follows:</p><p>Section 14(1)(e). That the premises let for residential purposes are required bona fide by the landlord for occupation as a residence for himself or for any member of his family dependent on him, if he is the owner thereof, or for any person for whose benefit the premises are held and that the landlord or such person has no other reasonably suitable residential accommodation.</p><p>22. The difference between Delhi Act and the present Act is that under the Delhi Act the only requirement is that the landlord has no other reasonably suitable accommodation whereas under the Himachal Act the residential premises are required to be owned by the landlord. The Apex Court in Rama Narain Arora's case (supra) held that the nondisclosure of the fact that the landlord was in occupation of certain premises in Subji Mandi was.not a ground to non-suit the landlord in view of the facts and circumstances of the case. The Apex Court held as follows:</p><p>9. In making a claim that the suit premises is required bona fide for his own occupation as a residence for himself and other members of his family dependent on him and that he has no other reasonably suitable accommodation is a requirement of law before the Court can state whether the landlord requires the premises bona fide for his use and occupation. In doing so, the Court must also find out whether the landlord or such other person for whose benefit the premises is required has no other reasonably suitable residential accommodation. It cannot be said that the requirement of the landlord is not intermixed with the question of finding out whether he has any other reasonably suitable accommodation. If he has other reasonably suitable accommodation, ihen necessarily it would mean that he does not require the suit premises and his requirement may not be bona fide. In such circumstances further inquiry would be whether that premises is more suitable than the suit premises. Therefore, the questions raised before the Court would not necessarily depend upon only the pleadings. It could be a good defence that the landlord has other reasonably suitable residential accommodation and thereby defend the claim of the landlord.</p><p>10. There cannot be a pedantic or a dogmatic approach in the matter of analysis of pleadings or of the evidence adduced thereto. It is no doubt true that if the pleadings are clearly set out, it would be easy for the Court to decide the matters. But if the pleadings are lacking or vague and if both parties have understood what was the case pleaded and put forth with reference to requirement of law and placed such material before the Court, neither party is prejudiced. If we analyse from this angle, we do not think that the High Court was not justified in interfering with the order made by the Rent Controller.</p><p>23. From the perusal of the judgment of the Apex Court it is apparent that the Rent Controller must approach the matter in a practical manner. In case the non-disclosure is such as that it goes to the very root of the case the Rent Controller would be justified in non-suiting the landlord. However, if the non-disclosure is such that it would not prejudice the rights of the respondent then the landlord should not be non-suited only on this ground.</p><p>24. The decisions of this Court cited hereinabove were delivered prior to the judgment delivered by the Apex Court in Ram Nar'ain Arora's case. Further more both in Tara Chand Sharma's case and Vijay Kapoor's case decided by this Court, no averment had been made ixi respect of other residential buildings owned by a landlord. There was complete non-disclosure as to whether any such residential building owned by the landlord was in his possession or not. In the present case, as I have held above, the residential premises at 31, The Mall, Shimla was not owned by the landlord and hence these two earlier judgments of this Court are distinguishable on facts also.</p><p>25. In the present case, the landlord has been non-suited only on the ground that he did not disclose the fact that he was in occupation of certain premises on the Mall Road. Under law he was not required to disclose this fact. He was only required to disclose the factum of occupying another residential building owned by him in the urban area concerned. True it may be, that it would have been better if the landlord had disclosed all the facts but non-disclosure of a fact which he was not under law required to disclose could not in my opinion be a ground to dismiss his eviction petition.</p><p>26. However, what are the premises in his occupation even as a tenant can be taken into consideration while deciding the question whether he bona fide requires the demised premises for his personal use or occupation or not.</p><p>27. Lastly comes the question with regard to the bona fide requirement of the landlord. The landlord has no children. According to the landlord as well as his other witnesses i.e. his brother-in-law PW-2 and his wife PW-3, the wife now wants to come back and settle in Shimla. There is no reason to disbelieve their statements. Even according to the evidence led by the tenant the accommodation in possession of the landlord consists of two rooms, kitchen, bath room etc. Admittedly, the landlord is also having his office as an Architect in this building. The landlord belongs to the middle class of the Society. It cannot be expected of a landlord who owns sufficient property to reside in a two room set wherein he also runs his office.</p><p>28. The law by now is well settled that the landlord is the best judge of the suitability of the accommodation required by him. This suitability has however to be judged in the context of reasonable expectations. The landlord and his wife who are both well educated can reasonably be expected to entertain guests and they will have visitors to their house. They would obviously require a drawing room, a bed room and a spare bed room for guests. Even at his residence the landlord may require another room for his professional work. This is the minimum accommodation which they would require. Even if the accommodation possessed by the landlord, though not owned by him, at 31, the Mall, Shimla is taken into consideration such accommodation is not sufficient to meet his requirements since admittedly the landlord is running his profession of Architect from some portion of his these premises.</p><p>29. Keeping in view the entire facts and circumstances, I am of the considered view that the learned Appellate Authority gravely erred in rejecting the eviction petition of the landlord solely on the ground that he had not disclosed the factum of being in possession of the premises at 31, the Mall Shimla. Even though I have held that the said premises are residential premises, in view of the above discussion I hold that the landlord cannot be non-suited only on the ground of his being in possession of such premises since same were not owned by him.</p><p>30. In view of the above discussion, the Revision Petition is allowed, the order of the learned Appellate Authority dated 6.5.2003 is seaside and the order of the Rent Controller dated 22.8.2001 is restored.</p><p>31. Keeping in view the fact that the tenant has been in possession of the premises for a long period he is granted time up to 31st October, 2008 to vacate the premises.</p><p>32. No order as to costs.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '2008(2)ShimLC491',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'Shri S.L. Srivastava',
		'sub' => 'Tenancy',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'shri-arun-bhanwara-vs-s-l-srivastava'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '891084',
	(int) 1 => 'shri-arun-bhanwara-vs-s-l-srivastava'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/891084/shri-arun-bhanwara-vs-s-l-srivastava'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$caseref = 'Ram Narain Arora v. Asha Rani<br>'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>Deepak Gupta, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. This Revision Petition under Section 25(5) of the H.P. Urban Rent Control Act, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) is directed against the order of the learned Appellate Authority, Shimla in CMA No. 60-S/14 of 2001 whereby the appeal filed by the respondent (hereinafter referred to as the tenant) has been allowed, the order of the Rent Controller has been set-aside and the petition for eviction filed by the present petitioner (hereinafter referred to as the Landlord) on the ground of personal bona fide requirement has been set-aside.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. The undisputed facts are that the landlord is owner of the demised premises situated in building known as Tunnel View, Sanjauli, Shimla-6 consisting of two bed rooms with attached bath room and latrine, drawing-cum-dining room, kitchen and balcony. These premises were purchased by the landlord in the year 1986. Thereafter, the landlord had rented out the premises to one Sh. B.K. Chauhan. According to the landlord, when he got married he requested Sh. B.K. Chauhan to vacate the said premises. Sh. Chauhan vacated the said premises but admittedly the landlord did not occupy the same but rented out the same to the tenant in the year 1990.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. In the year 1997 the landlord filed a petition for eviction of the tenant on two grounds; firstly that the tenant is in arrears of rent from 1.11.1990 to 31.7.1997 and secondly that the premises are bona fide required by the landlord for the use and occupation of himself and his family.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>4. This petition was contested by the tenant. After trial, the Rent Controller ordered the eviction of the tenant on two grounds; (i) that the tenant was in arrears of rent from November, 1999 till date of order i.e. 22nd August, 2001 and (ii) that the landlord required the premises for his own use and occupation.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>5. The tenant deposited the rent within the time prescribed. He also filed an appeal challenging the finding on the issue of bona fide requirement. The learned Appellate Authority came to the conclusion that the landlord had not made a proper and full disclosure of facts as required under the provisions of the Act and had withheld material facts from the Court viz. that the landlord was in occupation of residential premises on 31, Mall Road in the urban area of Shimla and as such rejected this petition on this short ground.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>6. Aggrieved by the said order, the landlord has filed the present Revision Petition.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>7. I have heard Sh. Ramakant Sharma, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sh. Bhupinder Gupta, learned senior Counsel for the tenant.',
	(int) 8 => '<p>8. It has been urged on behalf of the landlord that the building which is alleged to be in possession of the landlord i.e. 31, the Mall Shimla is not a residential building and secondly that the building is not owned by him.',
	(int) 9 => '<p>9. On the other hand Sh. Bhupinder Gupta, learned Counsel of the tenant has strenuously urged that the landlord in para 18 has not stated anything about any building being owned by him and has only made an averment that he does not own or possess any other such building within the urban area Shimla. It is contended by Sh. Bhupinder Gupta that the landlord of his own volition did not state anything about the ownership of the building and since he has kept silent about the building which he is in occupation he has made a false averment and therefore his petition for eviction has rightly been rejected.',
	(int) 10 => '<p>10. I am not at all in agreement with the contention of the landlord that the premises known as 31, the Mall Shimla which are admittedly in the occupation of the landlord are commercial premises only and not being used by him for his residence. As pointed out above, the landlord purchased the demised premises in 1986. They fell vacant when he got married despite that he did not occupy the same and rented out the same to the tenant in the year 1990. The question that arises is where was the landlord living for this entire period. According to the landlord after the year 1994 he has been living with his brother-in-law Rajan (wife's brother) PW-2, since the year 1994. Prior to 1994 the landlord will have this Court to believe that he was living off and on with one friend or the other. This story is impossible to believe. The landlord was married in the year 1999. He is an Architect by profession. His wife is a law graduate. It is not believable that such a person would have no permanent abode and would continue to live as a guest with his friends for almost 5 years after his marriage. Even the story that he has been living with his brother-in-law after the year 1994 does not inspire confidence. It stands proved on record that the brother-in-law PW-2 Rajan lives with his own family i.e. wife and children. From the evidence it is also clear that the parents of the brother-in-law also reside with him, His flat consists of only two rooms. The flat in possession of the landlord at 31, the Mall Shimla, also consists of two rooms, kitchen and bath room. Even assuming that he was running an office in the part of the flat it cannot be believed that he would not live on his own flat on the Mall Road and reside with his brother-in-law in cramped premises. Even in the electoral list the landlord is shown to be a resident of 31, The Mall, Shimla. Therefore, I am of the considered view that the building 31, the Mall, Shimla was also being used as a residence by the landlord.',
	(int) 11 => '<p>11. Having held so, the question that arises is whether the landlord can be non-suited only on the ground that he has not made any disclosure about the residential accommodation available with him which premises were admittedly not owned by him.',
	(int) 12 => '<p>12. The short question which arises for decision in this petition is whether the landlord was guilty of suppressing and withholding such relevant facts which would disentitle him from seeking eviction of the tenant. To appreciate these contentions it would be necessary to refer to relevant portion of Section 14(3) of the Act:',
	(int) 13 => '<p>Section 14:',
	(int) 14 => '<p>1 and 2 xxxxxxxxxxx',
	(int) 15 => '<p>(3) A landlord may apply to the Controller for an order directing the tenant to put the landlord in possession-',
	(int) 16 => '<p>(a) in case of residential building, if',
	(int) 17 => '<p>(i) he required it for his own occupation:',
	(int) 18 => '<p>Provided that he is not occupying another residential building owned by him, in the urban area concerned:',
	(int) 19 => '<p>Provided further that he has not vacated such a building without sufficient cause within five years of the filing of the application, in the said urban area....',
	(int) 20 => '<p>13. A perusal of the bare provisions of the Act makes it clear that there are certain essential ingredients which the landlord must satisfy before seeking eviction of the tenant under the Act. Not only must he prove that the residential building is bona fide required by him for his own use and occupation but he must also plead and prove that he is not occupying any other residential building owned by him in the urban area concerned and further that he has not vacated such a building without sufficient cause within 5 years of the filing of the application.',
	(int) 21 => '<p>14. Reference may now be made to the relevant allegations made in para 18 of the eviction petition:',
	(int) 22 => '<p>(ii) That the petitioner bona fide requires the premises for his own use and occupation and also for the use and occupation of his family.',
	(int) 23 => '<p>The petitioner does not own or possess any other such building within the urban area of Simla nor the petitioner has vacated any such premises within five years of the filing of this petition.',
	(int) 24 => '<p>The family of the petitioner presently consists of himself and his wife. Due to paucity of accommodation the petitioner has not been able to keep his wife with himself at Simla, where he is working as an Engineer and she has been residing at Chandigarh since 1991 but on account of her ill health she has been brought to Simla by the petitioner. The petitioner at present is seeking temporary shelter, from time to time, with his relations.',
	(int) 25 => '<p>15. The learned Appellate Authority came to the conclusion that the landlord had falsely pleaded that he does not own or possess any other such building within the urban area of Shimla and hence rejected the eviction petition on this ground.',
	(int) 26 => '<p>16. On a close analysis of the proviso to Section 14(3)(a)(i) of the Act it is clear that a landlord is not entitled to seek eviction of a tenant from residential building even in case of bona fide requirement if the landlord is occupying another residential building owned by him in the urban area concerned. One can read three essential ingredients in this proviso i.e. (i) that the landlord is in occupation of another residential building; (ii) that the said residential building is owned by him and (iii) that the said residential building is situated in the concerned urban area.',
	(int) 27 => '<p>17. The question that arises is what is the impact of the landlord not making a disclosure in respect of premises which he is occupying but are not owned by him.',
	(int) 28 => '<p>18. The Apex Court in Onkar Nath v. Ved Vyas ILR 1979 HP 1, held as follows:',
	(int) 29 => '<p>It is common ground that there are three requirements to make out a cause of action for eviction under that provision, and indeed this is apparent from a bare reading of the sub-section. In the present case the finding is to the effect that the landlord requires the residential building for his own occupation. But, the legislation has taken care to insist upon two more conditions, namely; (a) that the landlord is not occupying any other residential building in the area concerned; and (b) that he has not vacated such a building without sufficient cause. There is not a scintilla of evidence nor indeed there is any averment in compliance with these latter conditions. The necessary consequence follows that not merely is there inadequacy of pleadings sufficient to make out a cause of action but total absence of proof of two vital requirements....',
	(int) 30 => '<p>The Supreme Court also said that:.The statute benignly designed to protect tenants from unreasonable evictions has taken case to put restrictions which must be rigorously construed to fulfil the purpose of the statute.',
	(int) 31 => '<p>19. Following the aforesaid judgment and other pronouncements of the Apex Court, a learned Single Judge of this Court in Tara Chand Sharma v. Baij Nath and Ors. 1992 (2) R.C.J. 323, held as follows:',
	(int) 32 => '<p>16. What appears as the legislative intent, in bold relief, is that the landlord, while seeking eviction of a tenant on the ground that he needs a residential building for his own occupation, must come out clearly and honestly with facts relating to the requirement that he is not occupying another residential building owned by him, in the urban area concerned and that he had not vacated such a building without sufficient cause within five years of the filing of the application, in the said urban area. The primal burden of making a clear disclosure would lie upon the landlord, for, the true facts would be in his special knowledge. An order in his favour by the Rent Controller would depend upon the satisfaction of the Rent Controller in regard not only to the claim that the landlord requires the accommodation, from which he wishes to evict a tenant, for his own occupation but also that he was not occupying another residential building owned by him nor had he vacated such building without sufficient cause within five years of the filing of the application in the application in the urban area concerned....',
	(int) 33 => '<p>It was further held as under:',
	(int) 34 => '<p>18. That the landlord should make a full disclosure of the relevant facts, pertaining to the requirements of Sub-section (3)(a)(i) and the two provisos, becomes all the more necessary because the satisfaction of the Rent Controller in regard thereto is the condition precedent for the making of an order in favour of the landlord....',
	(int) 35 => '<p>20. The aforesaid judgment has been followed in a number of other cases including Vijay Kapoor v. Maya Ram 1997 (2) RCR 437, wherein another learned single Judge of this Court following the aforesaid judgment held that the landlord must make complete and proper disclosure of all the material facts.',
	(int) 36 => '<p>21. On the other hand Sh. Ramakant Sharma has relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in Ram Narain Arora v. Asha Rani 1998(2) RCR 268. In that case the Rent Controller came to the conclusion that the landlord had suppressed material information and had not disclosed the fact that he was already in occupation of a house in Subji Mandi. Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act reads as follows:',
	(int) 37 => '<p>Section 14(1)(e). That the premises let for residential purposes are required bona fide by the landlord for occupation as a residence for himself or for any member of his family dependent on him, if he is the owner thereof, or for any person for whose benefit the premises are held and that the landlord or such person has no other reasonably suitable residential accommodation.',
	(int) 38 => '<p>22. The difference between Delhi Act and the present Act is that under the Delhi Act the only requirement is that the landlord has no other reasonably suitable accommodation whereas under the Himachal Act the residential premises are required to be owned by the landlord. The Apex Court in Rama Narain Arora's case (supra) held that the nondisclosure of the fact that the landlord was in occupation of certain premises in Subji Mandi was.not a ground to non-suit the landlord in view of the facts and circumstances of the case. The Apex Court held as follows:',
	(int) 39 => '<p>9. In making a claim that the suit premises is required bona fide for his own occupation as a residence for himself and other members of his family dependent on him and that he has no other reasonably suitable accommodation is a requirement of law before the Court can state whether the landlord requires the premises bona fide for his use and occupation. In doing so, the Court must also find out whether the landlord or such other person for whose benefit the premises is required has no other reasonably suitable residential accommodation. It cannot be said that the requirement of the landlord is not intermixed with the question of finding out whether he has any other reasonably suitable accommodation. If he has other reasonably suitable accommodation, ihen necessarily it would mean that he does not require the suit premises and his requirement may not be bona fide. In such circumstances further inquiry would be whether that premises is more suitable than the suit premises. Therefore, the questions raised before the Court would not necessarily depend upon only the pleadings. It could be a good defence that the landlord has other reasonably suitable residential accommodation and thereby defend the claim of the landlord.',
	(int) 40 => '<p>10. There cannot be a pedantic or a dogmatic approach in the matter of analysis of pleadings or of the evidence adduced thereto. It is no doubt true that if the pleadings are clearly set out, it would be easy for the Court to decide the matters. But if the pleadings are lacking or vague and if both parties have understood what was the case pleaded and put forth with reference to requirement of law and placed such material before the Court, neither party is prejudiced. If we analyse from this angle, we do not think that the High Court was not justified in interfering with the order made by the Rent Controller.',
	(int) 41 => '<p>23. From the perusal of the judgment of the Apex Court it is apparent that the Rent Controller must approach the matter in a practical manner. In case the non-disclosure is such as that it goes to the very root of the case the Rent Controller would be justified in non-suiting the landlord. However, if the non-disclosure is such that it would not prejudice the rights of the respondent then the landlord should not be non-suited only on this ground.',
	(int) 42 => '<p>24. The decisions of this Court cited hereinabove were delivered prior to the judgment delivered by the Apex Court in Ram Nar'ain Arora's case. Further more both in Tara Chand Sharma's case and Vijay Kapoor's case decided by this Court, no averment had been made ixi respect of other residential buildings owned by a landlord. There was complete non-disclosure as to whether any such residential building owned by the landlord was in his possession or not. In the present case, as I have held above, the residential premises at 31, The Mall, Shimla was not owned by the landlord and hence these two earlier judgments of this Court are distinguishable on facts also.',
	(int) 43 => '<p>25. In the present case, the landlord has been non-suited only on the ground that he did not disclose the fact that he was in occupation of certain premises on the Mall Road. Under law he was not required to disclose this fact. He was only required to disclose the factum of occupying another residential building owned by him in the urban area concerned. True it may be, that it would have been better if the landlord had disclosed all the facts but non-disclosure of a fact which he was not under law required to disclose could not in my opinion be a ground to dismiss his eviction petition.',
	(int) 44 => '<p>26. However, what are the premises in his occupation even as a tenant can be taken into consideration while deciding the question whether he bona fide requires the demised premises for his personal use or occupation or not.',
	(int) 45 => '<p>27. Lastly comes the question with regard to the bona fide requirement of the landlord. The landlord has no children. According to the landlord as well as his other witnesses i.e. his brother-in-law PW-2 and his wife PW-3, the wife now wants to come back and settle in Shimla. There is no reason to disbelieve their statements. Even according to the evidence led by the tenant the accommodation in possession of the landlord consists of two rooms, kitchen, bath room etc. Admittedly, the landlord is also having his office as an Architect in this building. The landlord belongs to the middle class of the Society. It cannot be expected of a landlord who owns sufficient property to reside in a two room set wherein he also runs his office.',
	(int) 46 => '<p>28. The law by now is well settled that the landlord is the best judge of the suitability of the accommodation required by him. This suitability has however to be judged in the context of reasonable expectations. The landlord and his wife who are both well educated can reasonably be expected to entertain guests and they will have visitors to their house. They would obviously require a drawing room, a bed room and a spare bed room for guests. Even at his residence the landlord may require another room for his professional work. This is the minimum accommodation which they would require. Even if the accommodation possessed by the landlord, though not owned by him, at 31, the Mall, Shimla is taken into consideration such accommodation is not sufficient to meet his requirements since admittedly the landlord is running his profession of Architect from some portion of his these premises.',
	(int) 47 => '<p>29. Keeping in view the entire facts and circumstances, I am of the considered view that the learned Appellate Authority gravely erred in rejecting the eviction petition of the landlord solely on the ground that he had not disclosed the factum of being in possession of the premises at 31, the Mall Shimla. Even though I have held that the said premises are residential premises, in view of the above discussion I hold that the landlord cannot be non-suited only on the ground of his being in possession of such premises since same were not owned by him.',
	(int) 48 => '<p>30. In view of the above discussion, the Revision Petition is allowed, the order of the learned Appellate Authority dated 6.5.2003 is seaside and the order of the Rent Controller dated 22.8.2001 is restored.',
	(int) 49 => '<p>31. Keeping in view the fact that the tenant has been in possession of the premises for a long period he is granted time up to 31st October, 2008 to vacate the premises.',
	(int) 50 => '<p>32. No order as to costs.<p>',
	(int) 51 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 52
$i = (int) 44
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

26. However, what are the premises in his occupation even as a tenant can be taken into consideration while deciding the question whether he bona fide requires the demised premises for his personal use or occupation or not.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Shri Arun Bhanwara Vs Shri S L Srivastava - Citation 891084 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '891084',
			'acts' => '',
			'appealno' => '',
			'appellant' => 'Shri Arun Bhanwara',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Shri Arun Bhanwara Vs. Shri S.L. Srivastava',
			'casenote' => ' - CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908.[C.A. No. 5/1908]. Order 14, Rule 2 [As amended by Amending Act of 1976]: [V.K. Gupta, CJ, Deepak Gupta & Surjit Singh, JJ] Preliminary issue of law and fact  Court framing all issues both of law and facts together and also  tried all the issues together, including the issue relating to jurisdiction of Court  Held, Except in situations perceived or warranted under sub-rule (2) of Rule 2 of Order 14 where a  Court in fact frames only issues of law in the first instance and postpones settlement of other issues, clearly and explicitly in situations where the Court has framed all issues together, both of law as well as facts and has also tried all these issues together, it is not open to the Court to adopt the principle of severability and proceed to decide issues of law first, without taking up simultaneously other issues for decision. This course of action is not available to a Court because sub-rule (1) does not permit the  Court to adopt any such principle of severability and to dispose of a suit only on preliminary issues, or what can be termed as issues of law. Sub-rule (1)  clearly mandates that in a situation contemplated under it, where all the issues have been together and have also been taken up for adjudication during the course of the trial, these must be decided together and the judgment in the suit as a whole must be pronounced by the Court covering all the issues framed in the suit.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => 'Ram Narain Arora v. Asha Rani;',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => '',
			'counseldef' => '',
			'court' => 'Himachal Pradesh',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2008-07-31',
			'deposition' => 'Petition allowed',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => ' Deepak Gupta, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">Deepak Gupta, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. This Revision Petition under Section 25(5) of the H.P. Urban Rent Control Act, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) is directed against the order of the learned Appellate Authority, Shimla in CMA No. 60-S/14 of 2001 whereby the appeal filed by the respondent (hereinafter referred to as the tenant) has been allowed, the order of the Rent Controller has been set-aside and the petition for eviction filed by the present petitioner (hereinafter referred to as the Landlord) on the ground of personal bona fide requirement has been set-aside.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The undisputed facts are that the landlord is owner of the demised premises situated in building known as Tunnel View, Sanjauli, Shimla-6 consisting of two bed rooms with attached bath room and latrine, drawing-cum-dining room, kitchen and balcony. These premises were purchased by the landlord in the year 1986. Thereafter, the landlord had rented out the premises to one Sh. B.K. Chauhan. According to the landlord, when he got married he requested Sh. B.K. Chauhan to vacate the said premises. Sh. Chauhan vacated the said premises but admittedly the landlord did not occupy the same but rented out the same to the tenant in the year 1990.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. In the year 1997 the landlord filed a petition for eviction of the tenant on two grounds; firstly that the tenant is in arrears of rent from 1.11.1990 to 31.7.1997 and secondly that the premises are bona fide required by the landlord for the use and occupation of himself and his family.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. This petition was contested by the tenant. After trial, the Rent Controller ordered the eviction of the tenant on two grounds; (i) that the tenant was in arrears of rent from November, 1999 till date of order i.e. 22nd August, 2001 and (ii) that the landlord required the premises for his own use and occupation.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. The tenant deposited the rent within the time prescribed. He also filed an appeal challenging the finding on the issue of bona fide requirement. The learned Appellate Authority came to the conclusion that the landlord had not made a proper and full disclosure of facts as required under the provisions of the Act and had withheld material facts from the Court viz. that the landlord was in occupation of residential premises on 31, Mall Road in the urban area of Shimla and as such rejected this petition on this short ground.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. Aggrieved by the said order, the landlord has filed the present Revision Petition.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. I have heard Sh. Ramakant Sharma, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sh. Bhupinder Gupta, learned senior Counsel for the tenant.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. It has been urged on behalf of the landlord that the building which is alleged to be in possession of the landlord i.e. 31, the Mall Shimla is not a residential building and secondly that the building is not owned by him.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. On the other hand Sh. Bhupinder Gupta, learned Counsel of the tenant has strenuously urged that the landlord in para 18 has not stated anything about any building being owned by him and has only made an averment that he does not own or possess any other such building within the urban area Shimla. It is contended by Sh. Bhupinder Gupta that the landlord of his own volition did not state anything about the ownership of the building and since he has kept silent about the building which he is in occupation he has made a false averment and therefore his petition for eviction has rightly been rejected.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. I am not at all in agreement with the contention of the landlord that the premises known as 31, the Mall Shimla which are admittedly in the occupation of the landlord are commercial premises only and not being used by him for his residence. As pointed out above, the landlord purchased the demised premises in 1986. They fell vacant when he got married despite that he did not occupy the same and rented out the same to the tenant in the year 1990. The question that arises is where was the landlord living for this entire period. According to the landlord after the year 1994 he has been living with his brother-in-law Rajan (wife's brother) PW-2, since the year 1994. Prior to 1994 the landlord will have this Court to believe that he was living off and on with one friend or the other. This story is impossible to believe. The landlord was married in the year 1999. He is an Architect by profession. His wife is a law graduate. It is not believable that such a person would have no permanent abode and would continue to live as a guest with his friends for almost 5 years after his marriage. Even the story that he has been living with his brother-in-law after the year 1994 does not inspire confidence. It stands proved on record that the brother-in-law PW-2 Rajan lives with his own family i.e. wife and children. From the evidence it is also clear that the parents of the brother-in-law also reside with him, His flat consists of only two rooms. The flat in possession of the landlord at 31, the Mall Shimla, also consists of two rooms, kitchen and bath room. Even assuming that he was running an office in the part of the flat it cannot be believed that he would not live on his own flat on the Mall Road and reside with his brother-in-law in cramped premises. Even in the electoral list the landlord is shown to be a resident of 31, The Mall, Shimla. Therefore, I am of the considered view that the building 31, the Mall, Shimla was also being used as a residence by the landlord.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. Having held so, the question that arises is whether the landlord can be non-suited only on the ground that he has not made any disclosure about the residential accommodation available with him which premises were admittedly not owned by him.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. The short question which arises for decision in this petition is whether the landlord was guilty of suppressing and withholding such relevant facts which would disentitle him from seeking eviction of the tenant. To appreciate these contentions it would be necessary to refer to relevant portion of Section 14(3) of the Act:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Section 14:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1 and 2 xxxxxxxxxxx</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(3) A landlord may apply to the Controller for an order directing the tenant to put the landlord in possession-</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(a) in case of residential building, if</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(i) he required it for his own occupation:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Provided that he is not occupying another residential building owned by him, in the urban area concerned:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Provided further that he has not vacated such a building without sufficient cause within five years of the filing of the application, in the said urban area....</p><p style="text-align: justify;">13. A perusal of the bare provisions of the Act makes it clear that there are certain essential ingredients which the landlord must satisfy before seeking eviction of the tenant under the Act. Not only must he prove that the residential building is bona fide required by him for his own use and occupation but he must also plead and prove that he is not occupying any other residential building owned by him in the urban area concerned and further that he has not vacated such a building without sufficient cause within 5 years of the filing of the application.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">14. Reference may now be made to the relevant allegations made in para 18 of the eviction petition:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(ii) That the petitioner bona fide requires the premises for his own use and occupation and also for the use and occupation of his family.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The petitioner does not own or possess any other such building within the urban area of Simla nor the petitioner has vacated any such premises within five years of the filing of this petition.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The family of the petitioner presently consists of himself and his wife. Due to paucity of accommodation the petitioner has not been able to keep his wife with himself at Simla, where he is working as an Engineer and she has been residing at Chandigarh since 1991 but on account of her ill health she has been brought to Simla by the petitioner. The petitioner at present is seeking temporary shelter, from time to time, with his relations.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">15. The learned Appellate Authority came to the conclusion that the landlord had falsely pleaded that he does not own or possess any other such building within the urban area of Shimla and hence rejected the eviction petition on this ground.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">16. On a close analysis of the proviso to Section 14(3)(a)(i) of the Act it is clear that a landlord is not entitled to seek eviction of a tenant from residential building even in case of bona fide requirement if the landlord is occupying another residential building owned by him in the urban area concerned. One can read three essential ingredients in this proviso i.e. (i) that the landlord is in occupation of another residential building; (ii) that the said residential building is owned by him and (iii) that the said residential building is situated in the concerned urban area.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">17. The question that arises is what is the impact of the landlord not making a disclosure in respect of premises which he is occupying but are not owned by him.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">18. The Apex Court in Onkar Nath v. Ved Vyas ILR 1979 HP 1, held as follows:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">It is common ground that there are three requirements to make out a cause of action for eviction under that provision, and indeed this is apparent from a bare reading of the sub-section. In the present case the finding is to the effect that the landlord requires the residential building for his own occupation. But, the legislation has taken care to insist upon two more conditions, namely; (a) that the landlord is not occupying any other residential building in the area concerned; and (b) that he has not vacated such a building without sufficient cause. There is not a scintilla of evidence nor indeed there is any averment in compliance with these latter conditions. The necessary consequence follows that not merely is there inadequacy of pleadings sufficient to make out a cause of action but total absence of proof of two vital requirements....</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The Supreme Court also said that:.The statute benignly designed to protect tenants from unreasonable evictions has taken case to put restrictions which must be rigorously construed to fulfil the purpose of the statute.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">19. Following the aforesaid judgment and other pronouncements of the Apex Court, a learned Single Judge of this Court in Tara Chand Sharma v. Baij Nath and Ors. 1992 (2) R.C.J. 323, held as follows:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">16. What appears as the legislative intent, in bold relief, is that the landlord, while seeking eviction of a tenant on the ground that he needs a residential building for his own occupation, must come out clearly and honestly with facts relating to the requirement that he is not occupying another residential building owned by him, in the urban area concerned and that he had not vacated such a building without sufficient cause within five years of the filing of the application, in the said urban area. The primal burden of making a clear disclosure would lie upon the landlord, for, the true facts would be in his special knowledge. An order in his favour by the Rent Controller would depend upon the satisfaction of the Rent Controller in regard not only to the claim that the landlord requires the accommodation, from which he wishes to evict a tenant, for his own occupation but also that he was not occupying another residential building owned by him nor had he vacated such building without sufficient cause within five years of the filing of the application in the application in the urban area concerned....</p><p style="text-align: justify;">It was further held as under:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">18. That the landlord should make a full disclosure of the relevant facts, pertaining to the requirements of Sub-section (3)(a)(i) and the two provisos, becomes all the more necessary because the satisfaction of the Rent Controller in regard thereto is the condition precedent for the making of an order in favour of the landlord....</p><p style="text-align: justify;">20. The aforesaid judgment has been followed in a number of other cases including Vijay Kapoor v. Maya Ram 1997 (2) RCR 437, wherein another learned single Judge of this Court following the aforesaid judgment held that the landlord must make complete and proper disclosure of all the material facts.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">21. On the other hand Sh. Ramakant Sharma has relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in Ram Narain Arora v. Asha Rani 1998(2) RCR 268. In that case the Rent Controller came to the conclusion that the landlord had suppressed material information and had not disclosed the fact that he was already in occupation of a house in Subji Mandi. Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act reads as follows:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Section 14(1)(e). That the premises let for residential purposes are required bona fide by the landlord for occupation as a residence for himself or for any member of his family dependent on him, if he is the owner thereof, or for any person for whose benefit the premises are held and that the landlord or such person has no other reasonably suitable residential accommodation.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">22. The difference between Delhi Act and the present Act is that under the Delhi Act the only requirement is that the landlord has no other reasonably suitable accommodation whereas under the Himachal Act the residential premises are required to be owned by the landlord. The Apex Court in Rama Narain Arora's case (supra) held that the nondisclosure of the fact that the landlord was in occupation of certain premises in Subji Mandi was.not a ground to non-suit the landlord in view of the facts and circumstances of the case. The Apex Court held as follows:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. In making a claim that the suit premises is required bona fide for his own occupation as a residence for himself and other members of his family dependent on him and that he has no other reasonably suitable accommodation is a requirement of law before the Court can state whether the landlord requires the premises bona fide for his use and occupation. In doing so, the Court must also find out whether the landlord or such other person for whose benefit the premises is required has no other reasonably suitable residential accommodation. It cannot be said that the requirement of the landlord is not intermixed with the question of finding out whether he has any other reasonably suitable accommodation. If he has other reasonably suitable accommodation, ihen necessarily it would mean that he does not require the suit premises and his requirement may not be bona fide. In such circumstances further inquiry would be whether that premises is more suitable than the suit premises. Therefore, the questions raised before the Court would not necessarily depend upon only the pleadings. It could be a good defence that the landlord has other reasonably suitable residential accommodation and thereby defend the claim of the landlord.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. There cannot be a pedantic or a dogmatic approach in the matter of analysis of pleadings or of the evidence adduced thereto. It is no doubt true that if the pleadings are clearly set out, it would be easy for the Court to decide the matters. But if the pleadings are lacking or vague and if both parties have understood what was the case pleaded and put forth with reference to requirement of law and placed such material before the Court, neither party is prejudiced. If we analyse from this angle, we do not think that the High Court was not justified in interfering with the order made by the Rent Controller.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">23. From the perusal of the judgment of the Apex Court it is apparent that the Rent Controller must approach the matter in a practical manner. In case the non-disclosure is such as that it goes to the very root of the case the Rent Controller would be justified in non-suiting the landlord. However, if the non-disclosure is such that it would not prejudice the rights of the respondent then the landlord should not be non-suited only on this ground.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">24. The decisions of this Court cited hereinabove were delivered prior to the judgment delivered by the Apex Court in Ram Nar'ain Arora's case. Further more both in Tara Chand Sharma's case and Vijay Kapoor's case decided by this Court, no averment had been made ixi respect of other residential buildings owned by a landlord. There was complete non-disclosure as to whether any such residential building owned by the landlord was in his possession or not. In the present case, as I have held above, the residential premises at 31, The Mall, Shimla was not owned by the landlord and hence these two earlier judgments of this Court are distinguishable on facts also.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">25. In the present case, the landlord has been non-suited only on the ground that he did not disclose the fact that he was in occupation of certain premises on the Mall Road. Under law he was not required to disclose this fact. He was only required to disclose the factum of occupying another residential building owned by him in the urban area concerned. True it may be, that it would have been better if the landlord had disclosed all the facts but non-disclosure of a fact which he was not under law required to disclose could not in my opinion be a ground to dismiss his eviction petition.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">26. However, what are the premises in his occupation even as a tenant can be taken into consideration while deciding the question whether he bona fide requires the demised premises for his personal use or occupation or not.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">27. Lastly comes the question with regard to the bona fide requirement of the landlord. The landlord has no children. According to the landlord as well as his other witnesses i.e. his brother-in-law PW-2 and his wife PW-3, the wife now wants to come back and settle in Shimla. There is no reason to disbelieve their statements. Even according to the evidence led by the tenant the accommodation in possession of the landlord consists of two rooms, kitchen, bath room etc. Admittedly, the landlord is also having his office as an Architect in this building. The landlord belongs to the middle class of the Society. It cannot be expected of a landlord who owns sufficient property to reside in a two room set wherein he also runs his office.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">28. The law by now is well settled that the landlord is the best judge of the suitability of the accommodation required by him. This suitability has however to be judged in the context of reasonable expectations. The landlord and his wife who are both well educated can reasonably be expected to entertain guests and they will have visitors to their house. They would obviously require a drawing room, a bed room and a spare bed room for guests. Even at his residence the landlord may require another room for his professional work. This is the minimum accommodation which they would require. Even if the accommodation possessed by the landlord, though not owned by him, at 31, the Mall, Shimla is taken into consideration such accommodation is not sufficient to meet his requirements since admittedly the landlord is running his profession of Architect from some portion of his these premises.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">29. Keeping in view the entire facts and circumstances, I am of the considered view that the learned Appellate Authority gravely erred in rejecting the eviction petition of the landlord solely on the ground that he had not disclosed the factum of being in possession of the premises at 31, the Mall Shimla. Even though I have held that the said premises are residential premises, in view of the above discussion I hold that the landlord cannot be non-suited only on the ground of his being in possession of such premises since same were not owned by him.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">30. In view of the above discussion, the Revision Petition is allowed, the order of the learned Appellate Authority dated 6.5.2003 is seaside and the order of the Rent Controller dated 22.8.2001 is restored.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">31. Keeping in view the fact that the tenant has been in possession of the premises for a long period he is granted time up to 31st October, 2008 to vacate the premises.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">32. No order as to costs.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '2008(2)ShimLC491',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'Shri S.L. Srivastava',
			'sub' => 'Tenancy',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'shri-arun-bhanwara-vs-s-l-srivastava',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '891084',
		(int) 1 => 'shri-arun-bhanwara-vs-s-l-srivastava'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Shri Arun Bhanwara Vs Shri S L Srivastava - Citation 891084 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '891084',
		'acts' => '',
		'appealno' => '',
		'appellant' => 'Shri Arun Bhanwara',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Shri Arun Bhanwara Vs. Shri S.L. Srivastava',
		'casenote' => ' - CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908.[C.A. No. 5/1908]. Order 14, Rule 2 [As amended by Amending Act of 1976]: [V.K. Gupta, CJ, Deepak Gupta & Surjit Singh, JJ] Preliminary issue of law and fact  Court framing all issues both of law and facts together and also  tried all the issues together, including the issue relating to jurisdiction of Court  Held, Except in situations perceived or warranted under sub-rule (2) of Rule 2 of Order 14 where a  Court in fact frames only issues of law in the first instance and postpones settlement of other issues, clearly and explicitly in situations where the Court has framed all issues together, both of law as well as facts and has also tried all these issues together, it is not open to the Court to adopt the principle of severability and proceed to decide issues of law first, without taking up simultaneously other issues for decision. This course of action is not available to a Court because sub-rule (1) does not permit the  Court to adopt any such principle of severability and to dispose of a suit only on preliminary issues, or what can be termed as issues of law. Sub-rule (1)  clearly mandates that in a situation contemplated under it, where all the issues have been together and have also been taken up for adjudication during the course of the trial, these must be decided together and the judgment in the suit as a whole must be pronounced by the Court covering all the issues framed in the suit.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => 'Ram Narain Arora v. Asha Rani;',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => '',
		'counseldef' => '',
		'court' => 'Himachal Pradesh',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2008-07-31',
		'deposition' => 'Petition allowed',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => ' Deepak Gupta, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>Deepak Gupta, J.</p><p>1. This Revision Petition under Section 25(5) of the H.P. Urban Rent Control Act, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) is directed against the order of the learned Appellate Authority, Shimla in CMA No. 60-S/14 of 2001 whereby the appeal filed by the respondent (hereinafter referred to as the tenant) has been allowed, the order of the Rent Controller has been set-aside and the petition for eviction filed by the present petitioner (hereinafter referred to as the Landlord) on the ground of personal bona fide requirement has been set-aside.</p><p>2. The undisputed facts are that the landlord is owner of the demised premises situated in building known as Tunnel View, Sanjauli, Shimla-6 consisting of two bed rooms with attached bath room and latrine, drawing-cum-dining room, kitchen and balcony. These premises were purchased by the landlord in the year 1986. Thereafter, the landlord had rented out the premises to one Sh. B.K. Chauhan. According to the landlord, when he got married he requested Sh. B.K. Chauhan to vacate the said premises. Sh. Chauhan vacated the said premises but admittedly the landlord did not occupy the same but rented out the same to the tenant in the year 1990.</p><p>3. In the year 1997 the landlord filed a petition for eviction of the tenant on two grounds; firstly that the tenant is in arrears of rent from 1.11.1990 to 31.7.1997 and secondly that the premises are bona fide required by the landlord for the use and occupation of himself and his family.</p><p>4. This petition was contested by the tenant. After trial, the Rent Controller ordered the eviction of the tenant on two grounds; (i) that the tenant was in arrears of rent from November, 1999 till date of order i.e. 22nd August, 2001 and (ii) that the landlord required the premises for his own use and occupation.</p><p>5. The tenant deposited the rent within the time prescribed. He also filed an appeal challenging the finding on the issue of bona fide requirement. The learned Appellate Authority came to the conclusion that the landlord had not made a proper and full disclosure of facts as required under the provisions of the Act and had withheld material facts from the Court viz. that the landlord was in occupation of residential premises on 31, Mall Road in the urban area of Shimla and as such rejected this petition on this short ground.</p><p>6. Aggrieved by the said order, the landlord has filed the present Revision Petition.</p><p>7. I have heard Sh. Ramakant Sharma, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sh. Bhupinder Gupta, learned senior Counsel for the tenant.</p><p>8. It has been urged on behalf of the landlord that the building which is alleged to be in possession of the landlord i.e. 31, the Mall Shimla is not a residential building and secondly that the building is not owned by him.</p><p>9. On the other hand Sh. Bhupinder Gupta, learned Counsel of the tenant has strenuously urged that the landlord in para 18 has not stated anything about any building being owned by him and has only made an averment that he does not own or possess any other such building within the urban area Shimla. It is contended by Sh. Bhupinder Gupta that the landlord of his own volition did not state anything about the ownership of the building and since he has kept silent about the building which he is in occupation he has made a false averment and therefore his petition for eviction has rightly been rejected.</p><p>10. I am not at all in agreement with the contention of the landlord that the premises known as 31, the Mall Shimla which are admittedly in the occupation of the landlord are commercial premises only and not being used by him for his residence. As pointed out above, the landlord purchased the demised premises in 1986. They fell vacant when he got married despite that he did not occupy the same and rented out the same to the tenant in the year 1990. The question that arises is where was the landlord living for this entire period. According to the landlord after the year 1994 he has been living with his brother-in-law Rajan (wife's brother) PW-2, since the year 1994. Prior to 1994 the landlord will have this Court to believe that he was living off and on with one friend or the other. This story is impossible to believe. The landlord was married in the year 1999. He is an Architect by profession. His wife is a law graduate. It is not believable that such a person would have no permanent abode and would continue to live as a guest with his friends for almost 5 years after his marriage. Even the story that he has been living with his brother-in-law after the year 1994 does not inspire confidence. It stands proved on record that the brother-in-law PW-2 Rajan lives with his own family i.e. wife and children. From the evidence it is also clear that the parents of the brother-in-law also reside with him, His flat consists of only two rooms. The flat in possession of the landlord at 31, the Mall Shimla, also consists of two rooms, kitchen and bath room. Even assuming that he was running an office in the part of the flat it cannot be believed that he would not live on his own flat on the Mall Road and reside with his brother-in-law in cramped premises. Even in the electoral list the landlord is shown to be a resident of 31, The Mall, Shimla. Therefore, I am of the considered view that the building 31, the Mall, Shimla was also being used as a residence by the landlord.</p><p>11. Having held so, the question that arises is whether the landlord can be non-suited only on the ground that he has not made any disclosure about the residential accommodation available with him which premises were admittedly not owned by him.</p><p>12. The short question which arises for decision in this petition is whether the landlord was guilty of suppressing and withholding such relevant facts which would disentitle him from seeking eviction of the tenant. To appreciate these contentions it would be necessary to refer to relevant portion of Section 14(3) of the Act:</p><p>Section 14:</p><p>1 and 2 xxxxxxxxxxx</p><p>(3) A landlord may apply to the Controller for an order directing the tenant to put the landlord in possession-</p><p>(a) in case of residential building, if</p><p>(i) he required it for his own occupation:</p><p>Provided that he is not occupying another residential building owned by him, in the urban area concerned:</p><p>Provided further that he has not vacated such a building without sufficient cause within five years of the filing of the application, in the said urban area....</p><p>13. A perusal of the bare provisions of the Act makes it clear that there are certain essential ingredients which the landlord must satisfy before seeking eviction of the tenant under the Act. Not only must he prove that the residential building is bona fide required by him for his own use and occupation but he must also plead and prove that he is not occupying any other residential building owned by him in the urban area concerned and further that he has not vacated such a building without sufficient cause within 5 years of the filing of the application.</p><p>14. Reference may now be made to the relevant allegations made in para 18 of the eviction petition:</p><p>(ii) That the petitioner bona fide requires the premises for his own use and occupation and also for the use and occupation of his family.</p><p>The petitioner does not own or possess any other such building within the urban area of Simla nor the petitioner has vacated any such premises within five years of the filing of this petition.</p><p>The family of the petitioner presently consists of himself and his wife. Due to paucity of accommodation the petitioner has not been able to keep his wife with himself at Simla, where he is working as an Engineer and she has been residing at Chandigarh since 1991 but on account of her ill health she has been brought to Simla by the petitioner. The petitioner at present is seeking temporary shelter, from time to time, with his relations.</p><p>15. The learned Appellate Authority came to the conclusion that the landlord had falsely pleaded that he does not own or possess any other such building within the urban area of Shimla and hence rejected the eviction petition on this ground.</p><p>16. On a close analysis of the proviso to Section 14(3)(a)(i) of the Act it is clear that a landlord is not entitled to seek eviction of a tenant from residential building even in case of bona fide requirement if the landlord is occupying another residential building owned by him in the urban area concerned. One can read three essential ingredients in this proviso i.e. (i) that the landlord is in occupation of another residential building; (ii) that the said residential building is owned by him and (iii) that the said residential building is situated in the concerned urban area.</p><p>17. The question that arises is what is the impact of the landlord not making a disclosure in respect of premises which he is occupying but are not owned by him.</p><p>18. The Apex Court in Onkar Nath v. Ved Vyas ILR 1979 HP 1, held as follows:</p><p>It is common ground that there are three requirements to make out a cause of action for eviction under that provision, and indeed this is apparent from a bare reading of the sub-section. In the present case the finding is to the effect that the landlord requires the residential building for his own occupation. But, the legislation has taken care to insist upon two more conditions, namely; (a) that the landlord is not occupying any other residential building in the area concerned; and (b) that he has not vacated such a building without sufficient cause. There is not a scintilla of evidence nor indeed there is any averment in compliance with these latter conditions. The necessary consequence follows that not merely is there inadequacy of pleadings sufficient to make out a cause of action but total absence of proof of two vital requirements....</p><p>The Supreme Court also said that:.The statute benignly designed to protect tenants from unreasonable evictions has taken case to put restrictions which must be rigorously construed to fulfil the purpose of the statute.</p><p>19. Following the aforesaid judgment and other pronouncements of the Apex Court, a learned Single Judge of this Court in Tara Chand Sharma v. Baij Nath and Ors. 1992 (2) R.C.J. 323, held as follows:</p><p>16. What appears as the legislative intent, in bold relief, is that the landlord, while seeking eviction of a tenant on the ground that he needs a residential building for his own occupation, must come out clearly and honestly with facts relating to the requirement that he is not occupying another residential building owned by him, in the urban area concerned and that he had not vacated such a building without sufficient cause within five years of the filing of the application, in the said urban area. The primal burden of making a clear disclosure would lie upon the landlord, for, the true facts would be in his special knowledge. An order in his favour by the Rent Controller would depend upon the satisfaction of the Rent Controller in regard not only to the claim that the landlord requires the accommodation, from which he wishes to evict a tenant, for his own occupation but also that he was not occupying another residential building owned by him nor had he vacated such building without sufficient cause within five years of the filing of the application in the application in the urban area concerned....</p><p>It was further held as under:</p><p>18. That the landlord should make a full disclosure of the relevant facts, pertaining to the requirements of Sub-section (3)(a)(i) and the two provisos, becomes all the more necessary because the satisfaction of the Rent Controller in regard thereto is the condition precedent for the making of an order in favour of the landlord....</p><p>20. The aforesaid judgment has been followed in a number of other cases including Vijay Kapoor v. Maya Ram 1997 (2) RCR 437, wherein another learned single Judge of this Court following the aforesaid judgment held that the landlord must make complete and proper disclosure of all the material facts.</p><p>21. On the other hand Sh. Ramakant Sharma has relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in Ram Narain Arora v. Asha Rani 1998(2) RCR 268. In that case the Rent Controller came to the conclusion that the landlord had suppressed material information and had not disclosed the fact that he was already in occupation of a house in Subji Mandi. Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act reads as follows:</p><p>Section 14(1)(e). That the premises let for residential purposes are required bona fide by the landlord for occupation as a residence for himself or for any member of his family dependent on him, if he is the owner thereof, or for any person for whose benefit the premises are held and that the landlord or such person has no other reasonably suitable residential accommodation.</p><p>22. The difference between Delhi Act and the present Act is that under the Delhi Act the only requirement is that the landlord has no other reasonably suitable accommodation whereas under the Himachal Act the residential premises are required to be owned by the landlord. The Apex Court in Rama Narain Arora's case (supra) held that the nondisclosure of the fact that the landlord was in occupation of certain premises in Subji Mandi was.not a ground to non-suit the landlord in view of the facts and circumstances of the case. The Apex Court held as follows:</p><p>9. In making a claim that the suit premises is required bona fide for his own occupation as a residence for himself and other members of his family dependent on him and that he has no other reasonably suitable accommodation is a requirement of law before the Court can state whether the landlord requires the premises bona fide for his use and occupation. In doing so, the Court must also find out whether the landlord or such other person for whose benefit the premises is required has no other reasonably suitable residential accommodation. It cannot be said that the requirement of the landlord is not intermixed with the question of finding out whether he has any other reasonably suitable accommodation. If he has other reasonably suitable accommodation, ihen necessarily it would mean that he does not require the suit premises and his requirement may not be bona fide. In such circumstances further inquiry would be whether that premises is more suitable than the suit premises. Therefore, the questions raised before the Court would not necessarily depend upon only the pleadings. It could be a good defence that the landlord has other reasonably suitable residential accommodation and thereby defend the claim of the landlord.</p><p>10. There cannot be a pedantic or a dogmatic approach in the matter of analysis of pleadings or of the evidence adduced thereto. It is no doubt true that if the pleadings are clearly set out, it would be easy for the Court to decide the matters. But if the pleadings are lacking or vague and if both parties have understood what was the case pleaded and put forth with reference to requirement of law and placed such material before the Court, neither party is prejudiced. If we analyse from this angle, we do not think that the High Court was not justified in interfering with the order made by the Rent Controller.</p><p>23. From the perusal of the judgment of the Apex Court it is apparent that the Rent Controller must approach the matter in a practical manner. In case the non-disclosure is such as that it goes to the very root of the case the Rent Controller would be justified in non-suiting the landlord. However, if the non-disclosure is such that it would not prejudice the rights of the respondent then the landlord should not be non-suited only on this ground.</p><p>24. The decisions of this Court cited hereinabove were delivered prior to the judgment delivered by the Apex Court in Ram Nar'ain Arora's case. Further more both in Tara Chand Sharma's case and Vijay Kapoor's case decided by this Court, no averment had been made ixi respect of other residential buildings owned by a landlord. There was complete non-disclosure as to whether any such residential building owned by the landlord was in his possession or not. In the present case, as I have held above, the residential premises at 31, The Mall, Shimla was not owned by the landlord and hence these two earlier judgments of this Court are distinguishable on facts also.</p><p>25. In the present case, the landlord has been non-suited only on the ground that he did not disclose the fact that he was in occupation of certain premises on the Mall Road. Under law he was not required to disclose this fact. He was only required to disclose the factum of occupying another residential building owned by him in the urban area concerned. True it may be, that it would have been better if the landlord had disclosed all the facts but non-disclosure of a fact which he was not under law required to disclose could not in my opinion be a ground to dismiss his eviction petition.</p><p>26. However, what are the premises in his occupation even as a tenant can be taken into consideration while deciding the question whether he bona fide requires the demised premises for his personal use or occupation or not.</p><p>27. Lastly comes the question with regard to the bona fide requirement of the landlord. The landlord has no children. According to the landlord as well as his other witnesses i.e. his brother-in-law PW-2 and his wife PW-3, the wife now wants to come back and settle in Shimla. There is no reason to disbelieve their statements. Even according to the evidence led by the tenant the accommodation in possession of the landlord consists of two rooms, kitchen, bath room etc. Admittedly, the landlord is also having his office as an Architect in this building. The landlord belongs to the middle class of the Society. It cannot be expected of a landlord who owns sufficient property to reside in a two room set wherein he also runs his office.</p><p>28. The law by now is well settled that the landlord is the best judge of the suitability of the accommodation required by him. This suitability has however to be judged in the context of reasonable expectations. The landlord and his wife who are both well educated can reasonably be expected to entertain guests and they will have visitors to their house. They would obviously require a drawing room, a bed room and a spare bed room for guests. Even at his residence the landlord may require another room for his professional work. This is the minimum accommodation which they would require. Even if the accommodation possessed by the landlord, though not owned by him, at 31, the Mall, Shimla is taken into consideration such accommodation is not sufficient to meet his requirements since admittedly the landlord is running his profession of Architect from some portion of his these premises.</p><p>29. Keeping in view the entire facts and circumstances, I am of the considered view that the learned Appellate Authority gravely erred in rejecting the eviction petition of the landlord solely on the ground that he had not disclosed the factum of being in possession of the premises at 31, the Mall Shimla. Even though I have held that the said premises are residential premises, in view of the above discussion I hold that the landlord cannot be non-suited only on the ground of his being in possession of such premises since same were not owned by him.</p><p>30. In view of the above discussion, the Revision Petition is allowed, the order of the learned Appellate Authority dated 6.5.2003 is seaside and the order of the Rent Controller dated 22.8.2001 is restored.</p><p>31. Keeping in view the fact that the tenant has been in possession of the premises for a long period he is granted time up to 31st October, 2008 to vacate the premises.</p><p>32. No order as to costs.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '2008(2)ShimLC491',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'Shri S.L. Srivastava',
		'sub' => 'Tenancy',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'shri-arun-bhanwara-vs-s-l-srivastava'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '891084',
	(int) 1 => 'shri-arun-bhanwara-vs-s-l-srivastava'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/891084/shri-arun-bhanwara-vs-s-l-srivastava'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$caseref = 'Ram Narain Arora v. Asha Rani<br>'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>Deepak Gupta, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. This Revision Petition under Section 25(5) of the H.P. Urban Rent Control Act, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) is directed against the order of the learned Appellate Authority, Shimla in CMA No. 60-S/14 of 2001 whereby the appeal filed by the respondent (hereinafter referred to as the tenant) has been allowed, the order of the Rent Controller has been set-aside and the petition for eviction filed by the present petitioner (hereinafter referred to as the Landlord) on the ground of personal bona fide requirement has been set-aside.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. The undisputed facts are that the landlord is owner of the demised premises situated in building known as Tunnel View, Sanjauli, Shimla-6 consisting of two bed rooms with attached bath room and latrine, drawing-cum-dining room, kitchen and balcony. These premises were purchased by the landlord in the year 1986. Thereafter, the landlord had rented out the premises to one Sh. B.K. Chauhan. According to the landlord, when he got married he requested Sh. B.K. Chauhan to vacate the said premises. Sh. Chauhan vacated the said premises but admittedly the landlord did not occupy the same but rented out the same to the tenant in the year 1990.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. In the year 1997 the landlord filed a petition for eviction of the tenant on two grounds; firstly that the tenant is in arrears of rent from 1.11.1990 to 31.7.1997 and secondly that the premises are bona fide required by the landlord for the use and occupation of himself and his family.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>4. This petition was contested by the tenant. After trial, the Rent Controller ordered the eviction of the tenant on two grounds; (i) that the tenant was in arrears of rent from November, 1999 till date of order i.e. 22nd August, 2001 and (ii) that the landlord required the premises for his own use and occupation.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>5. The tenant deposited the rent within the time prescribed. He also filed an appeal challenging the finding on the issue of bona fide requirement. The learned Appellate Authority came to the conclusion that the landlord had not made a proper and full disclosure of facts as required under the provisions of the Act and had withheld material facts from the Court viz. that the landlord was in occupation of residential premises on 31, Mall Road in the urban area of Shimla and as such rejected this petition on this short ground.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>6. Aggrieved by the said order, the landlord has filed the present Revision Petition.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>7. I have heard Sh. Ramakant Sharma, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sh. Bhupinder Gupta, learned senior Counsel for the tenant.',
	(int) 8 => '<p>8. It has been urged on behalf of the landlord that the building which is alleged to be in possession of the landlord i.e. 31, the Mall Shimla is not a residential building and secondly that the building is not owned by him.',
	(int) 9 => '<p>9. On the other hand Sh. Bhupinder Gupta, learned Counsel of the tenant has strenuously urged that the landlord in para 18 has not stated anything about any building being owned by him and has only made an averment that he does not own or possess any other such building within the urban area Shimla. It is contended by Sh. Bhupinder Gupta that the landlord of his own volition did not state anything about the ownership of the building and since he has kept silent about the building which he is in occupation he has made a false averment and therefore his petition for eviction has rightly been rejected.',
	(int) 10 => '<p>10. I am not at all in agreement with the contention of the landlord that the premises known as 31, the Mall Shimla which are admittedly in the occupation of the landlord are commercial premises only and not being used by him for his residence. As pointed out above, the landlord purchased the demised premises in 1986. They fell vacant when he got married despite that he did not occupy the same and rented out the same to the tenant in the year 1990. The question that arises is where was the landlord living for this entire period. According to the landlord after the year 1994 he has been living with his brother-in-law Rajan (wife's brother) PW-2, since the year 1994. Prior to 1994 the landlord will have this Court to believe that he was living off and on with one friend or the other. This story is impossible to believe. The landlord was married in the year 1999. He is an Architect by profession. His wife is a law graduate. It is not believable that such a person would have no permanent abode and would continue to live as a guest with his friends for almost 5 years after his marriage. Even the story that he has been living with his brother-in-law after the year 1994 does not inspire confidence. It stands proved on record that the brother-in-law PW-2 Rajan lives with his own family i.e. wife and children. From the evidence it is also clear that the parents of the brother-in-law also reside with him, His flat consists of only two rooms. The flat in possession of the landlord at 31, the Mall Shimla, also consists of two rooms, kitchen and bath room. Even assuming that he was running an office in the part of the flat it cannot be believed that he would not live on his own flat on the Mall Road and reside with his brother-in-law in cramped premises. Even in the electoral list the landlord is shown to be a resident of 31, The Mall, Shimla. Therefore, I am of the considered view that the building 31, the Mall, Shimla was also being used as a residence by the landlord.',
	(int) 11 => '<p>11. Having held so, the question that arises is whether the landlord can be non-suited only on the ground that he has not made any disclosure about the residential accommodation available with him which premises were admittedly not owned by him.',
	(int) 12 => '<p>12. The short question which arises for decision in this petition is whether the landlord was guilty of suppressing and withholding such relevant facts which would disentitle him from seeking eviction of the tenant. To appreciate these contentions it would be necessary to refer to relevant portion of Section 14(3) of the Act:',
	(int) 13 => '<p>Section 14:',
	(int) 14 => '<p>1 and 2 xxxxxxxxxxx',
	(int) 15 => '<p>(3) A landlord may apply to the Controller for an order directing the tenant to put the landlord in possession-',
	(int) 16 => '<p>(a) in case of residential building, if',
	(int) 17 => '<p>(i) he required it for his own occupation:',
	(int) 18 => '<p>Provided that he is not occupying another residential building owned by him, in the urban area concerned:',
	(int) 19 => '<p>Provided further that he has not vacated such a building without sufficient cause within five years of the filing of the application, in the said urban area....',
	(int) 20 => '<p>13. A perusal of the bare provisions of the Act makes it clear that there are certain essential ingredients which the landlord must satisfy before seeking eviction of the tenant under the Act. Not only must he prove that the residential building is bona fide required by him for his own use and occupation but he must also plead and prove that he is not occupying any other residential building owned by him in the urban area concerned and further that he has not vacated such a building without sufficient cause within 5 years of the filing of the application.',
	(int) 21 => '<p>14. Reference may now be made to the relevant allegations made in para 18 of the eviction petition:',
	(int) 22 => '<p>(ii) That the petitioner bona fide requires the premises for his own use and occupation and also for the use and occupation of his family.',
	(int) 23 => '<p>The petitioner does not own or possess any other such building within the urban area of Simla nor the petitioner has vacated any such premises within five years of the filing of this petition.',
	(int) 24 => '<p>The family of the petitioner presently consists of himself and his wife. Due to paucity of accommodation the petitioner has not been able to keep his wife with himself at Simla, where he is working as an Engineer and she has been residing at Chandigarh since 1991 but on account of her ill health she has been brought to Simla by the petitioner. The petitioner at present is seeking temporary shelter, from time to time, with his relations.',
	(int) 25 => '<p>15. The learned Appellate Authority came to the conclusion that the landlord had falsely pleaded that he does not own or possess any other such building within the urban area of Shimla and hence rejected the eviction petition on this ground.',
	(int) 26 => '<p>16. On a close analysis of the proviso to Section 14(3)(a)(i) of the Act it is clear that a landlord is not entitled to seek eviction of a tenant from residential building even in case of bona fide requirement if the landlord is occupying another residential building owned by him in the urban area concerned. One can read three essential ingredients in this proviso i.e. (i) that the landlord is in occupation of another residential building; (ii) that the said residential building is owned by him and (iii) that the said residential building is situated in the concerned urban area.',
	(int) 27 => '<p>17. The question that arises is what is the impact of the landlord not making a disclosure in respect of premises which he is occupying but are not owned by him.',
	(int) 28 => '<p>18. The Apex Court in Onkar Nath v. Ved Vyas ILR 1979 HP 1, held as follows:',
	(int) 29 => '<p>It is common ground that there are three requirements to make out a cause of action for eviction under that provision, and indeed this is apparent from a bare reading of the sub-section. In the present case the finding is to the effect that the landlord requires the residential building for his own occupation. But, the legislation has taken care to insist upon two more conditions, namely; (a) that the landlord is not occupying any other residential building in the area concerned; and (b) that he has not vacated such a building without sufficient cause. There is not a scintilla of evidence nor indeed there is any averment in compliance with these latter conditions. The necessary consequence follows that not merely is there inadequacy of pleadings sufficient to make out a cause of action but total absence of proof of two vital requirements....',
	(int) 30 => '<p>The Supreme Court also said that:.The statute benignly designed to protect tenants from unreasonable evictions has taken case to put restrictions which must be rigorously construed to fulfil the purpose of the statute.',
	(int) 31 => '<p>19. Following the aforesaid judgment and other pronouncements of the Apex Court, a learned Single Judge of this Court in Tara Chand Sharma v. Baij Nath and Ors. 1992 (2) R.C.J. 323, held as follows:',
	(int) 32 => '<p>16. What appears as the legislative intent, in bold relief, is that the landlord, while seeking eviction of a tenant on the ground that he needs a residential building for his own occupation, must come out clearly and honestly with facts relating to the requirement that he is not occupying another residential building owned by him, in the urban area concerned and that he had not vacated such a building without sufficient cause within five years of the filing of the application, in the said urban area. The primal burden of making a clear disclosure would lie upon the landlord, for, the true facts would be in his special knowledge. An order in his favour by the Rent Controller would depend upon the satisfaction of the Rent Controller in regard not only to the claim that the landlord requires the accommodation, from which he wishes to evict a tenant, for his own occupation but also that he was not occupying another residential building owned by him nor had he vacated such building without sufficient cause within five years of the filing of the application in the application in the urban area concerned....',
	(int) 33 => '<p>It was further held as under:',
	(int) 34 => '<p>18. That the landlord should make a full disclosure of the relevant facts, pertaining to the requirements of Sub-section (3)(a)(i) and the two provisos, becomes all the more necessary because the satisfaction of the Rent Controller in regard thereto is the condition precedent for the making of an order in favour of the landlord....',
	(int) 35 => '<p>20. The aforesaid judgment has been followed in a number of other cases including Vijay Kapoor v. Maya Ram 1997 (2) RCR 437, wherein another learned single Judge of this Court following the aforesaid judgment held that the landlord must make complete and proper disclosure of all the material facts.',
	(int) 36 => '<p>21. On the other hand Sh. Ramakant Sharma has relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in Ram Narain Arora v. Asha Rani 1998(2) RCR 268. In that case the Rent Controller came to the conclusion that the landlord had suppressed material information and had not disclosed the fact that he was already in occupation of a house in Subji Mandi. Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act reads as follows:',
	(int) 37 => '<p>Section 14(1)(e). That the premises let for residential purposes are required bona fide by the landlord for occupation as a residence for himself or for any member of his family dependent on him, if he is the owner thereof, or for any person for whose benefit the premises are held and that the landlord or such person has no other reasonably suitable residential accommodation.',
	(int) 38 => '<p>22. The difference between Delhi Act and the present Act is that under the Delhi Act the only requirement is that the landlord has no other reasonably suitable accommodation whereas under the Himachal Act the residential premises are required to be owned by the landlord. The Apex Court in Rama Narain Arora's case (supra) held that the nondisclosure of the fact that the landlord was in occupation of certain premises in Subji Mandi was.not a ground to non-suit the landlord in view of the facts and circumstances of the case. The Apex Court held as follows:',
	(int) 39 => '<p>9. In making a claim that the suit premises is required bona fide for his own occupation as a residence for himself and other members of his family dependent on him and that he has no other reasonably suitable accommodation is a requirement of law before the Court can state whether the landlord requires the premises bona fide for his use and occupation. In doing so, the Court must also find out whether the landlord or such other person for whose benefit the premises is required has no other reasonably suitable residential accommodation. It cannot be said that the requirement of the landlord is not intermixed with the question of finding out whether he has any other reasonably suitable accommodation. If he has other reasonably suitable accommodation, ihen necessarily it would mean that he does not require the suit premises and his requirement may not be bona fide. In such circumstances further inquiry would be whether that premises is more suitable than the suit premises. Therefore, the questions raised before the Court would not necessarily depend upon only the pleadings. It could be a good defence that the landlord has other reasonably suitable residential accommodation and thereby defend the claim of the landlord.',
	(int) 40 => '<p>10. There cannot be a pedantic or a dogmatic approach in the matter of analysis of pleadings or of the evidence adduced thereto. It is no doubt true that if the pleadings are clearly set out, it would be easy for the Court to decide the matters. But if the pleadings are lacking or vague and if both parties have understood what was the case pleaded and put forth with reference to requirement of law and placed such material before the Court, neither party is prejudiced. If we analyse from this angle, we do not think that the High Court was not justified in interfering with the order made by the Rent Controller.',
	(int) 41 => '<p>23. From the perusal of the judgment of the Apex Court it is apparent that the Rent Controller must approach the matter in a practical manner. In case the non-disclosure is such as that it goes to the very root of the case the Rent Controller would be justified in non-suiting the landlord. However, if the non-disclosure is such that it would not prejudice the rights of the respondent then the landlord should not be non-suited only on this ground.',
	(int) 42 => '<p>24. The decisions of this Court cited hereinabove were delivered prior to the judgment delivered by the Apex Court in Ram Nar'ain Arora's case. Further more both in Tara Chand Sharma's case and Vijay Kapoor's case decided by this Court, no averment had been made ixi respect of other residential buildings owned by a landlord. There was complete non-disclosure as to whether any such residential building owned by the landlord was in his possession or not. In the present case, as I have held above, the residential premises at 31, The Mall, Shimla was not owned by the landlord and hence these two earlier judgments of this Court are distinguishable on facts also.',
	(int) 43 => '<p>25. In the present case, the landlord has been non-suited only on the ground that he did not disclose the fact that he was in occupation of certain premises on the Mall Road. Under law he was not required to disclose this fact. He was only required to disclose the factum of occupying another residential building owned by him in the urban area concerned. True it may be, that it would have been better if the landlord had disclosed all the facts but non-disclosure of a fact which he was not under law required to disclose could not in my opinion be a ground to dismiss his eviction petition.',
	(int) 44 => '<p>26. However, what are the premises in his occupation even as a tenant can be taken into consideration while deciding the question whether he bona fide requires the demised premises for his personal use or occupation or not.',
	(int) 45 => '<p>27. Lastly comes the question with regard to the bona fide requirement of the landlord. The landlord has no children. According to the landlord as well as his other witnesses i.e. his brother-in-law PW-2 and his wife PW-3, the wife now wants to come back and settle in Shimla. There is no reason to disbelieve their statements. Even according to the evidence led by the tenant the accommodation in possession of the landlord consists of two rooms, kitchen, bath room etc. Admittedly, the landlord is also having his office as an Architect in this building. The landlord belongs to the middle class of the Society. It cannot be expected of a landlord who owns sufficient property to reside in a two room set wherein he also runs his office.',
	(int) 46 => '<p>28. The law by now is well settled that the landlord is the best judge of the suitability of the accommodation required by him. This suitability has however to be judged in the context of reasonable expectations. The landlord and his wife who are both well educated can reasonably be expected to entertain guests and they will have visitors to their house. They would obviously require a drawing room, a bed room and a spare bed room for guests. Even at his residence the landlord may require another room for his professional work. This is the minimum accommodation which they would require. Even if the accommodation possessed by the landlord, though not owned by him, at 31, the Mall, Shimla is taken into consideration such accommodation is not sufficient to meet his requirements since admittedly the landlord is running his profession of Architect from some portion of his these premises.',
	(int) 47 => '<p>29. Keeping in view the entire facts and circumstances, I am of the considered view that the learned Appellate Authority gravely erred in rejecting the eviction petition of the landlord solely on the ground that he had not disclosed the factum of being in possession of the premises at 31, the Mall Shimla. Even though I have held that the said premises are residential premises, in view of the above discussion I hold that the landlord cannot be non-suited only on the ground of his being in possession of such premises since same were not owned by him.',
	(int) 48 => '<p>30. In view of the above discussion, the Revision Petition is allowed, the order of the learned Appellate Authority dated 6.5.2003 is seaside and the order of the Rent Controller dated 22.8.2001 is restored.',
	(int) 49 => '<p>31. Keeping in view the fact that the tenant has been in possession of the premises for a long period he is granted time up to 31st October, 2008 to vacate the premises.',
	(int) 50 => '<p>32. No order as to costs.<p>',
	(int) 51 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 52
$i = (int) 45
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

27. Lastly comes the question with regard to the bona fide requirement of the landlord. The landlord has no children. According to the landlord as well as his other witnesses i.e. his brother-in-law PW-2 and his wife PW-3, the wife now wants to come back and settle in Shimla. There is no reason to disbelieve their statements. Even according to the evidence led by the tenant the accommodation in possession of the landlord consists of two rooms, kitchen, bath room etc. Admittedly, the landlord is also having his office as an Architect in this building. The landlord belongs to the middle class of the Society. It cannot be expected of a landlord who owns sufficient property to reside in a two room set wherein he also runs his office.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Shri Arun Bhanwara Vs Shri S L Srivastava - Citation 891084 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '891084',
			'acts' => '',
			'appealno' => '',
			'appellant' => 'Shri Arun Bhanwara',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Shri Arun Bhanwara Vs. Shri S.L. Srivastava',
			'casenote' => ' - CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908.[C.A. No. 5/1908]. Order 14, Rule 2 [As amended by Amending Act of 1976]: [V.K. Gupta, CJ, Deepak Gupta & Surjit Singh, JJ] Preliminary issue of law and fact  Court framing all issues both of law and facts together and also  tried all the issues together, including the issue relating to jurisdiction of Court  Held, Except in situations perceived or warranted under sub-rule (2) of Rule 2 of Order 14 where a  Court in fact frames only issues of law in the first instance and postpones settlement of other issues, clearly and explicitly in situations where the Court has framed all issues together, both of law as well as facts and has also tried all these issues together, it is not open to the Court to adopt the principle of severability and proceed to decide issues of law first, without taking up simultaneously other issues for decision. This course of action is not available to a Court because sub-rule (1) does not permit the  Court to adopt any such principle of severability and to dispose of a suit only on preliminary issues, or what can be termed as issues of law. Sub-rule (1)  clearly mandates that in a situation contemplated under it, where all the issues have been together and have also been taken up for adjudication during the course of the trial, these must be decided together and the judgment in the suit as a whole must be pronounced by the Court covering all the issues framed in the suit.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => 'Ram Narain Arora v. Asha Rani;',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => '',
			'counseldef' => '',
			'court' => 'Himachal Pradesh',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2008-07-31',
			'deposition' => 'Petition allowed',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => ' Deepak Gupta, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">Deepak Gupta, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. This Revision Petition under Section 25(5) of the H.P. Urban Rent Control Act, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) is directed against the order of the learned Appellate Authority, Shimla in CMA No. 60-S/14 of 2001 whereby the appeal filed by the respondent (hereinafter referred to as the tenant) has been allowed, the order of the Rent Controller has been set-aside and the petition for eviction filed by the present petitioner (hereinafter referred to as the Landlord) on the ground of personal bona fide requirement has been set-aside.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The undisputed facts are that the landlord is owner of the demised premises situated in building known as Tunnel View, Sanjauli, Shimla-6 consisting of two bed rooms with attached bath room and latrine, drawing-cum-dining room, kitchen and balcony. These premises were purchased by the landlord in the year 1986. Thereafter, the landlord had rented out the premises to one Sh. B.K. Chauhan. According to the landlord, when he got married he requested Sh. B.K. Chauhan to vacate the said premises. Sh. Chauhan vacated the said premises but admittedly the landlord did not occupy the same but rented out the same to the tenant in the year 1990.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. In the year 1997 the landlord filed a petition for eviction of the tenant on two grounds; firstly that the tenant is in arrears of rent from 1.11.1990 to 31.7.1997 and secondly that the premises are bona fide required by the landlord for the use and occupation of himself and his family.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. This petition was contested by the tenant. After trial, the Rent Controller ordered the eviction of the tenant on two grounds; (i) that the tenant was in arrears of rent from November, 1999 till date of order i.e. 22nd August, 2001 and (ii) that the landlord required the premises for his own use and occupation.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. The tenant deposited the rent within the time prescribed. He also filed an appeal challenging the finding on the issue of bona fide requirement. The learned Appellate Authority came to the conclusion that the landlord had not made a proper and full disclosure of facts as required under the provisions of the Act and had withheld material facts from the Court viz. that the landlord was in occupation of residential premises on 31, Mall Road in the urban area of Shimla and as such rejected this petition on this short ground.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. Aggrieved by the said order, the landlord has filed the present Revision Petition.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. I have heard Sh. Ramakant Sharma, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sh. Bhupinder Gupta, learned senior Counsel for the tenant.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. It has been urged on behalf of the landlord that the building which is alleged to be in possession of the landlord i.e. 31, the Mall Shimla is not a residential building and secondly that the building is not owned by him.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. On the other hand Sh. Bhupinder Gupta, learned Counsel of the tenant has strenuously urged that the landlord in para 18 has not stated anything about any building being owned by him and has only made an averment that he does not own or possess any other such building within the urban area Shimla. It is contended by Sh. Bhupinder Gupta that the landlord of his own volition did not state anything about the ownership of the building and since he has kept silent about the building which he is in occupation he has made a false averment and therefore his petition for eviction has rightly been rejected.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. I am not at all in agreement with the contention of the landlord that the premises known as 31, the Mall Shimla which are admittedly in the occupation of the landlord are commercial premises only and not being used by him for his residence. As pointed out above, the landlord purchased the demised premises in 1986. They fell vacant when he got married despite that he did not occupy the same and rented out the same to the tenant in the year 1990. The question that arises is where was the landlord living for this entire period. According to the landlord after the year 1994 he has been living with his brother-in-law Rajan (wife's brother) PW-2, since the year 1994. Prior to 1994 the landlord will have this Court to believe that he was living off and on with one friend or the other. This story is impossible to believe. The landlord was married in the year 1999. He is an Architect by profession. His wife is a law graduate. It is not believable that such a person would have no permanent abode and would continue to live as a guest with his friends for almost 5 years after his marriage. Even the story that he has been living with his brother-in-law after the year 1994 does not inspire confidence. It stands proved on record that the brother-in-law PW-2 Rajan lives with his own family i.e. wife and children. From the evidence it is also clear that the parents of the brother-in-law also reside with him, His flat consists of only two rooms. The flat in possession of the landlord at 31, the Mall Shimla, also consists of two rooms, kitchen and bath room. Even assuming that he was running an office in the part of the flat it cannot be believed that he would not live on his own flat on the Mall Road and reside with his brother-in-law in cramped premises. Even in the electoral list the landlord is shown to be a resident of 31, The Mall, Shimla. Therefore, I am of the considered view that the building 31, the Mall, Shimla was also being used as a residence by the landlord.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. Having held so, the question that arises is whether the landlord can be non-suited only on the ground that he has not made any disclosure about the residential accommodation available with him which premises were admittedly not owned by him.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. The short question which arises for decision in this petition is whether the landlord was guilty of suppressing and withholding such relevant facts which would disentitle him from seeking eviction of the tenant. To appreciate these contentions it would be necessary to refer to relevant portion of Section 14(3) of the Act:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Section 14:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1 and 2 xxxxxxxxxxx</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(3) A landlord may apply to the Controller for an order directing the tenant to put the landlord in possession-</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(a) in case of residential building, if</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(i) he required it for his own occupation:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Provided that he is not occupying another residential building owned by him, in the urban area concerned:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Provided further that he has not vacated such a building without sufficient cause within five years of the filing of the application, in the said urban area....</p><p style="text-align: justify;">13. A perusal of the bare provisions of the Act makes it clear that there are certain essential ingredients which the landlord must satisfy before seeking eviction of the tenant under the Act. Not only must he prove that the residential building is bona fide required by him for his own use and occupation but he must also plead and prove that he is not occupying any other residential building owned by him in the urban area concerned and further that he has not vacated such a building without sufficient cause within 5 years of the filing of the application.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">14. Reference may now be made to the relevant allegations made in para 18 of the eviction petition:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(ii) That the petitioner bona fide requires the premises for his own use and occupation and also for the use and occupation of his family.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The petitioner does not own or possess any other such building within the urban area of Simla nor the petitioner has vacated any such premises within five years of the filing of this petition.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The family of the petitioner presently consists of himself and his wife. Due to paucity of accommodation the petitioner has not been able to keep his wife with himself at Simla, where he is working as an Engineer and she has been residing at Chandigarh since 1991 but on account of her ill health she has been brought to Simla by the petitioner. The petitioner at present is seeking temporary shelter, from time to time, with his relations.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">15. The learned Appellate Authority came to the conclusion that the landlord had falsely pleaded that he does not own or possess any other such building within the urban area of Shimla and hence rejected the eviction petition on this ground.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">16. On a close analysis of the proviso to Section 14(3)(a)(i) of the Act it is clear that a landlord is not entitled to seek eviction of a tenant from residential building even in case of bona fide requirement if the landlord is occupying another residential building owned by him in the urban area concerned. One can read three essential ingredients in this proviso i.e. (i) that the landlord is in occupation of another residential building; (ii) that the said residential building is owned by him and (iii) that the said residential building is situated in the concerned urban area.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">17. The question that arises is what is the impact of the landlord not making a disclosure in respect of premises which he is occupying but are not owned by him.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">18. The Apex Court in Onkar Nath v. Ved Vyas ILR 1979 HP 1, held as follows:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">It is common ground that there are three requirements to make out a cause of action for eviction under that provision, and indeed this is apparent from a bare reading of the sub-section. In the present case the finding is to the effect that the landlord requires the residential building for his own occupation. But, the legislation has taken care to insist upon two more conditions, namely; (a) that the landlord is not occupying any other residential building in the area concerned; and (b) that he has not vacated such a building without sufficient cause. There is not a scintilla of evidence nor indeed there is any averment in compliance with these latter conditions. The necessary consequence follows that not merely is there inadequacy of pleadings sufficient to make out a cause of action but total absence of proof of two vital requirements....</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The Supreme Court also said that:.The statute benignly designed to protect tenants from unreasonable evictions has taken case to put restrictions which must be rigorously construed to fulfil the purpose of the statute.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">19. Following the aforesaid judgment and other pronouncements of the Apex Court, a learned Single Judge of this Court in Tara Chand Sharma v. Baij Nath and Ors. 1992 (2) R.C.J. 323, held as follows:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">16. What appears as the legislative intent, in bold relief, is that the landlord, while seeking eviction of a tenant on the ground that he needs a residential building for his own occupation, must come out clearly and honestly with facts relating to the requirement that he is not occupying another residential building owned by him, in the urban area concerned and that he had not vacated such a building without sufficient cause within five years of the filing of the application, in the said urban area. The primal burden of making a clear disclosure would lie upon the landlord, for, the true facts would be in his special knowledge. An order in his favour by the Rent Controller would depend upon the satisfaction of the Rent Controller in regard not only to the claim that the landlord requires the accommodation, from which he wishes to evict a tenant, for his own occupation but also that he was not occupying another residential building owned by him nor had he vacated such building without sufficient cause within five years of the filing of the application in the application in the urban area concerned....</p><p style="text-align: justify;">It was further held as under:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">18. That the landlord should make a full disclosure of the relevant facts, pertaining to the requirements of Sub-section (3)(a)(i) and the two provisos, becomes all the more necessary because the satisfaction of the Rent Controller in regard thereto is the condition precedent for the making of an order in favour of the landlord....</p><p style="text-align: justify;">20. The aforesaid judgment has been followed in a number of other cases including Vijay Kapoor v. Maya Ram 1997 (2) RCR 437, wherein another learned single Judge of this Court following the aforesaid judgment held that the landlord must make complete and proper disclosure of all the material facts.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">21. On the other hand Sh. Ramakant Sharma has relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in Ram Narain Arora v. Asha Rani 1998(2) RCR 268. In that case the Rent Controller came to the conclusion that the landlord had suppressed material information and had not disclosed the fact that he was already in occupation of a house in Subji Mandi. Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act reads as follows:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Section 14(1)(e). That the premises let for residential purposes are required bona fide by the landlord for occupation as a residence for himself or for any member of his family dependent on him, if he is the owner thereof, or for any person for whose benefit the premises are held and that the landlord or such person has no other reasonably suitable residential accommodation.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">22. The difference between Delhi Act and the present Act is that under the Delhi Act the only requirement is that the landlord has no other reasonably suitable accommodation whereas under the Himachal Act the residential premises are required to be owned by the landlord. The Apex Court in Rama Narain Arora's case (supra) held that the nondisclosure of the fact that the landlord was in occupation of certain premises in Subji Mandi was.not a ground to non-suit the landlord in view of the facts and circumstances of the case. The Apex Court held as follows:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. In making a claim that the suit premises is required bona fide for his own occupation as a residence for himself and other members of his family dependent on him and that he has no other reasonably suitable accommodation is a requirement of law before the Court can state whether the landlord requires the premises bona fide for his use and occupation. In doing so, the Court must also find out whether the landlord or such other person for whose benefit the premises is required has no other reasonably suitable residential accommodation. It cannot be said that the requirement of the landlord is not intermixed with the question of finding out whether he has any other reasonably suitable accommodation. If he has other reasonably suitable accommodation, ihen necessarily it would mean that he does not require the suit premises and his requirement may not be bona fide. In such circumstances further inquiry would be whether that premises is more suitable than the suit premises. Therefore, the questions raised before the Court would not necessarily depend upon only the pleadings. It could be a good defence that the landlord has other reasonably suitable residential accommodation and thereby defend the claim of the landlord.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. There cannot be a pedantic or a dogmatic approach in the matter of analysis of pleadings or of the evidence adduced thereto. It is no doubt true that if the pleadings are clearly set out, it would be easy for the Court to decide the matters. But if the pleadings are lacking or vague and if both parties have understood what was the case pleaded and put forth with reference to requirement of law and placed such material before the Court, neither party is prejudiced. If we analyse from this angle, we do not think that the High Court was not justified in interfering with the order made by the Rent Controller.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">23. From the perusal of the judgment of the Apex Court it is apparent that the Rent Controller must approach the matter in a practical manner. In case the non-disclosure is such as that it goes to the very root of the case the Rent Controller would be justified in non-suiting the landlord. However, if the non-disclosure is such that it would not prejudice the rights of the respondent then the landlord should not be non-suited only on this ground.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">24. The decisions of this Court cited hereinabove were delivered prior to the judgment delivered by the Apex Court in Ram Nar'ain Arora's case. Further more both in Tara Chand Sharma's case and Vijay Kapoor's case decided by this Court, no averment had been made ixi respect of other residential buildings owned by a landlord. There was complete non-disclosure as to whether any such residential building owned by the landlord was in his possession or not. In the present case, as I have held above, the residential premises at 31, The Mall, Shimla was not owned by the landlord and hence these two earlier judgments of this Court are distinguishable on facts also.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">25. In the present case, the landlord has been non-suited only on the ground that he did not disclose the fact that he was in occupation of certain premises on the Mall Road. Under law he was not required to disclose this fact. He was only required to disclose the factum of occupying another residential building owned by him in the urban area concerned. True it may be, that it would have been better if the landlord had disclosed all the facts but non-disclosure of a fact which he was not under law required to disclose could not in my opinion be a ground to dismiss his eviction petition.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">26. However, what are the premises in his occupation even as a tenant can be taken into consideration while deciding the question whether he bona fide requires the demised premises for his personal use or occupation or not.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">27. Lastly comes the question with regard to the bona fide requirement of the landlord. The landlord has no children. According to the landlord as well as his other witnesses i.e. his brother-in-law PW-2 and his wife PW-3, the wife now wants to come back and settle in Shimla. There is no reason to disbelieve their statements. Even according to the evidence led by the tenant the accommodation in possession of the landlord consists of two rooms, kitchen, bath room etc. Admittedly, the landlord is also having his office as an Architect in this building. The landlord belongs to the middle class of the Society. It cannot be expected of a landlord who owns sufficient property to reside in a two room set wherein he also runs his office.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">28. The law by now is well settled that the landlord is the best judge of the suitability of the accommodation required by him. This suitability has however to be judged in the context of reasonable expectations. The landlord and his wife who are both well educated can reasonably be expected to entertain guests and they will have visitors to their house. They would obviously require a drawing room, a bed room and a spare bed room for guests. Even at his residence the landlord may require another room for his professional work. This is the minimum accommodation which they would require. Even if the accommodation possessed by the landlord, though not owned by him, at 31, the Mall, Shimla is taken into consideration such accommodation is not sufficient to meet his requirements since admittedly the landlord is running his profession of Architect from some portion of his these premises.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">29. Keeping in view the entire facts and circumstances, I am of the considered view that the learned Appellate Authority gravely erred in rejecting the eviction petition of the landlord solely on the ground that he had not disclosed the factum of being in possession of the premises at 31, the Mall Shimla. Even though I have held that the said premises are residential premises, in view of the above discussion I hold that the landlord cannot be non-suited only on the ground of his being in possession of such premises since same were not owned by him.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">30. In view of the above discussion, the Revision Petition is allowed, the order of the learned Appellate Authority dated 6.5.2003 is seaside and the order of the Rent Controller dated 22.8.2001 is restored.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">31. Keeping in view the fact that the tenant has been in possession of the premises for a long period he is granted time up to 31st October, 2008 to vacate the premises.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">32. No order as to costs.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '2008(2)ShimLC491',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'Shri S.L. Srivastava',
			'sub' => 'Tenancy',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'shri-arun-bhanwara-vs-s-l-srivastava',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '891084',
		(int) 1 => 'shri-arun-bhanwara-vs-s-l-srivastava'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Shri Arun Bhanwara Vs Shri S L Srivastava - Citation 891084 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '891084',
		'acts' => '',
		'appealno' => '',
		'appellant' => 'Shri Arun Bhanwara',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Shri Arun Bhanwara Vs. Shri S.L. Srivastava',
		'casenote' => ' - CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908.[C.A. No. 5/1908]. Order 14, Rule 2 [As amended by Amending Act of 1976]: [V.K. Gupta, CJ, Deepak Gupta & Surjit Singh, JJ] Preliminary issue of law and fact  Court framing all issues both of law and facts together and also  tried all the issues together, including the issue relating to jurisdiction of Court  Held, Except in situations perceived or warranted under sub-rule (2) of Rule 2 of Order 14 where a  Court in fact frames only issues of law in the first instance and postpones settlement of other issues, clearly and explicitly in situations where the Court has framed all issues together, both of law as well as facts and has also tried all these issues together, it is not open to the Court to adopt the principle of severability and proceed to decide issues of law first, without taking up simultaneously other issues for decision. This course of action is not available to a Court because sub-rule (1) does not permit the  Court to adopt any such principle of severability and to dispose of a suit only on preliminary issues, or what can be termed as issues of law. Sub-rule (1)  clearly mandates that in a situation contemplated under it, where all the issues have been together and have also been taken up for adjudication during the course of the trial, these must be decided together and the judgment in the suit as a whole must be pronounced by the Court covering all the issues framed in the suit.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => 'Ram Narain Arora v. Asha Rani;',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => '',
		'counseldef' => '',
		'court' => 'Himachal Pradesh',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2008-07-31',
		'deposition' => 'Petition allowed',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => ' Deepak Gupta, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>Deepak Gupta, J.</p><p>1. This Revision Petition under Section 25(5) of the H.P. Urban Rent Control Act, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) is directed against the order of the learned Appellate Authority, Shimla in CMA No. 60-S/14 of 2001 whereby the appeal filed by the respondent (hereinafter referred to as the tenant) has been allowed, the order of the Rent Controller has been set-aside and the petition for eviction filed by the present petitioner (hereinafter referred to as the Landlord) on the ground of personal bona fide requirement has been set-aside.</p><p>2. The undisputed facts are that the landlord is owner of the demised premises situated in building known as Tunnel View, Sanjauli, Shimla-6 consisting of two bed rooms with attached bath room and latrine, drawing-cum-dining room, kitchen and balcony. These premises were purchased by the landlord in the year 1986. Thereafter, the landlord had rented out the premises to one Sh. B.K. Chauhan. According to the landlord, when he got married he requested Sh. B.K. Chauhan to vacate the said premises. Sh. Chauhan vacated the said premises but admittedly the landlord did not occupy the same but rented out the same to the tenant in the year 1990.</p><p>3. In the year 1997 the landlord filed a petition for eviction of the tenant on two grounds; firstly that the tenant is in arrears of rent from 1.11.1990 to 31.7.1997 and secondly that the premises are bona fide required by the landlord for the use and occupation of himself and his family.</p><p>4. This petition was contested by the tenant. After trial, the Rent Controller ordered the eviction of the tenant on two grounds; (i) that the tenant was in arrears of rent from November, 1999 till date of order i.e. 22nd August, 2001 and (ii) that the landlord required the premises for his own use and occupation.</p><p>5. The tenant deposited the rent within the time prescribed. He also filed an appeal challenging the finding on the issue of bona fide requirement. The learned Appellate Authority came to the conclusion that the landlord had not made a proper and full disclosure of facts as required under the provisions of the Act and had withheld material facts from the Court viz. that the landlord was in occupation of residential premises on 31, Mall Road in the urban area of Shimla and as such rejected this petition on this short ground.</p><p>6. Aggrieved by the said order, the landlord has filed the present Revision Petition.</p><p>7. I have heard Sh. Ramakant Sharma, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sh. Bhupinder Gupta, learned senior Counsel for the tenant.</p><p>8. It has been urged on behalf of the landlord that the building which is alleged to be in possession of the landlord i.e. 31, the Mall Shimla is not a residential building and secondly that the building is not owned by him.</p><p>9. On the other hand Sh. Bhupinder Gupta, learned Counsel of the tenant has strenuously urged that the landlord in para 18 has not stated anything about any building being owned by him and has only made an averment that he does not own or possess any other such building within the urban area Shimla. It is contended by Sh. Bhupinder Gupta that the landlord of his own volition did not state anything about the ownership of the building and since he has kept silent about the building which he is in occupation he has made a false averment and therefore his petition for eviction has rightly been rejected.</p><p>10. I am not at all in agreement with the contention of the landlord that the premises known as 31, the Mall Shimla which are admittedly in the occupation of the landlord are commercial premises only and not being used by him for his residence. As pointed out above, the landlord purchased the demised premises in 1986. They fell vacant when he got married despite that he did not occupy the same and rented out the same to the tenant in the year 1990. The question that arises is where was the landlord living for this entire period. According to the landlord after the year 1994 he has been living with his brother-in-law Rajan (wife's brother) PW-2, since the year 1994. Prior to 1994 the landlord will have this Court to believe that he was living off and on with one friend or the other. This story is impossible to believe. The landlord was married in the year 1999. He is an Architect by profession. His wife is a law graduate. It is not believable that such a person would have no permanent abode and would continue to live as a guest with his friends for almost 5 years after his marriage. Even the story that he has been living with his brother-in-law after the year 1994 does not inspire confidence. It stands proved on record that the brother-in-law PW-2 Rajan lives with his own family i.e. wife and children. From the evidence it is also clear that the parents of the brother-in-law also reside with him, His flat consists of only two rooms. The flat in possession of the landlord at 31, the Mall Shimla, also consists of two rooms, kitchen and bath room. Even assuming that he was running an office in the part of the flat it cannot be believed that he would not live on his own flat on the Mall Road and reside with his brother-in-law in cramped premises. Even in the electoral list the landlord is shown to be a resident of 31, The Mall, Shimla. Therefore, I am of the considered view that the building 31, the Mall, Shimla was also being used as a residence by the landlord.</p><p>11. Having held so, the question that arises is whether the landlord can be non-suited only on the ground that he has not made any disclosure about the residential accommodation available with him which premises were admittedly not owned by him.</p><p>12. The short question which arises for decision in this petition is whether the landlord was guilty of suppressing and withholding such relevant facts which would disentitle him from seeking eviction of the tenant. To appreciate these contentions it would be necessary to refer to relevant portion of Section 14(3) of the Act:</p><p>Section 14:</p><p>1 and 2 xxxxxxxxxxx</p><p>(3) A landlord may apply to the Controller for an order directing the tenant to put the landlord in possession-</p><p>(a) in case of residential building, if</p><p>(i) he required it for his own occupation:</p><p>Provided that he is not occupying another residential building owned by him, in the urban area concerned:</p><p>Provided further that he has not vacated such a building without sufficient cause within five years of the filing of the application, in the said urban area....</p><p>13. A perusal of the bare provisions of the Act makes it clear that there are certain essential ingredients which the landlord must satisfy before seeking eviction of the tenant under the Act. Not only must he prove that the residential building is bona fide required by him for his own use and occupation but he must also plead and prove that he is not occupying any other residential building owned by him in the urban area concerned and further that he has not vacated such a building without sufficient cause within 5 years of the filing of the application.</p><p>14. Reference may now be made to the relevant allegations made in para 18 of the eviction petition:</p><p>(ii) That the petitioner bona fide requires the premises for his own use and occupation and also for the use and occupation of his family.</p><p>The petitioner does not own or possess any other such building within the urban area of Simla nor the petitioner has vacated any such premises within five years of the filing of this petition.</p><p>The family of the petitioner presently consists of himself and his wife. Due to paucity of accommodation the petitioner has not been able to keep his wife with himself at Simla, where he is working as an Engineer and she has been residing at Chandigarh since 1991 but on account of her ill health she has been brought to Simla by the petitioner. The petitioner at present is seeking temporary shelter, from time to time, with his relations.</p><p>15. The learned Appellate Authority came to the conclusion that the landlord had falsely pleaded that he does not own or possess any other such building within the urban area of Shimla and hence rejected the eviction petition on this ground.</p><p>16. On a close analysis of the proviso to Section 14(3)(a)(i) of the Act it is clear that a landlord is not entitled to seek eviction of a tenant from residential building even in case of bona fide requirement if the landlord is occupying another residential building owned by him in the urban area concerned. One can read three essential ingredients in this proviso i.e. (i) that the landlord is in occupation of another residential building; (ii) that the said residential building is owned by him and (iii) that the said residential building is situated in the concerned urban area.</p><p>17. The question that arises is what is the impact of the landlord not making a disclosure in respect of premises which he is occupying but are not owned by him.</p><p>18. The Apex Court in Onkar Nath v. Ved Vyas ILR 1979 HP 1, held as follows:</p><p>It is common ground that there are three requirements to make out a cause of action for eviction under that provision, and indeed this is apparent from a bare reading of the sub-section. In the present case the finding is to the effect that the landlord requires the residential building for his own occupation. But, the legislation has taken care to insist upon two more conditions, namely; (a) that the landlord is not occupying any other residential building in the area concerned; and (b) that he has not vacated such a building without sufficient cause. There is not a scintilla of evidence nor indeed there is any averment in compliance with these latter conditions. The necessary consequence follows that not merely is there inadequacy of pleadings sufficient to make out a cause of action but total absence of proof of two vital requirements....</p><p>The Supreme Court also said that:.The statute benignly designed to protect tenants from unreasonable evictions has taken case to put restrictions which must be rigorously construed to fulfil the purpose of the statute.</p><p>19. Following the aforesaid judgment and other pronouncements of the Apex Court, a learned Single Judge of this Court in Tara Chand Sharma v. Baij Nath and Ors. 1992 (2) R.C.J. 323, held as follows:</p><p>16. What appears as the legislative intent, in bold relief, is that the landlord, while seeking eviction of a tenant on the ground that he needs a residential building for his own occupation, must come out clearly and honestly with facts relating to the requirement that he is not occupying another residential building owned by him, in the urban area concerned and that he had not vacated such a building without sufficient cause within five years of the filing of the application, in the said urban area. The primal burden of making a clear disclosure would lie upon the landlord, for, the true facts would be in his special knowledge. An order in his favour by the Rent Controller would depend upon the satisfaction of the Rent Controller in regard not only to the claim that the landlord requires the accommodation, from which he wishes to evict a tenant, for his own occupation but also that he was not occupying another residential building owned by him nor had he vacated such building without sufficient cause within five years of the filing of the application in the application in the urban area concerned....</p><p>It was further held as under:</p><p>18. That the landlord should make a full disclosure of the relevant facts, pertaining to the requirements of Sub-section (3)(a)(i) and the two provisos, becomes all the more necessary because the satisfaction of the Rent Controller in regard thereto is the condition precedent for the making of an order in favour of the landlord....</p><p>20. The aforesaid judgment has been followed in a number of other cases including Vijay Kapoor v. Maya Ram 1997 (2) RCR 437, wherein another learned single Judge of this Court following the aforesaid judgment held that the landlord must make complete and proper disclosure of all the material facts.</p><p>21. On the other hand Sh. Ramakant Sharma has relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in Ram Narain Arora v. Asha Rani 1998(2) RCR 268. In that case the Rent Controller came to the conclusion that the landlord had suppressed material information and had not disclosed the fact that he was already in occupation of a house in Subji Mandi. Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act reads as follows:</p><p>Section 14(1)(e). That the premises let for residential purposes are required bona fide by the landlord for occupation as a residence for himself or for any member of his family dependent on him, if he is the owner thereof, or for any person for whose benefit the premises are held and that the landlord or such person has no other reasonably suitable residential accommodation.</p><p>22. The difference between Delhi Act and the present Act is that under the Delhi Act the only requirement is that the landlord has no other reasonably suitable accommodation whereas under the Himachal Act the residential premises are required to be owned by the landlord. The Apex Court in Rama Narain Arora's case (supra) held that the nondisclosure of the fact that the landlord was in occupation of certain premises in Subji Mandi was.not a ground to non-suit the landlord in view of the facts and circumstances of the case. The Apex Court held as follows:</p><p>9. In making a claim that the suit premises is required bona fide for his own occupation as a residence for himself and other members of his family dependent on him and that he has no other reasonably suitable accommodation is a requirement of law before the Court can state whether the landlord requires the premises bona fide for his use and occupation. In doing so, the Court must also find out whether the landlord or such other person for whose benefit the premises is required has no other reasonably suitable residential accommodation. It cannot be said that the requirement of the landlord is not intermixed with the question of finding out whether he has any other reasonably suitable accommodation. If he has other reasonably suitable accommodation, ihen necessarily it would mean that he does not require the suit premises and his requirement may not be bona fide. In such circumstances further inquiry would be whether that premises is more suitable than the suit premises. Therefore, the questions raised before the Court would not necessarily depend upon only the pleadings. It could be a good defence that the landlord has other reasonably suitable residential accommodation and thereby defend the claim of the landlord.</p><p>10. There cannot be a pedantic or a dogmatic approach in the matter of analysis of pleadings or of the evidence adduced thereto. It is no doubt true that if the pleadings are clearly set out, it would be easy for the Court to decide the matters. But if the pleadings are lacking or vague and if both parties have understood what was the case pleaded and put forth with reference to requirement of law and placed such material before the Court, neither party is prejudiced. If we analyse from this angle, we do not think that the High Court was not justified in interfering with the order made by the Rent Controller.</p><p>23. From the perusal of the judgment of the Apex Court it is apparent that the Rent Controller must approach the matter in a practical manner. In case the non-disclosure is such as that it goes to the very root of the case the Rent Controller would be justified in non-suiting the landlord. However, if the non-disclosure is such that it would not prejudice the rights of the respondent then the landlord should not be non-suited only on this ground.</p><p>24. The decisions of this Court cited hereinabove were delivered prior to the judgment delivered by the Apex Court in Ram Nar'ain Arora's case. Further more both in Tara Chand Sharma's case and Vijay Kapoor's case decided by this Court, no averment had been made ixi respect of other residential buildings owned by a landlord. There was complete non-disclosure as to whether any such residential building owned by the landlord was in his possession or not. In the present case, as I have held above, the residential premises at 31, The Mall, Shimla was not owned by the landlord and hence these two earlier judgments of this Court are distinguishable on facts also.</p><p>25. In the present case, the landlord has been non-suited only on the ground that he did not disclose the fact that he was in occupation of certain premises on the Mall Road. Under law he was not required to disclose this fact. He was only required to disclose the factum of occupying another residential building owned by him in the urban area concerned. True it may be, that it would have been better if the landlord had disclosed all the facts but non-disclosure of a fact which he was not under law required to disclose could not in my opinion be a ground to dismiss his eviction petition.</p><p>26. However, what are the premises in his occupation even as a tenant can be taken into consideration while deciding the question whether he bona fide requires the demised premises for his personal use or occupation or not.</p><p>27. Lastly comes the question with regard to the bona fide requirement of the landlord. The landlord has no children. According to the landlord as well as his other witnesses i.e. his brother-in-law PW-2 and his wife PW-3, the wife now wants to come back and settle in Shimla. There is no reason to disbelieve their statements. Even according to the evidence led by the tenant the accommodation in possession of the landlord consists of two rooms, kitchen, bath room etc. Admittedly, the landlord is also having his office as an Architect in this building. The landlord belongs to the middle class of the Society. It cannot be expected of a landlord who owns sufficient property to reside in a two room set wherein he also runs his office.</p><p>28. The law by now is well settled that the landlord is the best judge of the suitability of the accommodation required by him. This suitability has however to be judged in the context of reasonable expectations. The landlord and his wife who are both well educated can reasonably be expected to entertain guests and they will have visitors to their house. They would obviously require a drawing room, a bed room and a spare bed room for guests. Even at his residence the landlord may require another room for his professional work. This is the minimum accommodation which they would require. Even if the accommodation possessed by the landlord, though not owned by him, at 31, the Mall, Shimla is taken into consideration such accommodation is not sufficient to meet his requirements since admittedly the landlord is running his profession of Architect from some portion of his these premises.</p><p>29. Keeping in view the entire facts and circumstances, I am of the considered view that the learned Appellate Authority gravely erred in rejecting the eviction petition of the landlord solely on the ground that he had not disclosed the factum of being in possession of the premises at 31, the Mall Shimla. Even though I have held that the said premises are residential premises, in view of the above discussion I hold that the landlord cannot be non-suited only on the ground of his being in possession of such premises since same were not owned by him.</p><p>30. In view of the above discussion, the Revision Petition is allowed, the order of the learned Appellate Authority dated 6.5.2003 is seaside and the order of the Rent Controller dated 22.8.2001 is restored.</p><p>31. Keeping in view the fact that the tenant has been in possession of the premises for a long period he is granted time up to 31st October, 2008 to vacate the premises.</p><p>32. No order as to costs.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '2008(2)ShimLC491',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'Shri S.L. Srivastava',
		'sub' => 'Tenancy',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'shri-arun-bhanwara-vs-s-l-srivastava'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '891084',
	(int) 1 => 'shri-arun-bhanwara-vs-s-l-srivastava'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/891084/shri-arun-bhanwara-vs-s-l-srivastava'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$caseref = 'Ram Narain Arora v. Asha Rani<br>'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>Deepak Gupta, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. This Revision Petition under Section 25(5) of the H.P. Urban Rent Control Act, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) is directed against the order of the learned Appellate Authority, Shimla in CMA No. 60-S/14 of 2001 whereby the appeal filed by the respondent (hereinafter referred to as the tenant) has been allowed, the order of the Rent Controller has been set-aside and the petition for eviction filed by the present petitioner (hereinafter referred to as the Landlord) on the ground of personal bona fide requirement has been set-aside.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. The undisputed facts are that the landlord is owner of the demised premises situated in building known as Tunnel View, Sanjauli, Shimla-6 consisting of two bed rooms with attached bath room and latrine, drawing-cum-dining room, kitchen and balcony. These premises were purchased by the landlord in the year 1986. Thereafter, the landlord had rented out the premises to one Sh. B.K. Chauhan. According to the landlord, when he got married he requested Sh. B.K. Chauhan to vacate the said premises. Sh. Chauhan vacated the said premises but admittedly the landlord did not occupy the same but rented out the same to the tenant in the year 1990.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. In the year 1997 the landlord filed a petition for eviction of the tenant on two grounds; firstly that the tenant is in arrears of rent from 1.11.1990 to 31.7.1997 and secondly that the premises are bona fide required by the landlord for the use and occupation of himself and his family.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>4. This petition was contested by the tenant. After trial, the Rent Controller ordered the eviction of the tenant on two grounds; (i) that the tenant was in arrears of rent from November, 1999 till date of order i.e. 22nd August, 2001 and (ii) that the landlord required the premises for his own use and occupation.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>5. The tenant deposited the rent within the time prescribed. He also filed an appeal challenging the finding on the issue of bona fide requirement. The learned Appellate Authority came to the conclusion that the landlord had not made a proper and full disclosure of facts as required under the provisions of the Act and had withheld material facts from the Court viz. that the landlord was in occupation of residential premises on 31, Mall Road in the urban area of Shimla and as such rejected this petition on this short ground.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>6. Aggrieved by the said order, the landlord has filed the present Revision Petition.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>7. I have heard Sh. Ramakant Sharma, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sh. Bhupinder Gupta, learned senior Counsel for the tenant.',
	(int) 8 => '<p>8. It has been urged on behalf of the landlord that the building which is alleged to be in possession of the landlord i.e. 31, the Mall Shimla is not a residential building and secondly that the building is not owned by him.',
	(int) 9 => '<p>9. On the other hand Sh. Bhupinder Gupta, learned Counsel of the tenant has strenuously urged that the landlord in para 18 has not stated anything about any building being owned by him and has only made an averment that he does not own or possess any other such building within the urban area Shimla. It is contended by Sh. Bhupinder Gupta that the landlord of his own volition did not state anything about the ownership of the building and since he has kept silent about the building which he is in occupation he has made a false averment and therefore his petition for eviction has rightly been rejected.',
	(int) 10 => '<p>10. I am not at all in agreement with the contention of the landlord that the premises known as 31, the Mall Shimla which are admittedly in the occupation of the landlord are commercial premises only and not being used by him for his residence. As pointed out above, the landlord purchased the demised premises in 1986. They fell vacant when he got married despite that he did not occupy the same and rented out the same to the tenant in the year 1990. The question that arises is where was the landlord living for this entire period. According to the landlord after the year 1994 he has been living with his brother-in-law Rajan (wife's brother) PW-2, since the year 1994. Prior to 1994 the landlord will have this Court to believe that he was living off and on with one friend or the other. This story is impossible to believe. The landlord was married in the year 1999. He is an Architect by profession. His wife is a law graduate. It is not believable that such a person would have no permanent abode and would continue to live as a guest with his friends for almost 5 years after his marriage. Even the story that he has been living with his brother-in-law after the year 1994 does not inspire confidence. It stands proved on record that the brother-in-law PW-2 Rajan lives with his own family i.e. wife and children. From the evidence it is also clear that the parents of the brother-in-law also reside with him, His flat consists of only two rooms. The flat in possession of the landlord at 31, the Mall Shimla, also consists of two rooms, kitchen and bath room. Even assuming that he was running an office in the part of the flat it cannot be believed that he would not live on his own flat on the Mall Road and reside with his brother-in-law in cramped premises. Even in the electoral list the landlord is shown to be a resident of 31, The Mall, Shimla. Therefore, I am of the considered view that the building 31, the Mall, Shimla was also being used as a residence by the landlord.',
	(int) 11 => '<p>11. Having held so, the question that arises is whether the landlord can be non-suited only on the ground that he has not made any disclosure about the residential accommodation available with him which premises were admittedly not owned by him.',
	(int) 12 => '<p>12. The short question which arises for decision in this petition is whether the landlord was guilty of suppressing and withholding such relevant facts which would disentitle him from seeking eviction of the tenant. To appreciate these contentions it would be necessary to refer to relevant portion of Section 14(3) of the Act:',
	(int) 13 => '<p>Section 14:',
	(int) 14 => '<p>1 and 2 xxxxxxxxxxx',
	(int) 15 => '<p>(3) A landlord may apply to the Controller for an order directing the tenant to put the landlord in possession-',
	(int) 16 => '<p>(a) in case of residential building, if',
	(int) 17 => '<p>(i) he required it for his own occupation:',
	(int) 18 => '<p>Provided that he is not occupying another residential building owned by him, in the urban area concerned:',
	(int) 19 => '<p>Provided further that he has not vacated such a building without sufficient cause within five years of the filing of the application, in the said urban area....',
	(int) 20 => '<p>13. A perusal of the bare provisions of the Act makes it clear that there are certain essential ingredients which the landlord must satisfy before seeking eviction of the tenant under the Act. Not only must he prove that the residential building is bona fide required by him for his own use and occupation but he must also plead and prove that he is not occupying any other residential building owned by him in the urban area concerned and further that he has not vacated such a building without sufficient cause within 5 years of the filing of the application.',
	(int) 21 => '<p>14. Reference may now be made to the relevant allegations made in para 18 of the eviction petition:',
	(int) 22 => '<p>(ii) That the petitioner bona fide requires the premises for his own use and occupation and also for the use and occupation of his family.',
	(int) 23 => '<p>The petitioner does not own or possess any other such building within the urban area of Simla nor the petitioner has vacated any such premises within five years of the filing of this petition.',
	(int) 24 => '<p>The family of the petitioner presently consists of himself and his wife. Due to paucity of accommodation the petitioner has not been able to keep his wife with himself at Simla, where he is working as an Engineer and she has been residing at Chandigarh since 1991 but on account of her ill health she has been brought to Simla by the petitioner. The petitioner at present is seeking temporary shelter, from time to time, with his relations.',
	(int) 25 => '<p>15. The learned Appellate Authority came to the conclusion that the landlord had falsely pleaded that he does not own or possess any other such building within the urban area of Shimla and hence rejected the eviction petition on this ground.',
	(int) 26 => '<p>16. On a close analysis of the proviso to Section 14(3)(a)(i) of the Act it is clear that a landlord is not entitled to seek eviction of a tenant from residential building even in case of bona fide requirement if the landlord is occupying another residential building owned by him in the urban area concerned. One can read three essential ingredients in this proviso i.e. (i) that the landlord is in occupation of another residential building; (ii) that the said residential building is owned by him and (iii) that the said residential building is situated in the concerned urban area.',
	(int) 27 => '<p>17. The question that arises is what is the impact of the landlord not making a disclosure in respect of premises which he is occupying but are not owned by him.',
	(int) 28 => '<p>18. The Apex Court in Onkar Nath v. Ved Vyas ILR 1979 HP 1, held as follows:',
	(int) 29 => '<p>It is common ground that there are three requirements to make out a cause of action for eviction under that provision, and indeed this is apparent from a bare reading of the sub-section. In the present case the finding is to the effect that the landlord requires the residential building for his own occupation. But, the legislation has taken care to insist upon two more conditions, namely; (a) that the landlord is not occupying any other residential building in the area concerned; and (b) that he has not vacated such a building without sufficient cause. There is not a scintilla of evidence nor indeed there is any averment in compliance with these latter conditions. The necessary consequence follows that not merely is there inadequacy of pleadings sufficient to make out a cause of action but total absence of proof of two vital requirements....',
	(int) 30 => '<p>The Supreme Court also said that:.The statute benignly designed to protect tenants from unreasonable evictions has taken case to put restrictions which must be rigorously construed to fulfil the purpose of the statute.',
	(int) 31 => '<p>19. Following the aforesaid judgment and other pronouncements of the Apex Court, a learned Single Judge of this Court in Tara Chand Sharma v. Baij Nath and Ors. 1992 (2) R.C.J. 323, held as follows:',
	(int) 32 => '<p>16. What appears as the legislative intent, in bold relief, is that the landlord, while seeking eviction of a tenant on the ground that he needs a residential building for his own occupation, must come out clearly and honestly with facts relating to the requirement that he is not occupying another residential building owned by him, in the urban area concerned and that he had not vacated such a building without sufficient cause within five years of the filing of the application, in the said urban area. The primal burden of making a clear disclosure would lie upon the landlord, for, the true facts would be in his special knowledge. An order in his favour by the Rent Controller would depend upon the satisfaction of the Rent Controller in regard not only to the claim that the landlord requires the accommodation, from which he wishes to evict a tenant, for his own occupation but also that he was not occupying another residential building owned by him nor had he vacated such building without sufficient cause within five years of the filing of the application in the application in the urban area concerned....',
	(int) 33 => '<p>It was further held as under:',
	(int) 34 => '<p>18. That the landlord should make a full disclosure of the relevant facts, pertaining to the requirements of Sub-section (3)(a)(i) and the two provisos, becomes all the more necessary because the satisfaction of the Rent Controller in regard thereto is the condition precedent for the making of an order in favour of the landlord....',
	(int) 35 => '<p>20. The aforesaid judgment has been followed in a number of other cases including Vijay Kapoor v. Maya Ram 1997 (2) RCR 437, wherein another learned single Judge of this Court following the aforesaid judgment held that the landlord must make complete and proper disclosure of all the material facts.',
	(int) 36 => '<p>21. On the other hand Sh. Ramakant Sharma has relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in Ram Narain Arora v. Asha Rani 1998(2) RCR 268. In that case the Rent Controller came to the conclusion that the landlord had suppressed material information and had not disclosed the fact that he was already in occupation of a house in Subji Mandi. Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act reads as follows:',
	(int) 37 => '<p>Section 14(1)(e). That the premises let for residential purposes are required bona fide by the landlord for occupation as a residence for himself or for any member of his family dependent on him, if he is the owner thereof, or for any person for whose benefit the premises are held and that the landlord or such person has no other reasonably suitable residential accommodation.',
	(int) 38 => '<p>22. The difference between Delhi Act and the present Act is that under the Delhi Act the only requirement is that the landlord has no other reasonably suitable accommodation whereas under the Himachal Act the residential premises are required to be owned by the landlord. The Apex Court in Rama Narain Arora's case (supra) held that the nondisclosure of the fact that the landlord was in occupation of certain premises in Subji Mandi was.not a ground to non-suit the landlord in view of the facts and circumstances of the case. The Apex Court held as follows:',
	(int) 39 => '<p>9. In making a claim that the suit premises is required bona fide for his own occupation as a residence for himself and other members of his family dependent on him and that he has no other reasonably suitable accommodation is a requirement of law before the Court can state whether the landlord requires the premises bona fide for his use and occupation. In doing so, the Court must also find out whether the landlord or such other person for whose benefit the premises is required has no other reasonably suitable residential accommodation. It cannot be said that the requirement of the landlord is not intermixed with the question of finding out whether he has any other reasonably suitable accommodation. If he has other reasonably suitable accommodation, ihen necessarily it would mean that he does not require the suit premises and his requirement may not be bona fide. In such circumstances further inquiry would be whether that premises is more suitable than the suit premises. Therefore, the questions raised before the Court would not necessarily depend upon only the pleadings. It could be a good defence that the landlord has other reasonably suitable residential accommodation and thereby defend the claim of the landlord.',
	(int) 40 => '<p>10. There cannot be a pedantic or a dogmatic approach in the matter of analysis of pleadings or of the evidence adduced thereto. It is no doubt true that if the pleadings are clearly set out, it would be easy for the Court to decide the matters. But if the pleadings are lacking or vague and if both parties have understood what was the case pleaded and put forth with reference to requirement of law and placed such material before the Court, neither party is prejudiced. If we analyse from this angle, we do not think that the High Court was not justified in interfering with the order made by the Rent Controller.',
	(int) 41 => '<p>23. From the perusal of the judgment of the Apex Court it is apparent that the Rent Controller must approach the matter in a practical manner. In case the non-disclosure is such as that it goes to the very root of the case the Rent Controller would be justified in non-suiting the landlord. However, if the non-disclosure is such that it would not prejudice the rights of the respondent then the landlord should not be non-suited only on this ground.',
	(int) 42 => '<p>24. The decisions of this Court cited hereinabove were delivered prior to the judgment delivered by the Apex Court in Ram Nar'ain Arora's case. Further more both in Tara Chand Sharma's case and Vijay Kapoor's case decided by this Court, no averment had been made ixi respect of other residential buildings owned by a landlord. There was complete non-disclosure as to whether any such residential building owned by the landlord was in his possession or not. In the present case, as I have held above, the residential premises at 31, The Mall, Shimla was not owned by the landlord and hence these two earlier judgments of this Court are distinguishable on facts also.',
	(int) 43 => '<p>25. In the present case, the landlord has been non-suited only on the ground that he did not disclose the fact that he was in occupation of certain premises on the Mall Road. Under law he was not required to disclose this fact. He was only required to disclose the factum of occupying another residential building owned by him in the urban area concerned. True it may be, that it would have been better if the landlord had disclosed all the facts but non-disclosure of a fact which he was not under law required to disclose could not in my opinion be a ground to dismiss his eviction petition.',
	(int) 44 => '<p>26. However, what are the premises in his occupation even as a tenant can be taken into consideration while deciding the question whether he bona fide requires the demised premises for his personal use or occupation or not.',
	(int) 45 => '<p>27. Lastly comes the question with regard to the bona fide requirement of the landlord. The landlord has no children. According to the landlord as well as his other witnesses i.e. his brother-in-law PW-2 and his wife PW-3, the wife now wants to come back and settle in Shimla. There is no reason to disbelieve their statements. Even according to the evidence led by the tenant the accommodation in possession of the landlord consists of two rooms, kitchen, bath room etc. Admittedly, the landlord is also having his office as an Architect in this building. The landlord belongs to the middle class of the Society. It cannot be expected of a landlord who owns sufficient property to reside in a two room set wherein he also runs his office.',
	(int) 46 => '<p>28. The law by now is well settled that the landlord is the best judge of the suitability of the accommodation required by him. This suitability has however to be judged in the context of reasonable expectations. The landlord and his wife who are both well educated can reasonably be expected to entertain guests and they will have visitors to their house. They would obviously require a drawing room, a bed room and a spare bed room for guests. Even at his residence the landlord may require another room for his professional work. This is the minimum accommodation which they would require. Even if the accommodation possessed by the landlord, though not owned by him, at 31, the Mall, Shimla is taken into consideration such accommodation is not sufficient to meet his requirements since admittedly the landlord is running his profession of Architect from some portion of his these premises.',
	(int) 47 => '<p>29. Keeping in view the entire facts and circumstances, I am of the considered view that the learned Appellate Authority gravely erred in rejecting the eviction petition of the landlord solely on the ground that he had not disclosed the factum of being in possession of the premises at 31, the Mall Shimla. Even though I have held that the said premises are residential premises, in view of the above discussion I hold that the landlord cannot be non-suited only on the ground of his being in possession of such premises since same were not owned by him.',
	(int) 48 => '<p>30. In view of the above discussion, the Revision Petition is allowed, the order of the learned Appellate Authority dated 6.5.2003 is seaside and the order of the Rent Controller dated 22.8.2001 is restored.',
	(int) 49 => '<p>31. Keeping in view the fact that the tenant has been in possession of the premises for a long period he is granted time up to 31st October, 2008 to vacate the premises.',
	(int) 50 => '<p>32. No order as to costs.<p>',
	(int) 51 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 52
$i = (int) 46
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

28. The law by now is well settled that the landlord is the best judge of the suitability of the accommodation required by him. This suitability has however to be judged in the context of reasonable expectations. The landlord and his wife who are both well educated can reasonably be expected to entertain guests and they will have visitors to their house. They would obviously require a drawing room, a bed room and a spare bed room for guests. Even at his residence the landlord may require another room for his professional work. This is the minimum accommodation which they would require. Even if the accommodation possessed by the landlord, though not owned by him, at 31, the Mall, Shimla is taken into consideration such accommodation is not sufficient to meet his requirements since admittedly the landlord is running his profession of Architect from some portion of his these premises.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Shri Arun Bhanwara Vs Shri S L Srivastava - Citation 891084 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '891084',
			'acts' => '',
			'appealno' => '',
			'appellant' => 'Shri Arun Bhanwara',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Shri Arun Bhanwara Vs. Shri S.L. Srivastava',
			'casenote' => ' - CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908.[C.A. No. 5/1908]. Order 14, Rule 2 [As amended by Amending Act of 1976]: [V.K. Gupta, CJ, Deepak Gupta & Surjit Singh, JJ] Preliminary issue of law and fact  Court framing all issues both of law and facts together and also  tried all the issues together, including the issue relating to jurisdiction of Court  Held, Except in situations perceived or warranted under sub-rule (2) of Rule 2 of Order 14 where a  Court in fact frames only issues of law in the first instance and postpones settlement of other issues, clearly and explicitly in situations where the Court has framed all issues together, both of law as well as facts and has also tried all these issues together, it is not open to the Court to adopt the principle of severability and proceed to decide issues of law first, without taking up simultaneously other issues for decision. This course of action is not available to a Court because sub-rule (1) does not permit the  Court to adopt any such principle of severability and to dispose of a suit only on preliminary issues, or what can be termed as issues of law. Sub-rule (1)  clearly mandates that in a situation contemplated under it, where all the issues have been together and have also been taken up for adjudication during the course of the trial, these must be decided together and the judgment in the suit as a whole must be pronounced by the Court covering all the issues framed in the suit.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => 'Ram Narain Arora v. Asha Rani;',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => '',
			'counseldef' => '',
			'court' => 'Himachal Pradesh',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2008-07-31',
			'deposition' => 'Petition allowed',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => ' Deepak Gupta, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">Deepak Gupta, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. This Revision Petition under Section 25(5) of the H.P. Urban Rent Control Act, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) is directed against the order of the learned Appellate Authority, Shimla in CMA No. 60-S/14 of 2001 whereby the appeal filed by the respondent (hereinafter referred to as the tenant) has been allowed, the order of the Rent Controller has been set-aside and the petition for eviction filed by the present petitioner (hereinafter referred to as the Landlord) on the ground of personal bona fide requirement has been set-aside.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The undisputed facts are that the landlord is owner of the demised premises situated in building known as Tunnel View, Sanjauli, Shimla-6 consisting of two bed rooms with attached bath room and latrine, drawing-cum-dining room, kitchen and balcony. These premises were purchased by the landlord in the year 1986. Thereafter, the landlord had rented out the premises to one Sh. B.K. Chauhan. According to the landlord, when he got married he requested Sh. B.K. Chauhan to vacate the said premises. Sh. Chauhan vacated the said premises but admittedly the landlord did not occupy the same but rented out the same to the tenant in the year 1990.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. In the year 1997 the landlord filed a petition for eviction of the tenant on two grounds; firstly that the tenant is in arrears of rent from 1.11.1990 to 31.7.1997 and secondly that the premises are bona fide required by the landlord for the use and occupation of himself and his family.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. This petition was contested by the tenant. After trial, the Rent Controller ordered the eviction of the tenant on two grounds; (i) that the tenant was in arrears of rent from November, 1999 till date of order i.e. 22nd August, 2001 and (ii) that the landlord required the premises for his own use and occupation.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. The tenant deposited the rent within the time prescribed. He also filed an appeal challenging the finding on the issue of bona fide requirement. The learned Appellate Authority came to the conclusion that the landlord had not made a proper and full disclosure of facts as required under the provisions of the Act and had withheld material facts from the Court viz. that the landlord was in occupation of residential premises on 31, Mall Road in the urban area of Shimla and as such rejected this petition on this short ground.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. Aggrieved by the said order, the landlord has filed the present Revision Petition.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. I have heard Sh. Ramakant Sharma, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sh. Bhupinder Gupta, learned senior Counsel for the tenant.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. It has been urged on behalf of the landlord that the building which is alleged to be in possession of the landlord i.e. 31, the Mall Shimla is not a residential building and secondly that the building is not owned by him.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. On the other hand Sh. Bhupinder Gupta, learned Counsel of the tenant has strenuously urged that the landlord in para 18 has not stated anything about any building being owned by him and has only made an averment that he does not own or possess any other such building within the urban area Shimla. It is contended by Sh. Bhupinder Gupta that the landlord of his own volition did not state anything about the ownership of the building and since he has kept silent about the building which he is in occupation he has made a false averment and therefore his petition for eviction has rightly been rejected.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. I am not at all in agreement with the contention of the landlord that the premises known as 31, the Mall Shimla which are admittedly in the occupation of the landlord are commercial premises only and not being used by him for his residence. As pointed out above, the landlord purchased the demised premises in 1986. They fell vacant when he got married despite that he did not occupy the same and rented out the same to the tenant in the year 1990. The question that arises is where was the landlord living for this entire period. According to the landlord after the year 1994 he has been living with his brother-in-law Rajan (wife's brother) PW-2, since the year 1994. Prior to 1994 the landlord will have this Court to believe that he was living off and on with one friend or the other. This story is impossible to believe. The landlord was married in the year 1999. He is an Architect by profession. His wife is a law graduate. It is not believable that such a person would have no permanent abode and would continue to live as a guest with his friends for almost 5 years after his marriage. Even the story that he has been living with his brother-in-law after the year 1994 does not inspire confidence. It stands proved on record that the brother-in-law PW-2 Rajan lives with his own family i.e. wife and children. From the evidence it is also clear that the parents of the brother-in-law also reside with him, His flat consists of only two rooms. The flat in possession of the landlord at 31, the Mall Shimla, also consists of two rooms, kitchen and bath room. Even assuming that he was running an office in the part of the flat it cannot be believed that he would not live on his own flat on the Mall Road and reside with his brother-in-law in cramped premises. Even in the electoral list the landlord is shown to be a resident of 31, The Mall, Shimla. Therefore, I am of the considered view that the building 31, the Mall, Shimla was also being used as a residence by the landlord.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. Having held so, the question that arises is whether the landlord can be non-suited only on the ground that he has not made any disclosure about the residential accommodation available with him which premises were admittedly not owned by him.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. The short question which arises for decision in this petition is whether the landlord was guilty of suppressing and withholding such relevant facts which would disentitle him from seeking eviction of the tenant. To appreciate these contentions it would be necessary to refer to relevant portion of Section 14(3) of the Act:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Section 14:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1 and 2 xxxxxxxxxxx</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(3) A landlord may apply to the Controller for an order directing the tenant to put the landlord in possession-</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(a) in case of residential building, if</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(i) he required it for his own occupation:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Provided that he is not occupying another residential building owned by him, in the urban area concerned:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Provided further that he has not vacated such a building without sufficient cause within five years of the filing of the application, in the said urban area....</p><p style="text-align: justify;">13. A perusal of the bare provisions of the Act makes it clear that there are certain essential ingredients which the landlord must satisfy before seeking eviction of the tenant under the Act. Not only must he prove that the residential building is bona fide required by him for his own use and occupation but he must also plead and prove that he is not occupying any other residential building owned by him in the urban area concerned and further that he has not vacated such a building without sufficient cause within 5 years of the filing of the application.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">14. Reference may now be made to the relevant allegations made in para 18 of the eviction petition:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(ii) That the petitioner bona fide requires the premises for his own use and occupation and also for the use and occupation of his family.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The petitioner does not own or possess any other such building within the urban area of Simla nor the petitioner has vacated any such premises within five years of the filing of this petition.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The family of the petitioner presently consists of himself and his wife. Due to paucity of accommodation the petitioner has not been able to keep his wife with himself at Simla, where he is working as an Engineer and she has been residing at Chandigarh since 1991 but on account of her ill health she has been brought to Simla by the petitioner. The petitioner at present is seeking temporary shelter, from time to time, with his relations.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">15. The learned Appellate Authority came to the conclusion that the landlord had falsely pleaded that he does not own or possess any other such building within the urban area of Shimla and hence rejected the eviction petition on this ground.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">16. On a close analysis of the proviso to Section 14(3)(a)(i) of the Act it is clear that a landlord is not entitled to seek eviction of a tenant from residential building even in case of bona fide requirement if the landlord is occupying another residential building owned by him in the urban area concerned. One can read three essential ingredients in this proviso i.e. (i) that the landlord is in occupation of another residential building; (ii) that the said residential building is owned by him and (iii) that the said residential building is situated in the concerned urban area.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">17. The question that arises is what is the impact of the landlord not making a disclosure in respect of premises which he is occupying but are not owned by him.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">18. The Apex Court in Onkar Nath v. Ved Vyas ILR 1979 HP 1, held as follows:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">It is common ground that there are three requirements to make out a cause of action for eviction under that provision, and indeed this is apparent from a bare reading of the sub-section. In the present case the finding is to the effect that the landlord requires the residential building for his own occupation. But, the legislation has taken care to insist upon two more conditions, namely; (a) that the landlord is not occupying any other residential building in the area concerned; and (b) that he has not vacated such a building without sufficient cause. There is not a scintilla of evidence nor indeed there is any averment in compliance with these latter conditions. The necessary consequence follows that not merely is there inadequacy of pleadings sufficient to make out a cause of action but total absence of proof of two vital requirements....</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The Supreme Court also said that:.The statute benignly designed to protect tenants from unreasonable evictions has taken case to put restrictions which must be rigorously construed to fulfil the purpose of the statute.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">19. Following the aforesaid judgment and other pronouncements of the Apex Court, a learned Single Judge of this Court in Tara Chand Sharma v. Baij Nath and Ors. 1992 (2) R.C.J. 323, held as follows:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">16. What appears as the legislative intent, in bold relief, is that the landlord, while seeking eviction of a tenant on the ground that he needs a residential building for his own occupation, must come out clearly and honestly with facts relating to the requirement that he is not occupying another residential building owned by him, in the urban area concerned and that he had not vacated such a building without sufficient cause within five years of the filing of the application, in the said urban area. The primal burden of making a clear disclosure would lie upon the landlord, for, the true facts would be in his special knowledge. An order in his favour by the Rent Controller would depend upon the satisfaction of the Rent Controller in regard not only to the claim that the landlord requires the accommodation, from which he wishes to evict a tenant, for his own occupation but also that he was not occupying another residential building owned by him nor had he vacated such building without sufficient cause within five years of the filing of the application in the application in the urban area concerned....</p><p style="text-align: justify;">It was further held as under:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">18. That the landlord should make a full disclosure of the relevant facts, pertaining to the requirements of Sub-section (3)(a)(i) and the two provisos, becomes all the more necessary because the satisfaction of the Rent Controller in regard thereto is the condition precedent for the making of an order in favour of the landlord....</p><p style="text-align: justify;">20. The aforesaid judgment has been followed in a number of other cases including Vijay Kapoor v. Maya Ram 1997 (2) RCR 437, wherein another learned single Judge of this Court following the aforesaid judgment held that the landlord must make complete and proper disclosure of all the material facts.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">21. On the other hand Sh. Ramakant Sharma has relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in Ram Narain Arora v. Asha Rani 1998(2) RCR 268. In that case the Rent Controller came to the conclusion that the landlord had suppressed material information and had not disclosed the fact that he was already in occupation of a house in Subji Mandi. Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act reads as follows:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Section 14(1)(e). That the premises let for residential purposes are required bona fide by the landlord for occupation as a residence for himself or for any member of his family dependent on him, if he is the owner thereof, or for any person for whose benefit the premises are held and that the landlord or such person has no other reasonably suitable residential accommodation.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">22. The difference between Delhi Act and the present Act is that under the Delhi Act the only requirement is that the landlord has no other reasonably suitable accommodation whereas under the Himachal Act the residential premises are required to be owned by the landlord. The Apex Court in Rama Narain Arora's case (supra) held that the nondisclosure of the fact that the landlord was in occupation of certain premises in Subji Mandi was.not a ground to non-suit the landlord in view of the facts and circumstances of the case. The Apex Court held as follows:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. In making a claim that the suit premises is required bona fide for his own occupation as a residence for himself and other members of his family dependent on him and that he has no other reasonably suitable accommodation is a requirement of law before the Court can state whether the landlord requires the premises bona fide for his use and occupation. In doing so, the Court must also find out whether the landlord or such other person for whose benefit the premises is required has no other reasonably suitable residential accommodation. It cannot be said that the requirement of the landlord is not intermixed with the question of finding out whether he has any other reasonably suitable accommodation. If he has other reasonably suitable accommodation, ihen necessarily it would mean that he does not require the suit premises and his requirement may not be bona fide. In such circumstances further inquiry would be whether that premises is more suitable than the suit premises. Therefore, the questions raised before the Court would not necessarily depend upon only the pleadings. It could be a good defence that the landlord has other reasonably suitable residential accommodation and thereby defend the claim of the landlord.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. There cannot be a pedantic or a dogmatic approach in the matter of analysis of pleadings or of the evidence adduced thereto. It is no doubt true that if the pleadings are clearly set out, it would be easy for the Court to decide the matters. But if the pleadings are lacking or vague and if both parties have understood what was the case pleaded and put forth with reference to requirement of law and placed such material before the Court, neither party is prejudiced. If we analyse from this angle, we do not think that the High Court was not justified in interfering with the order made by the Rent Controller.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">23. From the perusal of the judgment of the Apex Court it is apparent that the Rent Controller must approach the matter in a practical manner. In case the non-disclosure is such as that it goes to the very root of the case the Rent Controller would be justified in non-suiting the landlord. However, if the non-disclosure is such that it would not prejudice the rights of the respondent then the landlord should not be non-suited only on this ground.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">24. The decisions of this Court cited hereinabove were delivered prior to the judgment delivered by the Apex Court in Ram Nar'ain Arora's case. Further more both in Tara Chand Sharma's case and Vijay Kapoor's case decided by this Court, no averment had been made ixi respect of other residential buildings owned by a landlord. There was complete non-disclosure as to whether any such residential building owned by the landlord was in his possession or not. In the present case, as I have held above, the residential premises at 31, The Mall, Shimla was not owned by the landlord and hence these two earlier judgments of this Court are distinguishable on facts also.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">25. In the present case, the landlord has been non-suited only on the ground that he did not disclose the fact that he was in occupation of certain premises on the Mall Road. Under law he was not required to disclose this fact. He was only required to disclose the factum of occupying another residential building owned by him in the urban area concerned. True it may be, that it would have been better if the landlord had disclosed all the facts but non-disclosure of a fact which he was not under law required to disclose could not in my opinion be a ground to dismiss his eviction petition.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">26. However, what are the premises in his occupation even as a tenant can be taken into consideration while deciding the question whether he bona fide requires the demised premises for his personal use or occupation or not.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">27. Lastly comes the question with regard to the bona fide requirement of the landlord. The landlord has no children. According to the landlord as well as his other witnesses i.e. his brother-in-law PW-2 and his wife PW-3, the wife now wants to come back and settle in Shimla. There is no reason to disbelieve their statements. Even according to the evidence led by the tenant the accommodation in possession of the landlord consists of two rooms, kitchen, bath room etc. Admittedly, the landlord is also having his office as an Architect in this building. The landlord belongs to the middle class of the Society. It cannot be expected of a landlord who owns sufficient property to reside in a two room set wherein he also runs his office.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">28. The law by now is well settled that the landlord is the best judge of the suitability of the accommodation required by him. This suitability has however to be judged in the context of reasonable expectations. The landlord and his wife who are both well educated can reasonably be expected to entertain guests and they will have visitors to their house. They would obviously require a drawing room, a bed room and a spare bed room for guests. Even at his residence the landlord may require another room for his professional work. This is the minimum accommodation which they would require. Even if the accommodation possessed by the landlord, though not owned by him, at 31, the Mall, Shimla is taken into consideration such accommodation is not sufficient to meet his requirements since admittedly the landlord is running his profession of Architect from some portion of his these premises.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">29. Keeping in view the entire facts and circumstances, I am of the considered view that the learned Appellate Authority gravely erred in rejecting the eviction petition of the landlord solely on the ground that he had not disclosed the factum of being in possession of the premises at 31, the Mall Shimla. Even though I have held that the said premises are residential premises, in view of the above discussion I hold that the landlord cannot be non-suited only on the ground of his being in possession of such premises since same were not owned by him.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">30. In view of the above discussion, the Revision Petition is allowed, the order of the learned Appellate Authority dated 6.5.2003 is seaside and the order of the Rent Controller dated 22.8.2001 is restored.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">31. Keeping in view the fact that the tenant has been in possession of the premises for a long period he is granted time up to 31st October, 2008 to vacate the premises.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">32. No order as to costs.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '2008(2)ShimLC491',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'Shri S.L. Srivastava',
			'sub' => 'Tenancy',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'shri-arun-bhanwara-vs-s-l-srivastava',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '891084',
		(int) 1 => 'shri-arun-bhanwara-vs-s-l-srivastava'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Shri Arun Bhanwara Vs Shri S L Srivastava - Citation 891084 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '891084',
		'acts' => '',
		'appealno' => '',
		'appellant' => 'Shri Arun Bhanwara',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Shri Arun Bhanwara Vs. Shri S.L. Srivastava',
		'casenote' => ' - CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908.[C.A. No. 5/1908]. Order 14, Rule 2 [As amended by Amending Act of 1976]: [V.K. Gupta, CJ, Deepak Gupta & Surjit Singh, JJ] Preliminary issue of law and fact  Court framing all issues both of law and facts together and also  tried all the issues together, including the issue relating to jurisdiction of Court  Held, Except in situations perceived or warranted under sub-rule (2) of Rule 2 of Order 14 where a  Court in fact frames only issues of law in the first instance and postpones settlement of other issues, clearly and explicitly in situations where the Court has framed all issues together, both of law as well as facts and has also tried all these issues together, it is not open to the Court to adopt the principle of severability and proceed to decide issues of law first, without taking up simultaneously other issues for decision. This course of action is not available to a Court because sub-rule (1) does not permit the  Court to adopt any such principle of severability and to dispose of a suit only on preliminary issues, or what can be termed as issues of law. Sub-rule (1)  clearly mandates that in a situation contemplated under it, where all the issues have been together and have also been taken up for adjudication during the course of the trial, these must be decided together and the judgment in the suit as a whole must be pronounced by the Court covering all the issues framed in the suit.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => 'Ram Narain Arora v. Asha Rani;',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => '',
		'counseldef' => '',
		'court' => 'Himachal Pradesh',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2008-07-31',
		'deposition' => 'Petition allowed',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => ' Deepak Gupta, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>Deepak Gupta, J.</p><p>1. This Revision Petition under Section 25(5) of the H.P. Urban Rent Control Act, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) is directed against the order of the learned Appellate Authority, Shimla in CMA No. 60-S/14 of 2001 whereby the appeal filed by the respondent (hereinafter referred to as the tenant) has been allowed, the order of the Rent Controller has been set-aside and the petition for eviction filed by the present petitioner (hereinafter referred to as the Landlord) on the ground of personal bona fide requirement has been set-aside.</p><p>2. The undisputed facts are that the landlord is owner of the demised premises situated in building known as Tunnel View, Sanjauli, Shimla-6 consisting of two bed rooms with attached bath room and latrine, drawing-cum-dining room, kitchen and balcony. These premises were purchased by the landlord in the year 1986. Thereafter, the landlord had rented out the premises to one Sh. B.K. Chauhan. According to the landlord, when he got married he requested Sh. B.K. Chauhan to vacate the said premises. Sh. Chauhan vacated the said premises but admittedly the landlord did not occupy the same but rented out the same to the tenant in the year 1990.</p><p>3. In the year 1997 the landlord filed a petition for eviction of the tenant on two grounds; firstly that the tenant is in arrears of rent from 1.11.1990 to 31.7.1997 and secondly that the premises are bona fide required by the landlord for the use and occupation of himself and his family.</p><p>4. This petition was contested by the tenant. After trial, the Rent Controller ordered the eviction of the tenant on two grounds; (i) that the tenant was in arrears of rent from November, 1999 till date of order i.e. 22nd August, 2001 and (ii) that the landlord required the premises for his own use and occupation.</p><p>5. The tenant deposited the rent within the time prescribed. He also filed an appeal challenging the finding on the issue of bona fide requirement. The learned Appellate Authority came to the conclusion that the landlord had not made a proper and full disclosure of facts as required under the provisions of the Act and had withheld material facts from the Court viz. that the landlord was in occupation of residential premises on 31, Mall Road in the urban area of Shimla and as such rejected this petition on this short ground.</p><p>6. Aggrieved by the said order, the landlord has filed the present Revision Petition.</p><p>7. I have heard Sh. Ramakant Sharma, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sh. Bhupinder Gupta, learned senior Counsel for the tenant.</p><p>8. It has been urged on behalf of the landlord that the building which is alleged to be in possession of the landlord i.e. 31, the Mall Shimla is not a residential building and secondly that the building is not owned by him.</p><p>9. On the other hand Sh. Bhupinder Gupta, learned Counsel of the tenant has strenuously urged that the landlord in para 18 has not stated anything about any building being owned by him and has only made an averment that he does not own or possess any other such building within the urban area Shimla. It is contended by Sh. Bhupinder Gupta that the landlord of his own volition did not state anything about the ownership of the building and since he has kept silent about the building which he is in occupation he has made a false averment and therefore his petition for eviction has rightly been rejected.</p><p>10. I am not at all in agreement with the contention of the landlord that the premises known as 31, the Mall Shimla which are admittedly in the occupation of the landlord are commercial premises only and not being used by him for his residence. As pointed out above, the landlord purchased the demised premises in 1986. They fell vacant when he got married despite that he did not occupy the same and rented out the same to the tenant in the year 1990. The question that arises is where was the landlord living for this entire period. According to the landlord after the year 1994 he has been living with his brother-in-law Rajan (wife's brother) PW-2, since the year 1994. Prior to 1994 the landlord will have this Court to believe that he was living off and on with one friend or the other. This story is impossible to believe. The landlord was married in the year 1999. He is an Architect by profession. His wife is a law graduate. It is not believable that such a person would have no permanent abode and would continue to live as a guest with his friends for almost 5 years after his marriage. Even the story that he has been living with his brother-in-law after the year 1994 does not inspire confidence. It stands proved on record that the brother-in-law PW-2 Rajan lives with his own family i.e. wife and children. From the evidence it is also clear that the parents of the brother-in-law also reside with him, His flat consists of only two rooms. The flat in possession of the landlord at 31, the Mall Shimla, also consists of two rooms, kitchen and bath room. Even assuming that he was running an office in the part of the flat it cannot be believed that he would not live on his own flat on the Mall Road and reside with his brother-in-law in cramped premises. Even in the electoral list the landlord is shown to be a resident of 31, The Mall, Shimla. Therefore, I am of the considered view that the building 31, the Mall, Shimla was also being used as a residence by the landlord.</p><p>11. Having held so, the question that arises is whether the landlord can be non-suited only on the ground that he has not made any disclosure about the residential accommodation available with him which premises were admittedly not owned by him.</p><p>12. The short question which arises for decision in this petition is whether the landlord was guilty of suppressing and withholding such relevant facts which would disentitle him from seeking eviction of the tenant. To appreciate these contentions it would be necessary to refer to relevant portion of Section 14(3) of the Act:</p><p>Section 14:</p><p>1 and 2 xxxxxxxxxxx</p><p>(3) A landlord may apply to the Controller for an order directing the tenant to put the landlord in possession-</p><p>(a) in case of residential building, if</p><p>(i) he required it for his own occupation:</p><p>Provided that he is not occupying another residential building owned by him, in the urban area concerned:</p><p>Provided further that he has not vacated such a building without sufficient cause within five years of the filing of the application, in the said urban area....</p><p>13. A perusal of the bare provisions of the Act makes it clear that there are certain essential ingredients which the landlord must satisfy before seeking eviction of the tenant under the Act. Not only must he prove that the residential building is bona fide required by him for his own use and occupation but he must also plead and prove that he is not occupying any other residential building owned by him in the urban area concerned and further that he has not vacated such a building without sufficient cause within 5 years of the filing of the application.</p><p>14. Reference may now be made to the relevant allegations made in para 18 of the eviction petition:</p><p>(ii) That the petitioner bona fide requires the premises for his own use and occupation and also for the use and occupation of his family.</p><p>The petitioner does not own or possess any other such building within the urban area of Simla nor the petitioner has vacated any such premises within five years of the filing of this petition.</p><p>The family of the petitioner presently consists of himself and his wife. Due to paucity of accommodation the petitioner has not been able to keep his wife with himself at Simla, where he is working as an Engineer and she has been residing at Chandigarh since 1991 but on account of her ill health she has been brought to Simla by the petitioner. The petitioner at present is seeking temporary shelter, from time to time, with his relations.</p><p>15. The learned Appellate Authority came to the conclusion that the landlord had falsely pleaded that he does not own or possess any other such building within the urban area of Shimla and hence rejected the eviction petition on this ground.</p><p>16. On a close analysis of the proviso to Section 14(3)(a)(i) of the Act it is clear that a landlord is not entitled to seek eviction of a tenant from residential building even in case of bona fide requirement if the landlord is occupying another residential building owned by him in the urban area concerned. One can read three essential ingredients in this proviso i.e. (i) that the landlord is in occupation of another residential building; (ii) that the said residential building is owned by him and (iii) that the said residential building is situated in the concerned urban area.</p><p>17. The question that arises is what is the impact of the landlord not making a disclosure in respect of premises which he is occupying but are not owned by him.</p><p>18. The Apex Court in Onkar Nath v. Ved Vyas ILR 1979 HP 1, held as follows:</p><p>It is common ground that there are three requirements to make out a cause of action for eviction under that provision, and indeed this is apparent from a bare reading of the sub-section. In the present case the finding is to the effect that the landlord requires the residential building for his own occupation. But, the legislation has taken care to insist upon two more conditions, namely; (a) that the landlord is not occupying any other residential building in the area concerned; and (b) that he has not vacated such a building without sufficient cause. There is not a scintilla of evidence nor indeed there is any averment in compliance with these latter conditions. The necessary consequence follows that not merely is there inadequacy of pleadings sufficient to make out a cause of action but total absence of proof of two vital requirements....</p><p>The Supreme Court also said that:.The statute benignly designed to protect tenants from unreasonable evictions has taken case to put restrictions which must be rigorously construed to fulfil the purpose of the statute.</p><p>19. Following the aforesaid judgment and other pronouncements of the Apex Court, a learned Single Judge of this Court in Tara Chand Sharma v. Baij Nath and Ors. 1992 (2) R.C.J. 323, held as follows:</p><p>16. What appears as the legislative intent, in bold relief, is that the landlord, while seeking eviction of a tenant on the ground that he needs a residential building for his own occupation, must come out clearly and honestly with facts relating to the requirement that he is not occupying another residential building owned by him, in the urban area concerned and that he had not vacated such a building without sufficient cause within five years of the filing of the application, in the said urban area. The primal burden of making a clear disclosure would lie upon the landlord, for, the true facts would be in his special knowledge. An order in his favour by the Rent Controller would depend upon the satisfaction of the Rent Controller in regard not only to the claim that the landlord requires the accommodation, from which he wishes to evict a tenant, for his own occupation but also that he was not occupying another residential building owned by him nor had he vacated such building without sufficient cause within five years of the filing of the application in the application in the urban area concerned....</p><p>It was further held as under:</p><p>18. That the landlord should make a full disclosure of the relevant facts, pertaining to the requirements of Sub-section (3)(a)(i) and the two provisos, becomes all the more necessary because the satisfaction of the Rent Controller in regard thereto is the condition precedent for the making of an order in favour of the landlord....</p><p>20. The aforesaid judgment has been followed in a number of other cases including Vijay Kapoor v. Maya Ram 1997 (2) RCR 437, wherein another learned single Judge of this Court following the aforesaid judgment held that the landlord must make complete and proper disclosure of all the material facts.</p><p>21. On the other hand Sh. Ramakant Sharma has relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in Ram Narain Arora v. Asha Rani 1998(2) RCR 268. In that case the Rent Controller came to the conclusion that the landlord had suppressed material information and had not disclosed the fact that he was already in occupation of a house in Subji Mandi. Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act reads as follows:</p><p>Section 14(1)(e). That the premises let for residential purposes are required bona fide by the landlord for occupation as a residence for himself or for any member of his family dependent on him, if he is the owner thereof, or for any person for whose benefit the premises are held and that the landlord or such person has no other reasonably suitable residential accommodation.</p><p>22. The difference between Delhi Act and the present Act is that under the Delhi Act the only requirement is that the landlord has no other reasonably suitable accommodation whereas under the Himachal Act the residential premises are required to be owned by the landlord. The Apex Court in Rama Narain Arora's case (supra) held that the nondisclosure of the fact that the landlord was in occupation of certain premises in Subji Mandi was.not a ground to non-suit the landlord in view of the facts and circumstances of the case. The Apex Court held as follows:</p><p>9. In making a claim that the suit premises is required bona fide for his own occupation as a residence for himself and other members of his family dependent on him and that he has no other reasonably suitable accommodation is a requirement of law before the Court can state whether the landlord requires the premises bona fide for his use and occupation. In doing so, the Court must also find out whether the landlord or such other person for whose benefit the premises is required has no other reasonably suitable residential accommodation. It cannot be said that the requirement of the landlord is not intermixed with the question of finding out whether he has any other reasonably suitable accommodation. If he has other reasonably suitable accommodation, ihen necessarily it would mean that he does not require the suit premises and his requirement may not be bona fide. In such circumstances further inquiry would be whether that premises is more suitable than the suit premises. Therefore, the questions raised before the Court would not necessarily depend upon only the pleadings. It could be a good defence that the landlord has other reasonably suitable residential accommodation and thereby defend the claim of the landlord.</p><p>10. There cannot be a pedantic or a dogmatic approach in the matter of analysis of pleadings or of the evidence adduced thereto. It is no doubt true that if the pleadings are clearly set out, it would be easy for the Court to decide the matters. But if the pleadings are lacking or vague and if both parties have understood what was the case pleaded and put forth with reference to requirement of law and placed such material before the Court, neither party is prejudiced. If we analyse from this angle, we do not think that the High Court was not justified in interfering with the order made by the Rent Controller.</p><p>23. From the perusal of the judgment of the Apex Court it is apparent that the Rent Controller must approach the matter in a practical manner. In case the non-disclosure is such as that it goes to the very root of the case the Rent Controller would be justified in non-suiting the landlord. However, if the non-disclosure is such that it would not prejudice the rights of the respondent then the landlord should not be non-suited only on this ground.</p><p>24. The decisions of this Court cited hereinabove were delivered prior to the judgment delivered by the Apex Court in Ram Nar'ain Arora's case. Further more both in Tara Chand Sharma's case and Vijay Kapoor's case decided by this Court, no averment had been made ixi respect of other residential buildings owned by a landlord. There was complete non-disclosure as to whether any such residential building owned by the landlord was in his possession or not. In the present case, as I have held above, the residential premises at 31, The Mall, Shimla was not owned by the landlord and hence these two earlier judgments of this Court are distinguishable on facts also.</p><p>25. In the present case, the landlord has been non-suited only on the ground that he did not disclose the fact that he was in occupation of certain premises on the Mall Road. Under law he was not required to disclose this fact. He was only required to disclose the factum of occupying another residential building owned by him in the urban area concerned. True it may be, that it would have been better if the landlord had disclosed all the facts but non-disclosure of a fact which he was not under law required to disclose could not in my opinion be a ground to dismiss his eviction petition.</p><p>26. However, what are the premises in his occupation even as a tenant can be taken into consideration while deciding the question whether he bona fide requires the demised premises for his personal use or occupation or not.</p><p>27. Lastly comes the question with regard to the bona fide requirement of the landlord. The landlord has no children. According to the landlord as well as his other witnesses i.e. his brother-in-law PW-2 and his wife PW-3, the wife now wants to come back and settle in Shimla. There is no reason to disbelieve their statements. Even according to the evidence led by the tenant the accommodation in possession of the landlord consists of two rooms, kitchen, bath room etc. Admittedly, the landlord is also having his office as an Architect in this building. The landlord belongs to the middle class of the Society. It cannot be expected of a landlord who owns sufficient property to reside in a two room set wherein he also runs his office.</p><p>28. The law by now is well settled that the landlord is the best judge of the suitability of the accommodation required by him. This suitability has however to be judged in the context of reasonable expectations. The landlord and his wife who are both well educated can reasonably be expected to entertain guests and they will have visitors to their house. They would obviously require a drawing room, a bed room and a spare bed room for guests. Even at his residence the landlord may require another room for his professional work. This is the minimum accommodation which they would require. Even if the accommodation possessed by the landlord, though not owned by him, at 31, the Mall, Shimla is taken into consideration such accommodation is not sufficient to meet his requirements since admittedly the landlord is running his profession of Architect from some portion of his these premises.</p><p>29. Keeping in view the entire facts and circumstances, I am of the considered view that the learned Appellate Authority gravely erred in rejecting the eviction petition of the landlord solely on the ground that he had not disclosed the factum of being in possession of the premises at 31, the Mall Shimla. Even though I have held that the said premises are residential premises, in view of the above discussion I hold that the landlord cannot be non-suited only on the ground of his being in possession of such premises since same were not owned by him.</p><p>30. In view of the above discussion, the Revision Petition is allowed, the order of the learned Appellate Authority dated 6.5.2003 is seaside and the order of the Rent Controller dated 22.8.2001 is restored.</p><p>31. Keeping in view the fact that the tenant has been in possession of the premises for a long period he is granted time up to 31st October, 2008 to vacate the premises.</p><p>32. No order as to costs.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '2008(2)ShimLC491',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'Shri S.L. Srivastava',
		'sub' => 'Tenancy',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'shri-arun-bhanwara-vs-s-l-srivastava'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '891084',
	(int) 1 => 'shri-arun-bhanwara-vs-s-l-srivastava'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/891084/shri-arun-bhanwara-vs-s-l-srivastava'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$caseref = 'Ram Narain Arora v. Asha Rani<br>'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>Deepak Gupta, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. This Revision Petition under Section 25(5) of the H.P. Urban Rent Control Act, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) is directed against the order of the learned Appellate Authority, Shimla in CMA No. 60-S/14 of 2001 whereby the appeal filed by the respondent (hereinafter referred to as the tenant) has been allowed, the order of the Rent Controller has been set-aside and the petition for eviction filed by the present petitioner (hereinafter referred to as the Landlord) on the ground of personal bona fide requirement has been set-aside.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. The undisputed facts are that the landlord is owner of the demised premises situated in building known as Tunnel View, Sanjauli, Shimla-6 consisting of two bed rooms with attached bath room and latrine, drawing-cum-dining room, kitchen and balcony. These premises were purchased by the landlord in the year 1986. Thereafter, the landlord had rented out the premises to one Sh. B.K. Chauhan. According to the landlord, when he got married he requested Sh. B.K. Chauhan to vacate the said premises. Sh. Chauhan vacated the said premises but admittedly the landlord did not occupy the same but rented out the same to the tenant in the year 1990.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. In the year 1997 the landlord filed a petition for eviction of the tenant on two grounds; firstly that the tenant is in arrears of rent from 1.11.1990 to 31.7.1997 and secondly that the premises are bona fide required by the landlord for the use and occupation of himself and his family.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>4. This petition was contested by the tenant. After trial, the Rent Controller ordered the eviction of the tenant on two grounds; (i) that the tenant was in arrears of rent from November, 1999 till date of order i.e. 22nd August, 2001 and (ii) that the landlord required the premises for his own use and occupation.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>5. The tenant deposited the rent within the time prescribed. He also filed an appeal challenging the finding on the issue of bona fide requirement. The learned Appellate Authority came to the conclusion that the landlord had not made a proper and full disclosure of facts as required under the provisions of the Act and had withheld material facts from the Court viz. that the landlord was in occupation of residential premises on 31, Mall Road in the urban area of Shimla and as such rejected this petition on this short ground.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>6. Aggrieved by the said order, the landlord has filed the present Revision Petition.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>7. I have heard Sh. Ramakant Sharma, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sh. Bhupinder Gupta, learned senior Counsel for the tenant.',
	(int) 8 => '<p>8. It has been urged on behalf of the landlord that the building which is alleged to be in possession of the landlord i.e. 31, the Mall Shimla is not a residential building and secondly that the building is not owned by him.',
	(int) 9 => '<p>9. On the other hand Sh. Bhupinder Gupta, learned Counsel of the tenant has strenuously urged that the landlord in para 18 has not stated anything about any building being owned by him and has only made an averment that he does not own or possess any other such building within the urban area Shimla. It is contended by Sh. Bhupinder Gupta that the landlord of his own volition did not state anything about the ownership of the building and since he has kept silent about the building which he is in occupation he has made a false averment and therefore his petition for eviction has rightly been rejected.',
	(int) 10 => '<p>10. I am not at all in agreement with the contention of the landlord that the premises known as 31, the Mall Shimla which are admittedly in the occupation of the landlord are commercial premises only and not being used by him for his residence. As pointed out above, the landlord purchased the demised premises in 1986. They fell vacant when he got married despite that he did not occupy the same and rented out the same to the tenant in the year 1990. The question that arises is where was the landlord living for this entire period. According to the landlord after the year 1994 he has been living with his brother-in-law Rajan (wife's brother) PW-2, since the year 1994. Prior to 1994 the landlord will have this Court to believe that he was living off and on with one friend or the other. This story is impossible to believe. The landlord was married in the year 1999. He is an Architect by profession. His wife is a law graduate. It is not believable that such a person would have no permanent abode and would continue to live as a guest with his friends for almost 5 years after his marriage. Even the story that he has been living with his brother-in-law after the year 1994 does not inspire confidence. It stands proved on record that the brother-in-law PW-2 Rajan lives with his own family i.e. wife and children. From the evidence it is also clear that the parents of the brother-in-law also reside with him, His flat consists of only two rooms. The flat in possession of the landlord at 31, the Mall Shimla, also consists of two rooms, kitchen and bath room. Even assuming that he was running an office in the part of the flat it cannot be believed that he would not live on his own flat on the Mall Road and reside with his brother-in-law in cramped premises. Even in the electoral list the landlord is shown to be a resident of 31, The Mall, Shimla. Therefore, I am of the considered view that the building 31, the Mall, Shimla was also being used as a residence by the landlord.',
	(int) 11 => '<p>11. Having held so, the question that arises is whether the landlord can be non-suited only on the ground that he has not made any disclosure about the residential accommodation available with him which premises were admittedly not owned by him.',
	(int) 12 => '<p>12. The short question which arises for decision in this petition is whether the landlord was guilty of suppressing and withholding such relevant facts which would disentitle him from seeking eviction of the tenant. To appreciate these contentions it would be necessary to refer to relevant portion of Section 14(3) of the Act:',
	(int) 13 => '<p>Section 14:',
	(int) 14 => '<p>1 and 2 xxxxxxxxxxx',
	(int) 15 => '<p>(3) A landlord may apply to the Controller for an order directing the tenant to put the landlord in possession-',
	(int) 16 => '<p>(a) in case of residential building, if',
	(int) 17 => '<p>(i) he required it for his own occupation:',
	(int) 18 => '<p>Provided that he is not occupying another residential building owned by him, in the urban area concerned:',
	(int) 19 => '<p>Provided further that he has not vacated such a building without sufficient cause within five years of the filing of the application, in the said urban area....',
	(int) 20 => '<p>13. A perusal of the bare provisions of the Act makes it clear that there are certain essential ingredients which the landlord must satisfy before seeking eviction of the tenant under the Act. Not only must he prove that the residential building is bona fide required by him for his own use and occupation but he must also plead and prove that he is not occupying any other residential building owned by him in the urban area concerned and further that he has not vacated such a building without sufficient cause within 5 years of the filing of the application.',
	(int) 21 => '<p>14. Reference may now be made to the relevant allegations made in para 18 of the eviction petition:',
	(int) 22 => '<p>(ii) That the petitioner bona fide requires the premises for his own use and occupation and also for the use and occupation of his family.',
	(int) 23 => '<p>The petitioner does not own or possess any other such building within the urban area of Simla nor the petitioner has vacated any such premises within five years of the filing of this petition.',
	(int) 24 => '<p>The family of the petitioner presently consists of himself and his wife. Due to paucity of accommodation the petitioner has not been able to keep his wife with himself at Simla, where he is working as an Engineer and she has been residing at Chandigarh since 1991 but on account of her ill health she has been brought to Simla by the petitioner. The petitioner at present is seeking temporary shelter, from time to time, with his relations.',
	(int) 25 => '<p>15. The learned Appellate Authority came to the conclusion that the landlord had falsely pleaded that he does not own or possess any other such building within the urban area of Shimla and hence rejected the eviction petition on this ground.',
	(int) 26 => '<p>16. On a close analysis of the proviso to Section 14(3)(a)(i) of the Act it is clear that a landlord is not entitled to seek eviction of a tenant from residential building even in case of bona fide requirement if the landlord is occupying another residential building owned by him in the urban area concerned. One can read three essential ingredients in this proviso i.e. (i) that the landlord is in occupation of another residential building; (ii) that the said residential building is owned by him and (iii) that the said residential building is situated in the concerned urban area.',
	(int) 27 => '<p>17. The question that arises is what is the impact of the landlord not making a disclosure in respect of premises which he is occupying but are not owned by him.',
	(int) 28 => '<p>18. The Apex Court in Onkar Nath v. Ved Vyas ILR 1979 HP 1, held as follows:',
	(int) 29 => '<p>It is common ground that there are three requirements to make out a cause of action for eviction under that provision, and indeed this is apparent from a bare reading of the sub-section. In the present case the finding is to the effect that the landlord requires the residential building for his own occupation. But, the legislation has taken care to insist upon two more conditions, namely; (a) that the landlord is not occupying any other residential building in the area concerned; and (b) that he has not vacated such a building without sufficient cause. There is not a scintilla of evidence nor indeed there is any averment in compliance with these latter conditions. The necessary consequence follows that not merely is there inadequacy of pleadings sufficient to make out a cause of action but total absence of proof of two vital requirements....',
	(int) 30 => '<p>The Supreme Court also said that:.The statute benignly designed to protect tenants from unreasonable evictions has taken case to put restrictions which must be rigorously construed to fulfil the purpose of the statute.',
	(int) 31 => '<p>19. Following the aforesaid judgment and other pronouncements of the Apex Court, a learned Single Judge of this Court in Tara Chand Sharma v. Baij Nath and Ors. 1992 (2) R.C.J. 323, held as follows:',
	(int) 32 => '<p>16. What appears as the legislative intent, in bold relief, is that the landlord, while seeking eviction of a tenant on the ground that he needs a residential building for his own occupation, must come out clearly and honestly with facts relating to the requirement that he is not occupying another residential building owned by him, in the urban area concerned and that he had not vacated such a building without sufficient cause within five years of the filing of the application, in the said urban area. The primal burden of making a clear disclosure would lie upon the landlord, for, the true facts would be in his special knowledge. An order in his favour by the Rent Controller would depend upon the satisfaction of the Rent Controller in regard not only to the claim that the landlord requires the accommodation, from which he wishes to evict a tenant, for his own occupation but also that he was not occupying another residential building owned by him nor had he vacated such building without sufficient cause within five years of the filing of the application in the application in the urban area concerned....',
	(int) 33 => '<p>It was further held as under:',
	(int) 34 => '<p>18. That the landlord should make a full disclosure of the relevant facts, pertaining to the requirements of Sub-section (3)(a)(i) and the two provisos, becomes all the more necessary because the satisfaction of the Rent Controller in regard thereto is the condition precedent for the making of an order in favour of the landlord....',
	(int) 35 => '<p>20. The aforesaid judgment has been followed in a number of other cases including Vijay Kapoor v. Maya Ram 1997 (2) RCR 437, wherein another learned single Judge of this Court following the aforesaid judgment held that the landlord must make complete and proper disclosure of all the material facts.',
	(int) 36 => '<p>21. On the other hand Sh. Ramakant Sharma has relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in Ram Narain Arora v. Asha Rani 1998(2) RCR 268. In that case the Rent Controller came to the conclusion that the landlord had suppressed material information and had not disclosed the fact that he was already in occupation of a house in Subji Mandi. Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act reads as follows:',
	(int) 37 => '<p>Section 14(1)(e). That the premises let for residential purposes are required bona fide by the landlord for occupation as a residence for himself or for any member of his family dependent on him, if he is the owner thereof, or for any person for whose benefit the premises are held and that the landlord or such person has no other reasonably suitable residential accommodation.',
	(int) 38 => '<p>22. The difference between Delhi Act and the present Act is that under the Delhi Act the only requirement is that the landlord has no other reasonably suitable accommodation whereas under the Himachal Act the residential premises are required to be owned by the landlord. The Apex Court in Rama Narain Arora's case (supra) held that the nondisclosure of the fact that the landlord was in occupation of certain premises in Subji Mandi was.not a ground to non-suit the landlord in view of the facts and circumstances of the case. The Apex Court held as follows:',
	(int) 39 => '<p>9. In making a claim that the suit premises is required bona fide for his own occupation as a residence for himself and other members of his family dependent on him and that he has no other reasonably suitable accommodation is a requirement of law before the Court can state whether the landlord requires the premises bona fide for his use and occupation. In doing so, the Court must also find out whether the landlord or such other person for whose benefit the premises is required has no other reasonably suitable residential accommodation. It cannot be said that the requirement of the landlord is not intermixed with the question of finding out whether he has any other reasonably suitable accommodation. If he has other reasonably suitable accommodation, ihen necessarily it would mean that he does not require the suit premises and his requirement may not be bona fide. In such circumstances further inquiry would be whether that premises is more suitable than the suit premises. Therefore, the questions raised before the Court would not necessarily depend upon only the pleadings. It could be a good defence that the landlord has other reasonably suitable residential accommodation and thereby defend the claim of the landlord.',
	(int) 40 => '<p>10. There cannot be a pedantic or a dogmatic approach in the matter of analysis of pleadings or of the evidence adduced thereto. It is no doubt true that if the pleadings are clearly set out, it would be easy for the Court to decide the matters. But if the pleadings are lacking or vague and if both parties have understood what was the case pleaded and put forth with reference to requirement of law and placed such material before the Court, neither party is prejudiced. If we analyse from this angle, we do not think that the High Court was not justified in interfering with the order made by the Rent Controller.',
	(int) 41 => '<p>23. From the perusal of the judgment of the Apex Court it is apparent that the Rent Controller must approach the matter in a practical manner. In case the non-disclosure is such as that it goes to the very root of the case the Rent Controller would be justified in non-suiting the landlord. However, if the non-disclosure is such that it would not prejudice the rights of the respondent then the landlord should not be non-suited only on this ground.',
	(int) 42 => '<p>24. The decisions of this Court cited hereinabove were delivered prior to the judgment delivered by the Apex Court in Ram Nar'ain Arora's case. Further more both in Tara Chand Sharma's case and Vijay Kapoor's case decided by this Court, no averment had been made ixi respect of other residential buildings owned by a landlord. There was complete non-disclosure as to whether any such residential building owned by the landlord was in his possession or not. In the present case, as I have held above, the residential premises at 31, The Mall, Shimla was not owned by the landlord and hence these two earlier judgments of this Court are distinguishable on facts also.',
	(int) 43 => '<p>25. In the present case, the landlord has been non-suited only on the ground that he did not disclose the fact that he was in occupation of certain premises on the Mall Road. Under law he was not required to disclose this fact. He was only required to disclose the factum of occupying another residential building owned by him in the urban area concerned. True it may be, that it would have been better if the landlord had disclosed all the facts but non-disclosure of a fact which he was not under law required to disclose could not in my opinion be a ground to dismiss his eviction petition.',
	(int) 44 => '<p>26. However, what are the premises in his occupation even as a tenant can be taken into consideration while deciding the question whether he bona fide requires the demised premises for his personal use or occupation or not.',
	(int) 45 => '<p>27. Lastly comes the question with regard to the bona fide requirement of the landlord. The landlord has no children. According to the landlord as well as his other witnesses i.e. his brother-in-law PW-2 and his wife PW-3, the wife now wants to come back and settle in Shimla. There is no reason to disbelieve their statements. Even according to the evidence led by the tenant the accommodation in possession of the landlord consists of two rooms, kitchen, bath room etc. Admittedly, the landlord is also having his office as an Architect in this building. The landlord belongs to the middle class of the Society. It cannot be expected of a landlord who owns sufficient property to reside in a two room set wherein he also runs his office.',
	(int) 46 => '<p>28. The law by now is well settled that the landlord is the best judge of the suitability of the accommodation required by him. This suitability has however to be judged in the context of reasonable expectations. The landlord and his wife who are both well educated can reasonably be expected to entertain guests and they will have visitors to their house. They would obviously require a drawing room, a bed room and a spare bed room for guests. Even at his residence the landlord may require another room for his professional work. This is the minimum accommodation which they would require. Even if the accommodation possessed by the landlord, though not owned by him, at 31, the Mall, Shimla is taken into consideration such accommodation is not sufficient to meet his requirements since admittedly the landlord is running his profession of Architect from some portion of his these premises.',
	(int) 47 => '<p>29. Keeping in view the entire facts and circumstances, I am of the considered view that the learned Appellate Authority gravely erred in rejecting the eviction petition of the landlord solely on the ground that he had not disclosed the factum of being in possession of the premises at 31, the Mall Shimla. Even though I have held that the said premises are residential premises, in view of the above discussion I hold that the landlord cannot be non-suited only on the ground of his being in possession of such premises since same were not owned by him.',
	(int) 48 => '<p>30. In view of the above discussion, the Revision Petition is allowed, the order of the learned Appellate Authority dated 6.5.2003 is seaside and the order of the Rent Controller dated 22.8.2001 is restored.',
	(int) 49 => '<p>31. Keeping in view the fact that the tenant has been in possession of the premises for a long period he is granted time up to 31st October, 2008 to vacate the premises.',
	(int) 50 => '<p>32. No order as to costs.<p>',
	(int) 51 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 52
$i = (int) 47
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

29. Keeping in view the entire facts and circumstances, I am of the considered view that the learned Appellate Authority gravely erred in rejecting the eviction petition of the landlord solely on the ground that he had not disclosed the factum of being in possession of the premises at 31, the Mall Shimla. Even though I have held that the said premises are residential premises, in view of the above discussion I hold that the landlord cannot be non-suited only on the ground of his being in possession of such premises since same were not owned by him.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Shri Arun Bhanwara Vs Shri S L Srivastava - Citation 891084 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '891084',
			'acts' => '',
			'appealno' => '',
			'appellant' => 'Shri Arun Bhanwara',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Shri Arun Bhanwara Vs. Shri S.L. Srivastava',
			'casenote' => ' - CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908.[C.A. No. 5/1908]. Order 14, Rule 2 [As amended by Amending Act of 1976]: [V.K. Gupta, CJ, Deepak Gupta & Surjit Singh, JJ] Preliminary issue of law and fact  Court framing all issues both of law and facts together and also  tried all the issues together, including the issue relating to jurisdiction of Court  Held, Except in situations perceived or warranted under sub-rule (2) of Rule 2 of Order 14 where a  Court in fact frames only issues of law in the first instance and postpones settlement of other issues, clearly and explicitly in situations where the Court has framed all issues together, both of law as well as facts and has also tried all these issues together, it is not open to the Court to adopt the principle of severability and proceed to decide issues of law first, without taking up simultaneously other issues for decision. This course of action is not available to a Court because sub-rule (1) does not permit the  Court to adopt any such principle of severability and to dispose of a suit only on preliminary issues, or what can be termed as issues of law. Sub-rule (1)  clearly mandates that in a situation contemplated under it, where all the issues have been together and have also been taken up for adjudication during the course of the trial, these must be decided together and the judgment in the suit as a whole must be pronounced by the Court covering all the issues framed in the suit.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => 'Ram Narain Arora v. Asha Rani;',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => '',
			'counseldef' => '',
			'court' => 'Himachal Pradesh',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2008-07-31',
			'deposition' => 'Petition allowed',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => ' Deepak Gupta, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">Deepak Gupta, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. This Revision Petition under Section 25(5) of the H.P. Urban Rent Control Act, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) is directed against the order of the learned Appellate Authority, Shimla in CMA No. 60-S/14 of 2001 whereby the appeal filed by the respondent (hereinafter referred to as the tenant) has been allowed, the order of the Rent Controller has been set-aside and the petition for eviction filed by the present petitioner (hereinafter referred to as the Landlord) on the ground of personal bona fide requirement has been set-aside.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The undisputed facts are that the landlord is owner of the demised premises situated in building known as Tunnel View, Sanjauli, Shimla-6 consisting of two bed rooms with attached bath room and latrine, drawing-cum-dining room, kitchen and balcony. These premises were purchased by the landlord in the year 1986. Thereafter, the landlord had rented out the premises to one Sh. B.K. Chauhan. According to the landlord, when he got married he requested Sh. B.K. Chauhan to vacate the said premises. Sh. Chauhan vacated the said premises but admittedly the landlord did not occupy the same but rented out the same to the tenant in the year 1990.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. In the year 1997 the landlord filed a petition for eviction of the tenant on two grounds; firstly that the tenant is in arrears of rent from 1.11.1990 to 31.7.1997 and secondly that the premises are bona fide required by the landlord for the use and occupation of himself and his family.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. This petition was contested by the tenant. After trial, the Rent Controller ordered the eviction of the tenant on two grounds; (i) that the tenant was in arrears of rent from November, 1999 till date of order i.e. 22nd August, 2001 and (ii) that the landlord required the premises for his own use and occupation.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. The tenant deposited the rent within the time prescribed. He also filed an appeal challenging the finding on the issue of bona fide requirement. The learned Appellate Authority came to the conclusion that the landlord had not made a proper and full disclosure of facts as required under the provisions of the Act and had withheld material facts from the Court viz. that the landlord was in occupation of residential premises on 31, Mall Road in the urban area of Shimla and as such rejected this petition on this short ground.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. Aggrieved by the said order, the landlord has filed the present Revision Petition.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. I have heard Sh. Ramakant Sharma, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sh. Bhupinder Gupta, learned senior Counsel for the tenant.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. It has been urged on behalf of the landlord that the building which is alleged to be in possession of the landlord i.e. 31, the Mall Shimla is not a residential building and secondly that the building is not owned by him.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. On the other hand Sh. Bhupinder Gupta, learned Counsel of the tenant has strenuously urged that the landlord in para 18 has not stated anything about any building being owned by him and has only made an averment that he does not own or possess any other such building within the urban area Shimla. It is contended by Sh. Bhupinder Gupta that the landlord of his own volition did not state anything about the ownership of the building and since he has kept silent about the building which he is in occupation he has made a false averment and therefore his petition for eviction has rightly been rejected.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. I am not at all in agreement with the contention of the landlord that the premises known as 31, the Mall Shimla which are admittedly in the occupation of the landlord are commercial premises only and not being used by him for his residence. As pointed out above, the landlord purchased the demised premises in 1986. They fell vacant when he got married despite that he did not occupy the same and rented out the same to the tenant in the year 1990. The question that arises is where was the landlord living for this entire period. According to the landlord after the year 1994 he has been living with his brother-in-law Rajan (wife's brother) PW-2, since the year 1994. Prior to 1994 the landlord will have this Court to believe that he was living off and on with one friend or the other. This story is impossible to believe. The landlord was married in the year 1999. He is an Architect by profession. His wife is a law graduate. It is not believable that such a person would have no permanent abode and would continue to live as a guest with his friends for almost 5 years after his marriage. Even the story that he has been living with his brother-in-law after the year 1994 does not inspire confidence. It stands proved on record that the brother-in-law PW-2 Rajan lives with his own family i.e. wife and children. From the evidence it is also clear that the parents of the brother-in-law also reside with him, His flat consists of only two rooms. The flat in possession of the landlord at 31, the Mall Shimla, also consists of two rooms, kitchen and bath room. Even assuming that he was running an office in the part of the flat it cannot be believed that he would not live on his own flat on the Mall Road and reside with his brother-in-law in cramped premises. Even in the electoral list the landlord is shown to be a resident of 31, The Mall, Shimla. Therefore, I am of the considered view that the building 31, the Mall, Shimla was also being used as a residence by the landlord.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. Having held so, the question that arises is whether the landlord can be non-suited only on the ground that he has not made any disclosure about the residential accommodation available with him which premises were admittedly not owned by him.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. The short question which arises for decision in this petition is whether the landlord was guilty of suppressing and withholding such relevant facts which would disentitle him from seeking eviction of the tenant. To appreciate these contentions it would be necessary to refer to relevant portion of Section 14(3) of the Act:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Section 14:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1 and 2 xxxxxxxxxxx</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(3) A landlord may apply to the Controller for an order directing the tenant to put the landlord in possession-</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(a) in case of residential building, if</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(i) he required it for his own occupation:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Provided that he is not occupying another residential building owned by him, in the urban area concerned:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Provided further that he has not vacated such a building without sufficient cause within five years of the filing of the application, in the said urban area....</p><p style="text-align: justify;">13. A perusal of the bare provisions of the Act makes it clear that there are certain essential ingredients which the landlord must satisfy before seeking eviction of the tenant under the Act. Not only must he prove that the residential building is bona fide required by him for his own use and occupation but he must also plead and prove that he is not occupying any other residential building owned by him in the urban area concerned and further that he has not vacated such a building without sufficient cause within 5 years of the filing of the application.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">14. Reference may now be made to the relevant allegations made in para 18 of the eviction petition:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(ii) That the petitioner bona fide requires the premises for his own use and occupation and also for the use and occupation of his family.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The petitioner does not own or possess any other such building within the urban area of Simla nor the petitioner has vacated any such premises within five years of the filing of this petition.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The family of the petitioner presently consists of himself and his wife. Due to paucity of accommodation the petitioner has not been able to keep his wife with himself at Simla, where he is working as an Engineer and she has been residing at Chandigarh since 1991 but on account of her ill health she has been brought to Simla by the petitioner. The petitioner at present is seeking temporary shelter, from time to time, with his relations.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">15. The learned Appellate Authority came to the conclusion that the landlord had falsely pleaded that he does not own or possess any other such building within the urban area of Shimla and hence rejected the eviction petition on this ground.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">16. On a close analysis of the proviso to Section 14(3)(a)(i) of the Act it is clear that a landlord is not entitled to seek eviction of a tenant from residential building even in case of bona fide requirement if the landlord is occupying another residential building owned by him in the urban area concerned. One can read three essential ingredients in this proviso i.e. (i) that the landlord is in occupation of another residential building; (ii) that the said residential building is owned by him and (iii) that the said residential building is situated in the concerned urban area.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">17. The question that arises is what is the impact of the landlord not making a disclosure in respect of premises which he is occupying but are not owned by him.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">18. The Apex Court in Onkar Nath v. Ved Vyas ILR 1979 HP 1, held as follows:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">It is common ground that there are three requirements to make out a cause of action for eviction under that provision, and indeed this is apparent from a bare reading of the sub-section. In the present case the finding is to the effect that the landlord requires the residential building for his own occupation. But, the legislation has taken care to insist upon two more conditions, namely; (a) that the landlord is not occupying any other residential building in the area concerned; and (b) that he has not vacated such a building without sufficient cause. There is not a scintilla of evidence nor indeed there is any averment in compliance with these latter conditions. The necessary consequence follows that not merely is there inadequacy of pleadings sufficient to make out a cause of action but total absence of proof of two vital requirements....</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The Supreme Court also said that:.The statute benignly designed to protect tenants from unreasonable evictions has taken case to put restrictions which must be rigorously construed to fulfil the purpose of the statute.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">19. Following the aforesaid judgment and other pronouncements of the Apex Court, a learned Single Judge of this Court in Tara Chand Sharma v. Baij Nath and Ors. 1992 (2) R.C.J. 323, held as follows:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">16. What appears as the legislative intent, in bold relief, is that the landlord, while seeking eviction of a tenant on the ground that he needs a residential building for his own occupation, must come out clearly and honestly with facts relating to the requirement that he is not occupying another residential building owned by him, in the urban area concerned and that he had not vacated such a building without sufficient cause within five years of the filing of the application, in the said urban area. The primal burden of making a clear disclosure would lie upon the landlord, for, the true facts would be in his special knowledge. An order in his favour by the Rent Controller would depend upon the satisfaction of the Rent Controller in regard not only to the claim that the landlord requires the accommodation, from which he wishes to evict a tenant, for his own occupation but also that he was not occupying another residential building owned by him nor had he vacated such building without sufficient cause within five years of the filing of the application in the application in the urban area concerned....</p><p style="text-align: justify;">It was further held as under:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">18. That the landlord should make a full disclosure of the relevant facts, pertaining to the requirements of Sub-section (3)(a)(i) and the two provisos, becomes all the more necessary because the satisfaction of the Rent Controller in regard thereto is the condition precedent for the making of an order in favour of the landlord....</p><p style="text-align: justify;">20. The aforesaid judgment has been followed in a number of other cases including Vijay Kapoor v. Maya Ram 1997 (2) RCR 437, wherein another learned single Judge of this Court following the aforesaid judgment held that the landlord must make complete and proper disclosure of all the material facts.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">21. On the other hand Sh. Ramakant Sharma has relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in Ram Narain Arora v. Asha Rani 1998(2) RCR 268. In that case the Rent Controller came to the conclusion that the landlord had suppressed material information and had not disclosed the fact that he was already in occupation of a house in Subji Mandi. Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act reads as follows:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Section 14(1)(e). That the premises let for residential purposes are required bona fide by the landlord for occupation as a residence for himself or for any member of his family dependent on him, if he is the owner thereof, or for any person for whose benefit the premises are held and that the landlord or such person has no other reasonably suitable residential accommodation.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">22. The difference between Delhi Act and the present Act is that under the Delhi Act the only requirement is that the landlord has no other reasonably suitable accommodation whereas under the Himachal Act the residential premises are required to be owned by the landlord. The Apex Court in Rama Narain Arora's case (supra) held that the nondisclosure of the fact that the landlord was in occupation of certain premises in Subji Mandi was.not a ground to non-suit the landlord in view of the facts and circumstances of the case. The Apex Court held as follows:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. In making a claim that the suit premises is required bona fide for his own occupation as a residence for himself and other members of his family dependent on him and that he has no other reasonably suitable accommodation is a requirement of law before the Court can state whether the landlord requires the premises bona fide for his use and occupation. In doing so, the Court must also find out whether the landlord or such other person for whose benefit the premises is required has no other reasonably suitable residential accommodation. It cannot be said that the requirement of the landlord is not intermixed with the question of finding out whether he has any other reasonably suitable accommodation. If he has other reasonably suitable accommodation, ihen necessarily it would mean that he does not require the suit premises and his requirement may not be bona fide. In such circumstances further inquiry would be whether that premises is more suitable than the suit premises. Therefore, the questions raised before the Court would not necessarily depend upon only the pleadings. It could be a good defence that the landlord has other reasonably suitable residential accommodation and thereby defend the claim of the landlord.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. There cannot be a pedantic or a dogmatic approach in the matter of analysis of pleadings or of the evidence adduced thereto. It is no doubt true that if the pleadings are clearly set out, it would be easy for the Court to decide the matters. But if the pleadings are lacking or vague and if both parties have understood what was the case pleaded and put forth with reference to requirement of law and placed such material before the Court, neither party is prejudiced. If we analyse from this angle, we do not think that the High Court was not justified in interfering with the order made by the Rent Controller.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">23. From the perusal of the judgment of the Apex Court it is apparent that the Rent Controller must approach the matter in a practical manner. In case the non-disclosure is such as that it goes to the very root of the case the Rent Controller would be justified in non-suiting the landlord. However, if the non-disclosure is such that it would not prejudice the rights of the respondent then the landlord should not be non-suited only on this ground.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">24. The decisions of this Court cited hereinabove were delivered prior to the judgment delivered by the Apex Court in Ram Nar'ain Arora's case. Further more both in Tara Chand Sharma's case and Vijay Kapoor's case decided by this Court, no averment had been made ixi respect of other residential buildings owned by a landlord. There was complete non-disclosure as to whether any such residential building owned by the landlord was in his possession or not. In the present case, as I have held above, the residential premises at 31, The Mall, Shimla was not owned by the landlord and hence these two earlier judgments of this Court are distinguishable on facts also.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">25. In the present case, the landlord has been non-suited only on the ground that he did not disclose the fact that he was in occupation of certain premises on the Mall Road. Under law he was not required to disclose this fact. He was only required to disclose the factum of occupying another residential building owned by him in the urban area concerned. True it may be, that it would have been better if the landlord had disclosed all the facts but non-disclosure of a fact which he was not under law required to disclose could not in my opinion be a ground to dismiss his eviction petition.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">26. However, what are the premises in his occupation even as a tenant can be taken into consideration while deciding the question whether he bona fide requires the demised premises for his personal use or occupation or not.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">27. Lastly comes the question with regard to the bona fide requirement of the landlord. The landlord has no children. According to the landlord as well as his other witnesses i.e. his brother-in-law PW-2 and his wife PW-3, the wife now wants to come back and settle in Shimla. There is no reason to disbelieve their statements. Even according to the evidence led by the tenant the accommodation in possession of the landlord consists of two rooms, kitchen, bath room etc. Admittedly, the landlord is also having his office as an Architect in this building. The landlord belongs to the middle class of the Society. It cannot be expected of a landlord who owns sufficient property to reside in a two room set wherein he also runs his office.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">28. The law by now is well settled that the landlord is the best judge of the suitability of the accommodation required by him. This suitability has however to be judged in the context of reasonable expectations. The landlord and his wife who are both well educated can reasonably be expected to entertain guests and they will have visitors to their house. They would obviously require a drawing room, a bed room and a spare bed room for guests. Even at his residence the landlord may require another room for his professional work. This is the minimum accommodation which they would require. Even if the accommodation possessed by the landlord, though not owned by him, at 31, the Mall, Shimla is taken into consideration such accommodation is not sufficient to meet his requirements since admittedly the landlord is running his profession of Architect from some portion of his these premises.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">29. Keeping in view the entire facts and circumstances, I am of the considered view that the learned Appellate Authority gravely erred in rejecting the eviction petition of the landlord solely on the ground that he had not disclosed the factum of being in possession of the premises at 31, the Mall Shimla. Even though I have held that the said premises are residential premises, in view of the above discussion I hold that the landlord cannot be non-suited only on the ground of his being in possession of such premises since same were not owned by him.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">30. In view of the above discussion, the Revision Petition is allowed, the order of the learned Appellate Authority dated 6.5.2003 is seaside and the order of the Rent Controller dated 22.8.2001 is restored.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">31. Keeping in view the fact that the tenant has been in possession of the premises for a long period he is granted time up to 31st October, 2008 to vacate the premises.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">32. No order as to costs.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '2008(2)ShimLC491',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'Shri S.L. Srivastava',
			'sub' => 'Tenancy',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'shri-arun-bhanwara-vs-s-l-srivastava',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '891084',
		(int) 1 => 'shri-arun-bhanwara-vs-s-l-srivastava'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Shri Arun Bhanwara Vs Shri S L Srivastava - Citation 891084 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '891084',
		'acts' => '',
		'appealno' => '',
		'appellant' => 'Shri Arun Bhanwara',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Shri Arun Bhanwara Vs. Shri S.L. Srivastava',
		'casenote' => ' - CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908.[C.A. No. 5/1908]. Order 14, Rule 2 [As amended by Amending Act of 1976]: [V.K. Gupta, CJ, Deepak Gupta & Surjit Singh, JJ] Preliminary issue of law and fact  Court framing all issues both of law and facts together and also  tried all the issues together, including the issue relating to jurisdiction of Court  Held, Except in situations perceived or warranted under sub-rule (2) of Rule 2 of Order 14 where a  Court in fact frames only issues of law in the first instance and postpones settlement of other issues, clearly and explicitly in situations where the Court has framed all issues together, both of law as well as facts and has also tried all these issues together, it is not open to the Court to adopt the principle of severability and proceed to decide issues of law first, without taking up simultaneously other issues for decision. This course of action is not available to a Court because sub-rule (1) does not permit the  Court to adopt any such principle of severability and to dispose of a suit only on preliminary issues, or what can be termed as issues of law. Sub-rule (1)  clearly mandates that in a situation contemplated under it, where all the issues have been together and have also been taken up for adjudication during the course of the trial, these must be decided together and the judgment in the suit as a whole must be pronounced by the Court covering all the issues framed in the suit.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => 'Ram Narain Arora v. Asha Rani;',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => '',
		'counseldef' => '',
		'court' => 'Himachal Pradesh',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2008-07-31',
		'deposition' => 'Petition allowed',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => ' Deepak Gupta, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>Deepak Gupta, J.</p><p>1. This Revision Petition under Section 25(5) of the H.P. Urban Rent Control Act, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) is directed against the order of the learned Appellate Authority, Shimla in CMA No. 60-S/14 of 2001 whereby the appeal filed by the respondent (hereinafter referred to as the tenant) has been allowed, the order of the Rent Controller has been set-aside and the petition for eviction filed by the present petitioner (hereinafter referred to as the Landlord) on the ground of personal bona fide requirement has been set-aside.</p><p>2. The undisputed facts are that the landlord is owner of the demised premises situated in building known as Tunnel View, Sanjauli, Shimla-6 consisting of two bed rooms with attached bath room and latrine, drawing-cum-dining room, kitchen and balcony. These premises were purchased by the landlord in the year 1986. Thereafter, the landlord had rented out the premises to one Sh. B.K. Chauhan. According to the landlord, when he got married he requested Sh. B.K. Chauhan to vacate the said premises. Sh. Chauhan vacated the said premises but admittedly the landlord did not occupy the same but rented out the same to the tenant in the year 1990.</p><p>3. In the year 1997 the landlord filed a petition for eviction of the tenant on two grounds; firstly that the tenant is in arrears of rent from 1.11.1990 to 31.7.1997 and secondly that the premises are bona fide required by the landlord for the use and occupation of himself and his family.</p><p>4. This petition was contested by the tenant. After trial, the Rent Controller ordered the eviction of the tenant on two grounds; (i) that the tenant was in arrears of rent from November, 1999 till date of order i.e. 22nd August, 2001 and (ii) that the landlord required the premises for his own use and occupation.</p><p>5. The tenant deposited the rent within the time prescribed. He also filed an appeal challenging the finding on the issue of bona fide requirement. The learned Appellate Authority came to the conclusion that the landlord had not made a proper and full disclosure of facts as required under the provisions of the Act and had withheld material facts from the Court viz. that the landlord was in occupation of residential premises on 31, Mall Road in the urban area of Shimla and as such rejected this petition on this short ground.</p><p>6. Aggrieved by the said order, the landlord has filed the present Revision Petition.</p><p>7. I have heard Sh. Ramakant Sharma, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sh. Bhupinder Gupta, learned senior Counsel for the tenant.</p><p>8. It has been urged on behalf of the landlord that the building which is alleged to be in possession of the landlord i.e. 31, the Mall Shimla is not a residential building and secondly that the building is not owned by him.</p><p>9. On the other hand Sh. Bhupinder Gupta, learned Counsel of the tenant has strenuously urged that the landlord in para 18 has not stated anything about any building being owned by him and has only made an averment that he does not own or possess any other such building within the urban area Shimla. It is contended by Sh. Bhupinder Gupta that the landlord of his own volition did not state anything about the ownership of the building and since he has kept silent about the building which he is in occupation he has made a false averment and therefore his petition for eviction has rightly been rejected.</p><p>10. I am not at all in agreement with the contention of the landlord that the premises known as 31, the Mall Shimla which are admittedly in the occupation of the landlord are commercial premises only and not being used by him for his residence. As pointed out above, the landlord purchased the demised premises in 1986. They fell vacant when he got married despite that he did not occupy the same and rented out the same to the tenant in the year 1990. The question that arises is where was the landlord living for this entire period. According to the landlord after the year 1994 he has been living with his brother-in-law Rajan (wife's brother) PW-2, since the year 1994. Prior to 1994 the landlord will have this Court to believe that he was living off and on with one friend or the other. This story is impossible to believe. The landlord was married in the year 1999. He is an Architect by profession. His wife is a law graduate. It is not believable that such a person would have no permanent abode and would continue to live as a guest with his friends for almost 5 years after his marriage. Even the story that he has been living with his brother-in-law after the year 1994 does not inspire confidence. It stands proved on record that the brother-in-law PW-2 Rajan lives with his own family i.e. wife and children. From the evidence it is also clear that the parents of the brother-in-law also reside with him, His flat consists of only two rooms. The flat in possession of the landlord at 31, the Mall Shimla, also consists of two rooms, kitchen and bath room. Even assuming that he was running an office in the part of the flat it cannot be believed that he would not live on his own flat on the Mall Road and reside with his brother-in-law in cramped premises. Even in the electoral list the landlord is shown to be a resident of 31, The Mall, Shimla. Therefore, I am of the considered view that the building 31, the Mall, Shimla was also being used as a residence by the landlord.</p><p>11. Having held so, the question that arises is whether the landlord can be non-suited only on the ground that he has not made any disclosure about the residential accommodation available with him which premises were admittedly not owned by him.</p><p>12. The short question which arises for decision in this petition is whether the landlord was guilty of suppressing and withholding such relevant facts which would disentitle him from seeking eviction of the tenant. To appreciate these contentions it would be necessary to refer to relevant portion of Section 14(3) of the Act:</p><p>Section 14:</p><p>1 and 2 xxxxxxxxxxx</p><p>(3) A landlord may apply to the Controller for an order directing the tenant to put the landlord in possession-</p><p>(a) in case of residential building, if</p><p>(i) he required it for his own occupation:</p><p>Provided that he is not occupying another residential building owned by him, in the urban area concerned:</p><p>Provided further that he has not vacated such a building without sufficient cause within five years of the filing of the application, in the said urban area....</p><p>13. A perusal of the bare provisions of the Act makes it clear that there are certain essential ingredients which the landlord must satisfy before seeking eviction of the tenant under the Act. Not only must he prove that the residential building is bona fide required by him for his own use and occupation but he must also plead and prove that he is not occupying any other residential building owned by him in the urban area concerned and further that he has not vacated such a building without sufficient cause within 5 years of the filing of the application.</p><p>14. Reference may now be made to the relevant allegations made in para 18 of the eviction petition:</p><p>(ii) That the petitioner bona fide requires the premises for his own use and occupation and also for the use and occupation of his family.</p><p>The petitioner does not own or possess any other such building within the urban area of Simla nor the petitioner has vacated any such premises within five years of the filing of this petition.</p><p>The family of the petitioner presently consists of himself and his wife. Due to paucity of accommodation the petitioner has not been able to keep his wife with himself at Simla, where he is working as an Engineer and she has been residing at Chandigarh since 1991 but on account of her ill health she has been brought to Simla by the petitioner. The petitioner at present is seeking temporary shelter, from time to time, with his relations.</p><p>15. The learned Appellate Authority came to the conclusion that the landlord had falsely pleaded that he does not own or possess any other such building within the urban area of Shimla and hence rejected the eviction petition on this ground.</p><p>16. On a close analysis of the proviso to Section 14(3)(a)(i) of the Act it is clear that a landlord is not entitled to seek eviction of a tenant from residential building even in case of bona fide requirement if the landlord is occupying another residential building owned by him in the urban area concerned. One can read three essential ingredients in this proviso i.e. (i) that the landlord is in occupation of another residential building; (ii) that the said residential building is owned by him and (iii) that the said residential building is situated in the concerned urban area.</p><p>17. The question that arises is what is the impact of the landlord not making a disclosure in respect of premises which he is occupying but are not owned by him.</p><p>18. The Apex Court in Onkar Nath v. Ved Vyas ILR 1979 HP 1, held as follows:</p><p>It is common ground that there are three requirements to make out a cause of action for eviction under that provision, and indeed this is apparent from a bare reading of the sub-section. In the present case the finding is to the effect that the landlord requires the residential building for his own occupation. But, the legislation has taken care to insist upon two more conditions, namely; (a) that the landlord is not occupying any other residential building in the area concerned; and (b) that he has not vacated such a building without sufficient cause. There is not a scintilla of evidence nor indeed there is any averment in compliance with these latter conditions. The necessary consequence follows that not merely is there inadequacy of pleadings sufficient to make out a cause of action but total absence of proof of two vital requirements....</p><p>The Supreme Court also said that:.The statute benignly designed to protect tenants from unreasonable evictions has taken case to put restrictions which must be rigorously construed to fulfil the purpose of the statute.</p><p>19. Following the aforesaid judgment and other pronouncements of the Apex Court, a learned Single Judge of this Court in Tara Chand Sharma v. Baij Nath and Ors. 1992 (2) R.C.J. 323, held as follows:</p><p>16. What appears as the legislative intent, in bold relief, is that the landlord, while seeking eviction of a tenant on the ground that he needs a residential building for his own occupation, must come out clearly and honestly with facts relating to the requirement that he is not occupying another residential building owned by him, in the urban area concerned and that he had not vacated such a building without sufficient cause within five years of the filing of the application, in the said urban area. The primal burden of making a clear disclosure would lie upon the landlord, for, the true facts would be in his special knowledge. An order in his favour by the Rent Controller would depend upon the satisfaction of the Rent Controller in regard not only to the claim that the landlord requires the accommodation, from which he wishes to evict a tenant, for his own occupation but also that he was not occupying another residential building owned by him nor had he vacated such building without sufficient cause within five years of the filing of the application in the application in the urban area concerned....</p><p>It was further held as under:</p><p>18. That the landlord should make a full disclosure of the relevant facts, pertaining to the requirements of Sub-section (3)(a)(i) and the two provisos, becomes all the more necessary because the satisfaction of the Rent Controller in regard thereto is the condition precedent for the making of an order in favour of the landlord....</p><p>20. The aforesaid judgment has been followed in a number of other cases including Vijay Kapoor v. Maya Ram 1997 (2) RCR 437, wherein another learned single Judge of this Court following the aforesaid judgment held that the landlord must make complete and proper disclosure of all the material facts.</p><p>21. On the other hand Sh. Ramakant Sharma has relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in Ram Narain Arora v. Asha Rani 1998(2) RCR 268. In that case the Rent Controller came to the conclusion that the landlord had suppressed material information and had not disclosed the fact that he was already in occupation of a house in Subji Mandi. Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act reads as follows:</p><p>Section 14(1)(e). That the premises let for residential purposes are required bona fide by the landlord for occupation as a residence for himself or for any member of his family dependent on him, if he is the owner thereof, or for any person for whose benefit the premises are held and that the landlord or such person has no other reasonably suitable residential accommodation.</p><p>22. The difference between Delhi Act and the present Act is that under the Delhi Act the only requirement is that the landlord has no other reasonably suitable accommodation whereas under the Himachal Act the residential premises are required to be owned by the landlord. The Apex Court in Rama Narain Arora's case (supra) held that the nondisclosure of the fact that the landlord was in occupation of certain premises in Subji Mandi was.not a ground to non-suit the landlord in view of the facts and circumstances of the case. The Apex Court held as follows:</p><p>9. In making a claim that the suit premises is required bona fide for his own occupation as a residence for himself and other members of his family dependent on him and that he has no other reasonably suitable accommodation is a requirement of law before the Court can state whether the landlord requires the premises bona fide for his use and occupation. In doing so, the Court must also find out whether the landlord or such other person for whose benefit the premises is required has no other reasonably suitable residential accommodation. It cannot be said that the requirement of the landlord is not intermixed with the question of finding out whether he has any other reasonably suitable accommodation. If he has other reasonably suitable accommodation, ihen necessarily it would mean that he does not require the suit premises and his requirement may not be bona fide. In such circumstances further inquiry would be whether that premises is more suitable than the suit premises. Therefore, the questions raised before the Court would not necessarily depend upon only the pleadings. It could be a good defence that the landlord has other reasonably suitable residential accommodation and thereby defend the claim of the landlord.</p><p>10. There cannot be a pedantic or a dogmatic approach in the matter of analysis of pleadings or of the evidence adduced thereto. It is no doubt true that if the pleadings are clearly set out, it would be easy for the Court to decide the matters. But if the pleadings are lacking or vague and if both parties have understood what was the case pleaded and put forth with reference to requirement of law and placed such material before the Court, neither party is prejudiced. If we analyse from this angle, we do not think that the High Court was not justified in interfering with the order made by the Rent Controller.</p><p>23. From the perusal of the judgment of the Apex Court it is apparent that the Rent Controller must approach the matter in a practical manner. In case the non-disclosure is such as that it goes to the very root of the case the Rent Controller would be justified in non-suiting the landlord. However, if the non-disclosure is such that it would not prejudice the rights of the respondent then the landlord should not be non-suited only on this ground.</p><p>24. The decisions of this Court cited hereinabove were delivered prior to the judgment delivered by the Apex Court in Ram Nar'ain Arora's case. Further more both in Tara Chand Sharma's case and Vijay Kapoor's case decided by this Court, no averment had been made ixi respect of other residential buildings owned by a landlord. There was complete non-disclosure as to whether any such residential building owned by the landlord was in his possession or not. In the present case, as I have held above, the residential premises at 31, The Mall, Shimla was not owned by the landlord and hence these two earlier judgments of this Court are distinguishable on facts also.</p><p>25. In the present case, the landlord has been non-suited only on the ground that he did not disclose the fact that he was in occupation of certain premises on the Mall Road. Under law he was not required to disclose this fact. He was only required to disclose the factum of occupying another residential building owned by him in the urban area concerned. True it may be, that it would have been better if the landlord had disclosed all the facts but non-disclosure of a fact which he was not under law required to disclose could not in my opinion be a ground to dismiss his eviction petition.</p><p>26. However, what are the premises in his occupation even as a tenant can be taken into consideration while deciding the question whether he bona fide requires the demised premises for his personal use or occupation or not.</p><p>27. Lastly comes the question with regard to the bona fide requirement of the landlord. The landlord has no children. According to the landlord as well as his other witnesses i.e. his brother-in-law PW-2 and his wife PW-3, the wife now wants to come back and settle in Shimla. There is no reason to disbelieve their statements. Even according to the evidence led by the tenant the accommodation in possession of the landlord consists of two rooms, kitchen, bath room etc. Admittedly, the landlord is also having his office as an Architect in this building. The landlord belongs to the middle class of the Society. It cannot be expected of a landlord who owns sufficient property to reside in a two room set wherein he also runs his office.</p><p>28. The law by now is well settled that the landlord is the best judge of the suitability of the accommodation required by him. This suitability has however to be judged in the context of reasonable expectations. The landlord and his wife who are both well educated can reasonably be expected to entertain guests and they will have visitors to their house. They would obviously require a drawing room, a bed room and a spare bed room for guests. Even at his residence the landlord may require another room for his professional work. This is the minimum accommodation which they would require. Even if the accommodation possessed by the landlord, though not owned by him, at 31, the Mall, Shimla is taken into consideration such accommodation is not sufficient to meet his requirements since admittedly the landlord is running his profession of Architect from some portion of his these premises.</p><p>29. Keeping in view the entire facts and circumstances, I am of the considered view that the learned Appellate Authority gravely erred in rejecting the eviction petition of the landlord solely on the ground that he had not disclosed the factum of being in possession of the premises at 31, the Mall Shimla. Even though I have held that the said premises are residential premises, in view of the above discussion I hold that the landlord cannot be non-suited only on the ground of his being in possession of such premises since same were not owned by him.</p><p>30. In view of the above discussion, the Revision Petition is allowed, the order of the learned Appellate Authority dated 6.5.2003 is seaside and the order of the Rent Controller dated 22.8.2001 is restored.</p><p>31. Keeping in view the fact that the tenant has been in possession of the premises for a long period he is granted time up to 31st October, 2008 to vacate the premises.</p><p>32. No order as to costs.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '2008(2)ShimLC491',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'Shri S.L. Srivastava',
		'sub' => 'Tenancy',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'shri-arun-bhanwara-vs-s-l-srivastava'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '891084',
	(int) 1 => 'shri-arun-bhanwara-vs-s-l-srivastava'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/891084/shri-arun-bhanwara-vs-s-l-srivastava'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$caseref = 'Ram Narain Arora v. Asha Rani<br>'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>Deepak Gupta, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. This Revision Petition under Section 25(5) of the H.P. Urban Rent Control Act, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) is directed against the order of the learned Appellate Authority, Shimla in CMA No. 60-S/14 of 2001 whereby the appeal filed by the respondent (hereinafter referred to as the tenant) has been allowed, the order of the Rent Controller has been set-aside and the petition for eviction filed by the present petitioner (hereinafter referred to as the Landlord) on the ground of personal bona fide requirement has been set-aside.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. The undisputed facts are that the landlord is owner of the demised premises situated in building known as Tunnel View, Sanjauli, Shimla-6 consisting of two bed rooms with attached bath room and latrine, drawing-cum-dining room, kitchen and balcony. These premises were purchased by the landlord in the year 1986. Thereafter, the landlord had rented out the premises to one Sh. B.K. Chauhan. According to the landlord, when he got married he requested Sh. B.K. Chauhan to vacate the said premises. Sh. Chauhan vacated the said premises but admittedly the landlord did not occupy the same but rented out the same to the tenant in the year 1990.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. In the year 1997 the landlord filed a petition for eviction of the tenant on two grounds; firstly that the tenant is in arrears of rent from 1.11.1990 to 31.7.1997 and secondly that the premises are bona fide required by the landlord for the use and occupation of himself and his family.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>4. This petition was contested by the tenant. After trial, the Rent Controller ordered the eviction of the tenant on two grounds; (i) that the tenant was in arrears of rent from November, 1999 till date of order i.e. 22nd August, 2001 and (ii) that the landlord required the premises for his own use and occupation.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>5. The tenant deposited the rent within the time prescribed. He also filed an appeal challenging the finding on the issue of bona fide requirement. The learned Appellate Authority came to the conclusion that the landlord had not made a proper and full disclosure of facts as required under the provisions of the Act and had withheld material facts from the Court viz. that the landlord was in occupation of residential premises on 31, Mall Road in the urban area of Shimla and as such rejected this petition on this short ground.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>6. Aggrieved by the said order, the landlord has filed the present Revision Petition.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>7. I have heard Sh. Ramakant Sharma, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sh. Bhupinder Gupta, learned senior Counsel for the tenant.',
	(int) 8 => '<p>8. It has been urged on behalf of the landlord that the building which is alleged to be in possession of the landlord i.e. 31, the Mall Shimla is not a residential building and secondly that the building is not owned by him.',
	(int) 9 => '<p>9. On the other hand Sh. Bhupinder Gupta, learned Counsel of the tenant has strenuously urged that the landlord in para 18 has not stated anything about any building being owned by him and has only made an averment that he does not own or possess any other such building within the urban area Shimla. It is contended by Sh. Bhupinder Gupta that the landlord of his own volition did not state anything about the ownership of the building and since he has kept silent about the building which he is in occupation he has made a false averment and therefore his petition for eviction has rightly been rejected.',
	(int) 10 => '<p>10. I am not at all in agreement with the contention of the landlord that the premises known as 31, the Mall Shimla which are admittedly in the occupation of the landlord are commercial premises only and not being used by him for his residence. As pointed out above, the landlord purchased the demised premises in 1986. They fell vacant when he got married despite that he did not occupy the same and rented out the same to the tenant in the year 1990. The question that arises is where was the landlord living for this entire period. According to the landlord after the year 1994 he has been living with his brother-in-law Rajan (wife's brother) PW-2, since the year 1994. Prior to 1994 the landlord will have this Court to believe that he was living off and on with one friend or the other. This story is impossible to believe. The landlord was married in the year 1999. He is an Architect by profession. His wife is a law graduate. It is not believable that such a person would have no permanent abode and would continue to live as a guest with his friends for almost 5 years after his marriage. Even the story that he has been living with his brother-in-law after the year 1994 does not inspire confidence. It stands proved on record that the brother-in-law PW-2 Rajan lives with his own family i.e. wife and children. From the evidence it is also clear that the parents of the brother-in-law also reside with him, His flat consists of only two rooms. The flat in possession of the landlord at 31, the Mall Shimla, also consists of two rooms, kitchen and bath room. Even assuming that he was running an office in the part of the flat it cannot be believed that he would not live on his own flat on the Mall Road and reside with his brother-in-law in cramped premises. Even in the electoral list the landlord is shown to be a resident of 31, The Mall, Shimla. Therefore, I am of the considered view that the building 31, the Mall, Shimla was also being used as a residence by the landlord.',
	(int) 11 => '<p>11. Having held so, the question that arises is whether the landlord can be non-suited only on the ground that he has not made any disclosure about the residential accommodation available with him which premises were admittedly not owned by him.',
	(int) 12 => '<p>12. The short question which arises for decision in this petition is whether the landlord was guilty of suppressing and withholding such relevant facts which would disentitle him from seeking eviction of the tenant. To appreciate these contentions it would be necessary to refer to relevant portion of Section 14(3) of the Act:',
	(int) 13 => '<p>Section 14:',
	(int) 14 => '<p>1 and 2 xxxxxxxxxxx',
	(int) 15 => '<p>(3) A landlord may apply to the Controller for an order directing the tenant to put the landlord in possession-',
	(int) 16 => '<p>(a) in case of residential building, if',
	(int) 17 => '<p>(i) he required it for his own occupation:',
	(int) 18 => '<p>Provided that he is not occupying another residential building owned by him, in the urban area concerned:',
	(int) 19 => '<p>Provided further that he has not vacated such a building without sufficient cause within five years of the filing of the application, in the said urban area....',
	(int) 20 => '<p>13. A perusal of the bare provisions of the Act makes it clear that there are certain essential ingredients which the landlord must satisfy before seeking eviction of the tenant under the Act. Not only must he prove that the residential building is bona fide required by him for his own use and occupation but he must also plead and prove that he is not occupying any other residential building owned by him in the urban area concerned and further that he has not vacated such a building without sufficient cause within 5 years of the filing of the application.',
	(int) 21 => '<p>14. Reference may now be made to the relevant allegations made in para 18 of the eviction petition:',
	(int) 22 => '<p>(ii) That the petitioner bona fide requires the premises for his own use and occupation and also for the use and occupation of his family.',
	(int) 23 => '<p>The petitioner does not own or possess any other such building within the urban area of Simla nor the petitioner has vacated any such premises within five years of the filing of this petition.',
	(int) 24 => '<p>The family of the petitioner presently consists of himself and his wife. Due to paucity of accommodation the petitioner has not been able to keep his wife with himself at Simla, where he is working as an Engineer and she has been residing at Chandigarh since 1991 but on account of her ill health she has been brought to Simla by the petitioner. The petitioner at present is seeking temporary shelter, from time to time, with his relations.',
	(int) 25 => '<p>15. The learned Appellate Authority came to the conclusion that the landlord had falsely pleaded that he does not own or possess any other such building within the urban area of Shimla and hence rejected the eviction petition on this ground.',
	(int) 26 => '<p>16. On a close analysis of the proviso to Section 14(3)(a)(i) of the Act it is clear that a landlord is not entitled to seek eviction of a tenant from residential building even in case of bona fide requirement if the landlord is occupying another residential building owned by him in the urban area concerned. One can read three essential ingredients in this proviso i.e. (i) that the landlord is in occupation of another residential building; (ii) that the said residential building is owned by him and (iii) that the said residential building is situated in the concerned urban area.',
	(int) 27 => '<p>17. The question that arises is what is the impact of the landlord not making a disclosure in respect of premises which he is occupying but are not owned by him.',
	(int) 28 => '<p>18. The Apex Court in Onkar Nath v. Ved Vyas ILR 1979 HP 1, held as follows:',
	(int) 29 => '<p>It is common ground that there are three requirements to make out a cause of action for eviction under that provision, and indeed this is apparent from a bare reading of the sub-section. In the present case the finding is to the effect that the landlord requires the residential building for his own occupation. But, the legislation has taken care to insist upon two more conditions, namely; (a) that the landlord is not occupying any other residential building in the area concerned; and (b) that he has not vacated such a building without sufficient cause. There is not a scintilla of evidence nor indeed there is any averment in compliance with these latter conditions. The necessary consequence follows that not merely is there inadequacy of pleadings sufficient to make out a cause of action but total absence of proof of two vital requirements....',
	(int) 30 => '<p>The Supreme Court also said that:.The statute benignly designed to protect tenants from unreasonable evictions has taken case to put restrictions which must be rigorously construed to fulfil the purpose of the statute.',
	(int) 31 => '<p>19. Following the aforesaid judgment and other pronouncements of the Apex Court, a learned Single Judge of this Court in Tara Chand Sharma v. Baij Nath and Ors. 1992 (2) R.C.J. 323, held as follows:',
	(int) 32 => '<p>16. What appears as the legislative intent, in bold relief, is that the landlord, while seeking eviction of a tenant on the ground that he needs a residential building for his own occupation, must come out clearly and honestly with facts relating to the requirement that he is not occupying another residential building owned by him, in the urban area concerned and that he had not vacated such a building without sufficient cause within five years of the filing of the application, in the said urban area. The primal burden of making a clear disclosure would lie upon the landlord, for, the true facts would be in his special knowledge. An order in his favour by the Rent Controller would depend upon the satisfaction of the Rent Controller in regard not only to the claim that the landlord requires the accommodation, from which he wishes to evict a tenant, for his own occupation but also that he was not occupying another residential building owned by him nor had he vacated such building without sufficient cause within five years of the filing of the application in the application in the urban area concerned....',
	(int) 33 => '<p>It was further held as under:',
	(int) 34 => '<p>18. That the landlord should make a full disclosure of the relevant facts, pertaining to the requirements of Sub-section (3)(a)(i) and the two provisos, becomes all the more necessary because the satisfaction of the Rent Controller in regard thereto is the condition precedent for the making of an order in favour of the landlord....',
	(int) 35 => '<p>20. The aforesaid judgment has been followed in a number of other cases including Vijay Kapoor v. Maya Ram 1997 (2) RCR 437, wherein another learned single Judge of this Court following the aforesaid judgment held that the landlord must make complete and proper disclosure of all the material facts.',
	(int) 36 => '<p>21. On the other hand Sh. Ramakant Sharma has relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in Ram Narain Arora v. Asha Rani 1998(2) RCR 268. In that case the Rent Controller came to the conclusion that the landlord had suppressed material information and had not disclosed the fact that he was already in occupation of a house in Subji Mandi. Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act reads as follows:',
	(int) 37 => '<p>Section 14(1)(e). That the premises let for residential purposes are required bona fide by the landlord for occupation as a residence for himself or for any member of his family dependent on him, if he is the owner thereof, or for any person for whose benefit the premises are held and that the landlord or such person has no other reasonably suitable residential accommodation.',
	(int) 38 => '<p>22. The difference between Delhi Act and the present Act is that under the Delhi Act the only requirement is that the landlord has no other reasonably suitable accommodation whereas under the Himachal Act the residential premises are required to be owned by the landlord. The Apex Court in Rama Narain Arora's case (supra) held that the nondisclosure of the fact that the landlord was in occupation of certain premises in Subji Mandi was.not a ground to non-suit the landlord in view of the facts and circumstances of the case. The Apex Court held as follows:',
	(int) 39 => '<p>9. In making a claim that the suit premises is required bona fide for his own occupation as a residence for himself and other members of his family dependent on him and that he has no other reasonably suitable accommodation is a requirement of law before the Court can state whether the landlord requires the premises bona fide for his use and occupation. In doing so, the Court must also find out whether the landlord or such other person for whose benefit the premises is required has no other reasonably suitable residential accommodation. It cannot be said that the requirement of the landlord is not intermixed with the question of finding out whether he has any other reasonably suitable accommodation. If he has other reasonably suitable accommodation, ihen necessarily it would mean that he does not require the suit premises and his requirement may not be bona fide. In such circumstances further inquiry would be whether that premises is more suitable than the suit premises. Therefore, the questions raised before the Court would not necessarily depend upon only the pleadings. It could be a good defence that the landlord has other reasonably suitable residential accommodation and thereby defend the claim of the landlord.',
	(int) 40 => '<p>10. There cannot be a pedantic or a dogmatic approach in the matter of analysis of pleadings or of the evidence adduced thereto. It is no doubt true that if the pleadings are clearly set out, it would be easy for the Court to decide the matters. But if the pleadings are lacking or vague and if both parties have understood what was the case pleaded and put forth with reference to requirement of law and placed such material before the Court, neither party is prejudiced. If we analyse from this angle, we do not think that the High Court was not justified in interfering with the order made by the Rent Controller.',
	(int) 41 => '<p>23. From the perusal of the judgment of the Apex Court it is apparent that the Rent Controller must approach the matter in a practical manner. In case the non-disclosure is such as that it goes to the very root of the case the Rent Controller would be justified in non-suiting the landlord. However, if the non-disclosure is such that it would not prejudice the rights of the respondent then the landlord should not be non-suited only on this ground.',
	(int) 42 => '<p>24. The decisions of this Court cited hereinabove were delivered prior to the judgment delivered by the Apex Court in Ram Nar'ain Arora's case. Further more both in Tara Chand Sharma's case and Vijay Kapoor's case decided by this Court, no averment had been made ixi respect of other residential buildings owned by a landlord. There was complete non-disclosure as to whether any such residential building owned by the landlord was in his possession or not. In the present case, as I have held above, the residential premises at 31, The Mall, Shimla was not owned by the landlord and hence these two earlier judgments of this Court are distinguishable on facts also.',
	(int) 43 => '<p>25. In the present case, the landlord has been non-suited only on the ground that he did not disclose the fact that he was in occupation of certain premises on the Mall Road. Under law he was not required to disclose this fact. He was only required to disclose the factum of occupying another residential building owned by him in the urban area concerned. True it may be, that it would have been better if the landlord had disclosed all the facts but non-disclosure of a fact which he was not under law required to disclose could not in my opinion be a ground to dismiss his eviction petition.',
	(int) 44 => '<p>26. However, what are the premises in his occupation even as a tenant can be taken into consideration while deciding the question whether he bona fide requires the demised premises for his personal use or occupation or not.',
	(int) 45 => '<p>27. Lastly comes the question with regard to the bona fide requirement of the landlord. The landlord has no children. According to the landlord as well as his other witnesses i.e. his brother-in-law PW-2 and his wife PW-3, the wife now wants to come back and settle in Shimla. There is no reason to disbelieve their statements. Even according to the evidence led by the tenant the accommodation in possession of the landlord consists of two rooms, kitchen, bath room etc. Admittedly, the landlord is also having his office as an Architect in this building. The landlord belongs to the middle class of the Society. It cannot be expected of a landlord who owns sufficient property to reside in a two room set wherein he also runs his office.',
	(int) 46 => '<p>28. The law by now is well settled that the landlord is the best judge of the suitability of the accommodation required by him. This suitability has however to be judged in the context of reasonable expectations. The landlord and his wife who are both well educated can reasonably be expected to entertain guests and they will have visitors to their house. They would obviously require a drawing room, a bed room and a spare bed room for guests. Even at his residence the landlord may require another room for his professional work. This is the minimum accommodation which they would require. Even if the accommodation possessed by the landlord, though not owned by him, at 31, the Mall, Shimla is taken into consideration such accommodation is not sufficient to meet his requirements since admittedly the landlord is running his profession of Architect from some portion of his these premises.',
	(int) 47 => '<p>29. Keeping in view the entire facts and circumstances, I am of the considered view that the learned Appellate Authority gravely erred in rejecting the eviction petition of the landlord solely on the ground that he had not disclosed the factum of being in possession of the premises at 31, the Mall Shimla. Even though I have held that the said premises are residential premises, in view of the above discussion I hold that the landlord cannot be non-suited only on the ground of his being in possession of such premises since same were not owned by him.',
	(int) 48 => '<p>30. In view of the above discussion, the Revision Petition is allowed, the order of the learned Appellate Authority dated 6.5.2003 is seaside and the order of the Rent Controller dated 22.8.2001 is restored.',
	(int) 49 => '<p>31. Keeping in view the fact that the tenant has been in possession of the premises for a long period he is granted time up to 31st October, 2008 to vacate the premises.',
	(int) 50 => '<p>32. No order as to costs.<p>',
	(int) 51 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 52
$i = (int) 48
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

30. In view of the above discussion, the Revision Petition is allowed, the order of the learned Appellate Authority dated 6.5.2003 is seaside and the order of the Rent Controller dated 22.8.2001 is restored.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Shri Arun Bhanwara Vs Shri S L Srivastava - Citation 891084 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '891084',
			'acts' => '',
			'appealno' => '',
			'appellant' => 'Shri Arun Bhanwara',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Shri Arun Bhanwara Vs. Shri S.L. Srivastava',
			'casenote' => ' - CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908.[C.A. No. 5/1908]. Order 14, Rule 2 [As amended by Amending Act of 1976]: [V.K. Gupta, CJ, Deepak Gupta & Surjit Singh, JJ] Preliminary issue of law and fact  Court framing all issues both of law and facts together and also  tried all the issues together, including the issue relating to jurisdiction of Court  Held, Except in situations perceived or warranted under sub-rule (2) of Rule 2 of Order 14 where a  Court in fact frames only issues of law in the first instance and postpones settlement of other issues, clearly and explicitly in situations where the Court has framed all issues together, both of law as well as facts and has also tried all these issues together, it is not open to the Court to adopt the principle of severability and proceed to decide issues of law first, without taking up simultaneously other issues for decision. This course of action is not available to a Court because sub-rule (1) does not permit the  Court to adopt any such principle of severability and to dispose of a suit only on preliminary issues, or what can be termed as issues of law. Sub-rule (1)  clearly mandates that in a situation contemplated under it, where all the issues have been together and have also been taken up for adjudication during the course of the trial, these must be decided together and the judgment in the suit as a whole must be pronounced by the Court covering all the issues framed in the suit.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => 'Ram Narain Arora v. Asha Rani;',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => '',
			'counseldef' => '',
			'court' => 'Himachal Pradesh',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2008-07-31',
			'deposition' => 'Petition allowed',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => ' Deepak Gupta, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">Deepak Gupta, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. This Revision Petition under Section 25(5) of the H.P. Urban Rent Control Act, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) is directed against the order of the learned Appellate Authority, Shimla in CMA No. 60-S/14 of 2001 whereby the appeal filed by the respondent (hereinafter referred to as the tenant) has been allowed, the order of the Rent Controller has been set-aside and the petition for eviction filed by the present petitioner (hereinafter referred to as the Landlord) on the ground of personal bona fide requirement has been set-aside.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The undisputed facts are that the landlord is owner of the demised premises situated in building known as Tunnel View, Sanjauli, Shimla-6 consisting of two bed rooms with attached bath room and latrine, drawing-cum-dining room, kitchen and balcony. These premises were purchased by the landlord in the year 1986. Thereafter, the landlord had rented out the premises to one Sh. B.K. Chauhan. According to the landlord, when he got married he requested Sh. B.K. Chauhan to vacate the said premises. Sh. Chauhan vacated the said premises but admittedly the landlord did not occupy the same but rented out the same to the tenant in the year 1990.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. In the year 1997 the landlord filed a petition for eviction of the tenant on two grounds; firstly that the tenant is in arrears of rent from 1.11.1990 to 31.7.1997 and secondly that the premises are bona fide required by the landlord for the use and occupation of himself and his family.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. This petition was contested by the tenant. After trial, the Rent Controller ordered the eviction of the tenant on two grounds; (i) that the tenant was in arrears of rent from November, 1999 till date of order i.e. 22nd August, 2001 and (ii) that the landlord required the premises for his own use and occupation.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. The tenant deposited the rent within the time prescribed. He also filed an appeal challenging the finding on the issue of bona fide requirement. The learned Appellate Authority came to the conclusion that the landlord had not made a proper and full disclosure of facts as required under the provisions of the Act and had withheld material facts from the Court viz. that the landlord was in occupation of residential premises on 31, Mall Road in the urban area of Shimla and as such rejected this petition on this short ground.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. Aggrieved by the said order, the landlord has filed the present Revision Petition.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. I have heard Sh. Ramakant Sharma, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sh. Bhupinder Gupta, learned senior Counsel for the tenant.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. It has been urged on behalf of the landlord that the building which is alleged to be in possession of the landlord i.e. 31, the Mall Shimla is not a residential building and secondly that the building is not owned by him.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. On the other hand Sh. Bhupinder Gupta, learned Counsel of the tenant has strenuously urged that the landlord in para 18 has not stated anything about any building being owned by him and has only made an averment that he does not own or possess any other such building within the urban area Shimla. It is contended by Sh. Bhupinder Gupta that the landlord of his own volition did not state anything about the ownership of the building and since he has kept silent about the building which he is in occupation he has made a false averment and therefore his petition for eviction has rightly been rejected.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. I am not at all in agreement with the contention of the landlord that the premises known as 31, the Mall Shimla which are admittedly in the occupation of the landlord are commercial premises only and not being used by him for his residence. As pointed out above, the landlord purchased the demised premises in 1986. They fell vacant when he got married despite that he did not occupy the same and rented out the same to the tenant in the year 1990. The question that arises is where was the landlord living for this entire period. According to the landlord after the year 1994 he has been living with his brother-in-law Rajan (wife's brother) PW-2, since the year 1994. Prior to 1994 the landlord will have this Court to believe that he was living off and on with one friend or the other. This story is impossible to believe. The landlord was married in the year 1999. He is an Architect by profession. His wife is a law graduate. It is not believable that such a person would have no permanent abode and would continue to live as a guest with his friends for almost 5 years after his marriage. Even the story that he has been living with his brother-in-law after the year 1994 does not inspire confidence. It stands proved on record that the brother-in-law PW-2 Rajan lives with his own family i.e. wife and children. From the evidence it is also clear that the parents of the brother-in-law also reside with him, His flat consists of only two rooms. The flat in possession of the landlord at 31, the Mall Shimla, also consists of two rooms, kitchen and bath room. Even assuming that he was running an office in the part of the flat it cannot be believed that he would not live on his own flat on the Mall Road and reside with his brother-in-law in cramped premises. Even in the electoral list the landlord is shown to be a resident of 31, The Mall, Shimla. Therefore, I am of the considered view that the building 31, the Mall, Shimla was also being used as a residence by the landlord.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. Having held so, the question that arises is whether the landlord can be non-suited only on the ground that he has not made any disclosure about the residential accommodation available with him which premises were admittedly not owned by him.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. The short question which arises for decision in this petition is whether the landlord was guilty of suppressing and withholding such relevant facts which would disentitle him from seeking eviction of the tenant. To appreciate these contentions it would be necessary to refer to relevant portion of Section 14(3) of the Act:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Section 14:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1 and 2 xxxxxxxxxxx</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(3) A landlord may apply to the Controller for an order directing the tenant to put the landlord in possession-</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(a) in case of residential building, if</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(i) he required it for his own occupation:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Provided that he is not occupying another residential building owned by him, in the urban area concerned:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Provided further that he has not vacated such a building without sufficient cause within five years of the filing of the application, in the said urban area....</p><p style="text-align: justify;">13. A perusal of the bare provisions of the Act makes it clear that there are certain essential ingredients which the landlord must satisfy before seeking eviction of the tenant under the Act. Not only must he prove that the residential building is bona fide required by him for his own use and occupation but he must also plead and prove that he is not occupying any other residential building owned by him in the urban area concerned and further that he has not vacated such a building without sufficient cause within 5 years of the filing of the application.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">14. Reference may now be made to the relevant allegations made in para 18 of the eviction petition:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(ii) That the petitioner bona fide requires the premises for his own use and occupation and also for the use and occupation of his family.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The petitioner does not own or possess any other such building within the urban area of Simla nor the petitioner has vacated any such premises within five years of the filing of this petition.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The family of the petitioner presently consists of himself and his wife. Due to paucity of accommodation the petitioner has not been able to keep his wife with himself at Simla, where he is working as an Engineer and she has been residing at Chandigarh since 1991 but on account of her ill health she has been brought to Simla by the petitioner. The petitioner at present is seeking temporary shelter, from time to time, with his relations.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">15. The learned Appellate Authority came to the conclusion that the landlord had falsely pleaded that he does not own or possess any other such building within the urban area of Shimla and hence rejected the eviction petition on this ground.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">16. On a close analysis of the proviso to Section 14(3)(a)(i) of the Act it is clear that a landlord is not entitled to seek eviction of a tenant from residential building even in case of bona fide requirement if the landlord is occupying another residential building owned by him in the urban area concerned. One can read three essential ingredients in this proviso i.e. (i) that the landlord is in occupation of another residential building; (ii) that the said residential building is owned by him and (iii) that the said residential building is situated in the concerned urban area.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">17. The question that arises is what is the impact of the landlord not making a disclosure in respect of premises which he is occupying but are not owned by him.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">18. The Apex Court in Onkar Nath v. Ved Vyas ILR 1979 HP 1, held as follows:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">It is common ground that there are three requirements to make out a cause of action for eviction under that provision, and indeed this is apparent from a bare reading of the sub-section. In the present case the finding is to the effect that the landlord requires the residential building for his own occupation. But, the legislation has taken care to insist upon two more conditions, namely; (a) that the landlord is not occupying any other residential building in the area concerned; and (b) that he has not vacated such a building without sufficient cause. There is not a scintilla of evidence nor indeed there is any averment in compliance with these latter conditions. The necessary consequence follows that not merely is there inadequacy of pleadings sufficient to make out a cause of action but total absence of proof of two vital requirements....</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The Supreme Court also said that:.The statute benignly designed to protect tenants from unreasonable evictions has taken case to put restrictions which must be rigorously construed to fulfil the purpose of the statute.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">19. Following the aforesaid judgment and other pronouncements of the Apex Court, a learned Single Judge of this Court in Tara Chand Sharma v. Baij Nath and Ors. 1992 (2) R.C.J. 323, held as follows:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">16. What appears as the legislative intent, in bold relief, is that the landlord, while seeking eviction of a tenant on the ground that he needs a residential building for his own occupation, must come out clearly and honestly with facts relating to the requirement that he is not occupying another residential building owned by him, in the urban area concerned and that he had not vacated such a building without sufficient cause within five years of the filing of the application, in the said urban area. The primal burden of making a clear disclosure would lie upon the landlord, for, the true facts would be in his special knowledge. An order in his favour by the Rent Controller would depend upon the satisfaction of the Rent Controller in regard not only to the claim that the landlord requires the accommodation, from which he wishes to evict a tenant, for his own occupation but also that he was not occupying another residential building owned by him nor had he vacated such building without sufficient cause within five years of the filing of the application in the application in the urban area concerned....</p><p style="text-align: justify;">It was further held as under:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">18. That the landlord should make a full disclosure of the relevant facts, pertaining to the requirements of Sub-section (3)(a)(i) and the two provisos, becomes all the more necessary because the satisfaction of the Rent Controller in regard thereto is the condition precedent for the making of an order in favour of the landlord....</p><p style="text-align: justify;">20. The aforesaid judgment has been followed in a number of other cases including Vijay Kapoor v. Maya Ram 1997 (2) RCR 437, wherein another learned single Judge of this Court following the aforesaid judgment held that the landlord must make complete and proper disclosure of all the material facts.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">21. On the other hand Sh. Ramakant Sharma has relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in Ram Narain Arora v. Asha Rani 1998(2) RCR 268. In that case the Rent Controller came to the conclusion that the landlord had suppressed material information and had not disclosed the fact that he was already in occupation of a house in Subji Mandi. Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act reads as follows:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Section 14(1)(e). That the premises let for residential purposes are required bona fide by the landlord for occupation as a residence for himself or for any member of his family dependent on him, if he is the owner thereof, or for any person for whose benefit the premises are held and that the landlord or such person has no other reasonably suitable residential accommodation.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">22. The difference between Delhi Act and the present Act is that under the Delhi Act the only requirement is that the landlord has no other reasonably suitable accommodation whereas under the Himachal Act the residential premises are required to be owned by the landlord. The Apex Court in Rama Narain Arora's case (supra) held that the nondisclosure of the fact that the landlord was in occupation of certain premises in Subji Mandi was.not a ground to non-suit the landlord in view of the facts and circumstances of the case. The Apex Court held as follows:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. In making a claim that the suit premises is required bona fide for his own occupation as a residence for himself and other members of his family dependent on him and that he has no other reasonably suitable accommodation is a requirement of law before the Court can state whether the landlord requires the premises bona fide for his use and occupation. In doing so, the Court must also find out whether the landlord or such other person for whose benefit the premises is required has no other reasonably suitable residential accommodation. It cannot be said that the requirement of the landlord is not intermixed with the question of finding out whether he has any other reasonably suitable accommodation. If he has other reasonably suitable accommodation, ihen necessarily it would mean that he does not require the suit premises and his requirement may not be bona fide. In such circumstances further inquiry would be whether that premises is more suitable than the suit premises. Therefore, the questions raised before the Court would not necessarily depend upon only the pleadings. It could be a good defence that the landlord has other reasonably suitable residential accommodation and thereby defend the claim of the landlord.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. There cannot be a pedantic or a dogmatic approach in the matter of analysis of pleadings or of the evidence adduced thereto. It is no doubt true that if the pleadings are clearly set out, it would be easy for the Court to decide the matters. But if the pleadings are lacking or vague and if both parties have understood what was the case pleaded and put forth with reference to requirement of law and placed such material before the Court, neither party is prejudiced. If we analyse from this angle, we do not think that the High Court was not justified in interfering with the order made by the Rent Controller.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">23. From the perusal of the judgment of the Apex Court it is apparent that the Rent Controller must approach the matter in a practical manner. In case the non-disclosure is such as that it goes to the very root of the case the Rent Controller would be justified in non-suiting the landlord. However, if the non-disclosure is such that it would not prejudice the rights of the respondent then the landlord should not be non-suited only on this ground.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">24. The decisions of this Court cited hereinabove were delivered prior to the judgment delivered by the Apex Court in Ram Nar'ain Arora's case. Further more both in Tara Chand Sharma's case and Vijay Kapoor's case decided by this Court, no averment had been made ixi respect of other residential buildings owned by a landlord. There was complete non-disclosure as to whether any such residential building owned by the landlord was in his possession or not. In the present case, as I have held above, the residential premises at 31, The Mall, Shimla was not owned by the landlord and hence these two earlier judgments of this Court are distinguishable on facts also.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">25. In the present case, the landlord has been non-suited only on the ground that he did not disclose the fact that he was in occupation of certain premises on the Mall Road. Under law he was not required to disclose this fact. He was only required to disclose the factum of occupying another residential building owned by him in the urban area concerned. True it may be, that it would have been better if the landlord had disclosed all the facts but non-disclosure of a fact which he was not under law required to disclose could not in my opinion be a ground to dismiss his eviction petition.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">26. However, what are the premises in his occupation even as a tenant can be taken into consideration while deciding the question whether he bona fide requires the demised premises for his personal use or occupation or not.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">27. Lastly comes the question with regard to the bona fide requirement of the landlord. The landlord has no children. According to the landlord as well as his other witnesses i.e. his brother-in-law PW-2 and his wife PW-3, the wife now wants to come back and settle in Shimla. There is no reason to disbelieve their statements. Even according to the evidence led by the tenant the accommodation in possession of the landlord consists of two rooms, kitchen, bath room etc. Admittedly, the landlord is also having his office as an Architect in this building. The landlord belongs to the middle class of the Society. It cannot be expected of a landlord who owns sufficient property to reside in a two room set wherein he also runs his office.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">28. The law by now is well settled that the landlord is the best judge of the suitability of the accommodation required by him. This suitability has however to be judged in the context of reasonable expectations. The landlord and his wife who are both well educated can reasonably be expected to entertain guests and they will have visitors to their house. They would obviously require a drawing room, a bed room and a spare bed room for guests. Even at his residence the landlord may require another room for his professional work. This is the minimum accommodation which they would require. Even if the accommodation possessed by the landlord, though not owned by him, at 31, the Mall, Shimla is taken into consideration such accommodation is not sufficient to meet his requirements since admittedly the landlord is running his profession of Architect from some portion of his these premises.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">29. Keeping in view the entire facts and circumstances, I am of the considered view that the learned Appellate Authority gravely erred in rejecting the eviction petition of the landlord solely on the ground that he had not disclosed the factum of being in possession of the premises at 31, the Mall Shimla. Even though I have held that the said premises are residential premises, in view of the above discussion I hold that the landlord cannot be non-suited only on the ground of his being in possession of such premises since same were not owned by him.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">30. In view of the above discussion, the Revision Petition is allowed, the order of the learned Appellate Authority dated 6.5.2003 is seaside and the order of the Rent Controller dated 22.8.2001 is restored.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">31. Keeping in view the fact that the tenant has been in possession of the premises for a long period he is granted time up to 31st October, 2008 to vacate the premises.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">32. No order as to costs.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '2008(2)ShimLC491',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'Shri S.L. Srivastava',
			'sub' => 'Tenancy',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'shri-arun-bhanwara-vs-s-l-srivastava',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '891084',
		(int) 1 => 'shri-arun-bhanwara-vs-s-l-srivastava'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Shri Arun Bhanwara Vs Shri S L Srivastava - Citation 891084 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '891084',
		'acts' => '',
		'appealno' => '',
		'appellant' => 'Shri Arun Bhanwara',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Shri Arun Bhanwara Vs. Shri S.L. Srivastava',
		'casenote' => ' - CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908.[C.A. No. 5/1908]. Order 14, Rule 2 [As amended by Amending Act of 1976]: [V.K. Gupta, CJ, Deepak Gupta & Surjit Singh, JJ] Preliminary issue of law and fact  Court framing all issues both of law and facts together and also  tried all the issues together, including the issue relating to jurisdiction of Court  Held, Except in situations perceived or warranted under sub-rule (2) of Rule 2 of Order 14 where a  Court in fact frames only issues of law in the first instance and postpones settlement of other issues, clearly and explicitly in situations where the Court has framed all issues together, both of law as well as facts and has also tried all these issues together, it is not open to the Court to adopt the principle of severability and proceed to decide issues of law first, without taking up simultaneously other issues for decision. This course of action is not available to a Court because sub-rule (1) does not permit the  Court to adopt any such principle of severability and to dispose of a suit only on preliminary issues, or what can be termed as issues of law. Sub-rule (1)  clearly mandates that in a situation contemplated under it, where all the issues have been together and have also been taken up for adjudication during the course of the trial, these must be decided together and the judgment in the suit as a whole must be pronounced by the Court covering all the issues framed in the suit.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => 'Ram Narain Arora v. Asha Rani;',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => '',
		'counseldef' => '',
		'court' => 'Himachal Pradesh',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2008-07-31',
		'deposition' => 'Petition allowed',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => ' Deepak Gupta, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>Deepak Gupta, J.</p><p>1. This Revision Petition under Section 25(5) of the H.P. Urban Rent Control Act, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) is directed against the order of the learned Appellate Authority, Shimla in CMA No. 60-S/14 of 2001 whereby the appeal filed by the respondent (hereinafter referred to as the tenant) has been allowed, the order of the Rent Controller has been set-aside and the petition for eviction filed by the present petitioner (hereinafter referred to as the Landlord) on the ground of personal bona fide requirement has been set-aside.</p><p>2. The undisputed facts are that the landlord is owner of the demised premises situated in building known as Tunnel View, Sanjauli, Shimla-6 consisting of two bed rooms with attached bath room and latrine, drawing-cum-dining room, kitchen and balcony. These premises were purchased by the landlord in the year 1986. Thereafter, the landlord had rented out the premises to one Sh. B.K. Chauhan. According to the landlord, when he got married he requested Sh. B.K. Chauhan to vacate the said premises. Sh. Chauhan vacated the said premises but admittedly the landlord did not occupy the same but rented out the same to the tenant in the year 1990.</p><p>3. In the year 1997 the landlord filed a petition for eviction of the tenant on two grounds; firstly that the tenant is in arrears of rent from 1.11.1990 to 31.7.1997 and secondly that the premises are bona fide required by the landlord for the use and occupation of himself and his family.</p><p>4. This petition was contested by the tenant. After trial, the Rent Controller ordered the eviction of the tenant on two grounds; (i) that the tenant was in arrears of rent from November, 1999 till date of order i.e. 22nd August, 2001 and (ii) that the landlord required the premises for his own use and occupation.</p><p>5. The tenant deposited the rent within the time prescribed. He also filed an appeal challenging the finding on the issue of bona fide requirement. The learned Appellate Authority came to the conclusion that the landlord had not made a proper and full disclosure of facts as required under the provisions of the Act and had withheld material facts from the Court viz. that the landlord was in occupation of residential premises on 31, Mall Road in the urban area of Shimla and as such rejected this petition on this short ground.</p><p>6. Aggrieved by the said order, the landlord has filed the present Revision Petition.</p><p>7. I have heard Sh. Ramakant Sharma, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sh. Bhupinder Gupta, learned senior Counsel for the tenant.</p><p>8. It has been urged on behalf of the landlord that the building which is alleged to be in possession of the landlord i.e. 31, the Mall Shimla is not a residential building and secondly that the building is not owned by him.</p><p>9. On the other hand Sh. Bhupinder Gupta, learned Counsel of the tenant has strenuously urged that the landlord in para 18 has not stated anything about any building being owned by him and has only made an averment that he does not own or possess any other such building within the urban area Shimla. It is contended by Sh. Bhupinder Gupta that the landlord of his own volition did not state anything about the ownership of the building and since he has kept silent about the building which he is in occupation he has made a false averment and therefore his petition for eviction has rightly been rejected.</p><p>10. I am not at all in agreement with the contention of the landlord that the premises known as 31, the Mall Shimla which are admittedly in the occupation of the landlord are commercial premises only and not being used by him for his residence. As pointed out above, the landlord purchased the demised premises in 1986. They fell vacant when he got married despite that he did not occupy the same and rented out the same to the tenant in the year 1990. The question that arises is where was the landlord living for this entire period. According to the landlord after the year 1994 he has been living with his brother-in-law Rajan (wife's brother) PW-2, since the year 1994. Prior to 1994 the landlord will have this Court to believe that he was living off and on with one friend or the other. This story is impossible to believe. The landlord was married in the year 1999. He is an Architect by profession. His wife is a law graduate. It is not believable that such a person would have no permanent abode and would continue to live as a guest with his friends for almost 5 years after his marriage. Even the story that he has been living with his brother-in-law after the year 1994 does not inspire confidence. It stands proved on record that the brother-in-law PW-2 Rajan lives with his own family i.e. wife and children. From the evidence it is also clear that the parents of the brother-in-law also reside with him, His flat consists of only two rooms. The flat in possession of the landlord at 31, the Mall Shimla, also consists of two rooms, kitchen and bath room. Even assuming that he was running an office in the part of the flat it cannot be believed that he would not live on his own flat on the Mall Road and reside with his brother-in-law in cramped premises. Even in the electoral list the landlord is shown to be a resident of 31, The Mall, Shimla. Therefore, I am of the considered view that the building 31, the Mall, Shimla was also being used as a residence by the landlord.</p><p>11. Having held so, the question that arises is whether the landlord can be non-suited only on the ground that he has not made any disclosure about the residential accommodation available with him which premises were admittedly not owned by him.</p><p>12. The short question which arises for decision in this petition is whether the landlord was guilty of suppressing and withholding such relevant facts which would disentitle him from seeking eviction of the tenant. To appreciate these contentions it would be necessary to refer to relevant portion of Section 14(3) of the Act:</p><p>Section 14:</p><p>1 and 2 xxxxxxxxxxx</p><p>(3) A landlord may apply to the Controller for an order directing the tenant to put the landlord in possession-</p><p>(a) in case of residential building, if</p><p>(i) he required it for his own occupation:</p><p>Provided that he is not occupying another residential building owned by him, in the urban area concerned:</p><p>Provided further that he has not vacated such a building without sufficient cause within five years of the filing of the application, in the said urban area....</p><p>13. A perusal of the bare provisions of the Act makes it clear that there are certain essential ingredients which the landlord must satisfy before seeking eviction of the tenant under the Act. Not only must he prove that the residential building is bona fide required by him for his own use and occupation but he must also plead and prove that he is not occupying any other residential building owned by him in the urban area concerned and further that he has not vacated such a building without sufficient cause within 5 years of the filing of the application.</p><p>14. Reference may now be made to the relevant allegations made in para 18 of the eviction petition:</p><p>(ii) That the petitioner bona fide requires the premises for his own use and occupation and also for the use and occupation of his family.</p><p>The petitioner does not own or possess any other such building within the urban area of Simla nor the petitioner has vacated any such premises within five years of the filing of this petition.</p><p>The family of the petitioner presently consists of himself and his wife. Due to paucity of accommodation the petitioner has not been able to keep his wife with himself at Simla, where he is working as an Engineer and she has been residing at Chandigarh since 1991 but on account of her ill health she has been brought to Simla by the petitioner. The petitioner at present is seeking temporary shelter, from time to time, with his relations.</p><p>15. The learned Appellate Authority came to the conclusion that the landlord had falsely pleaded that he does not own or possess any other such building within the urban area of Shimla and hence rejected the eviction petition on this ground.</p><p>16. On a close analysis of the proviso to Section 14(3)(a)(i) of the Act it is clear that a landlord is not entitled to seek eviction of a tenant from residential building even in case of bona fide requirement if the landlord is occupying another residential building owned by him in the urban area concerned. One can read three essential ingredients in this proviso i.e. (i) that the landlord is in occupation of another residential building; (ii) that the said residential building is owned by him and (iii) that the said residential building is situated in the concerned urban area.</p><p>17. The question that arises is what is the impact of the landlord not making a disclosure in respect of premises which he is occupying but are not owned by him.</p><p>18. The Apex Court in Onkar Nath v. Ved Vyas ILR 1979 HP 1, held as follows:</p><p>It is common ground that there are three requirements to make out a cause of action for eviction under that provision, and indeed this is apparent from a bare reading of the sub-section. In the present case the finding is to the effect that the landlord requires the residential building for his own occupation. But, the legislation has taken care to insist upon two more conditions, namely; (a) that the landlord is not occupying any other residential building in the area concerned; and (b) that he has not vacated such a building without sufficient cause. There is not a scintilla of evidence nor indeed there is any averment in compliance with these latter conditions. The necessary consequence follows that not merely is there inadequacy of pleadings sufficient to make out a cause of action but total absence of proof of two vital requirements....</p><p>The Supreme Court also said that:.The statute benignly designed to protect tenants from unreasonable evictions has taken case to put restrictions which must be rigorously construed to fulfil the purpose of the statute.</p><p>19. Following the aforesaid judgment and other pronouncements of the Apex Court, a learned Single Judge of this Court in Tara Chand Sharma v. Baij Nath and Ors. 1992 (2) R.C.J. 323, held as follows:</p><p>16. What appears as the legislative intent, in bold relief, is that the landlord, while seeking eviction of a tenant on the ground that he needs a residential building for his own occupation, must come out clearly and honestly with facts relating to the requirement that he is not occupying another residential building owned by him, in the urban area concerned and that he had not vacated such a building without sufficient cause within five years of the filing of the application, in the said urban area. The primal burden of making a clear disclosure would lie upon the landlord, for, the true facts would be in his special knowledge. An order in his favour by the Rent Controller would depend upon the satisfaction of the Rent Controller in regard not only to the claim that the landlord requires the accommodation, from which he wishes to evict a tenant, for his own occupation but also that he was not occupying another residential building owned by him nor had he vacated such building without sufficient cause within five years of the filing of the application in the application in the urban area concerned....</p><p>It was further held as under:</p><p>18. That the landlord should make a full disclosure of the relevant facts, pertaining to the requirements of Sub-section (3)(a)(i) and the two provisos, becomes all the more necessary because the satisfaction of the Rent Controller in regard thereto is the condition precedent for the making of an order in favour of the landlord....</p><p>20. The aforesaid judgment has been followed in a number of other cases including Vijay Kapoor v. Maya Ram 1997 (2) RCR 437, wherein another learned single Judge of this Court following the aforesaid judgment held that the landlord must make complete and proper disclosure of all the material facts.</p><p>21. On the other hand Sh. Ramakant Sharma has relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in Ram Narain Arora v. Asha Rani 1998(2) RCR 268. In that case the Rent Controller came to the conclusion that the landlord had suppressed material information and had not disclosed the fact that he was already in occupation of a house in Subji Mandi. Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act reads as follows:</p><p>Section 14(1)(e). That the premises let for residential purposes are required bona fide by the landlord for occupation as a residence for himself or for any member of his family dependent on him, if he is the owner thereof, or for any person for whose benefit the premises are held and that the landlord or such person has no other reasonably suitable residential accommodation.</p><p>22. The difference between Delhi Act and the present Act is that under the Delhi Act the only requirement is that the landlord has no other reasonably suitable accommodation whereas under the Himachal Act the residential premises are required to be owned by the landlord. The Apex Court in Rama Narain Arora's case (supra) held that the nondisclosure of the fact that the landlord was in occupation of certain premises in Subji Mandi was.not a ground to non-suit the landlord in view of the facts and circumstances of the case. The Apex Court held as follows:</p><p>9. In making a claim that the suit premises is required bona fide for his own occupation as a residence for himself and other members of his family dependent on him and that he has no other reasonably suitable accommodation is a requirement of law before the Court can state whether the landlord requires the premises bona fide for his use and occupation. In doing so, the Court must also find out whether the landlord or such other person for whose benefit the premises is required has no other reasonably suitable residential accommodation. It cannot be said that the requirement of the landlord is not intermixed with the question of finding out whether he has any other reasonably suitable accommodation. If he has other reasonably suitable accommodation, ihen necessarily it would mean that he does not require the suit premises and his requirement may not be bona fide. In such circumstances further inquiry would be whether that premises is more suitable than the suit premises. Therefore, the questions raised before the Court would not necessarily depend upon only the pleadings. It could be a good defence that the landlord has other reasonably suitable residential accommodation and thereby defend the claim of the landlord.</p><p>10. There cannot be a pedantic or a dogmatic approach in the matter of analysis of pleadings or of the evidence adduced thereto. It is no doubt true that if the pleadings are clearly set out, it would be easy for the Court to decide the matters. But if the pleadings are lacking or vague and if both parties have understood what was the case pleaded and put forth with reference to requirement of law and placed such material before the Court, neither party is prejudiced. If we analyse from this angle, we do not think that the High Court was not justified in interfering with the order made by the Rent Controller.</p><p>23. From the perusal of the judgment of the Apex Court it is apparent that the Rent Controller must approach the matter in a practical manner. In case the non-disclosure is such as that it goes to the very root of the case the Rent Controller would be justified in non-suiting the landlord. However, if the non-disclosure is such that it would not prejudice the rights of the respondent then the landlord should not be non-suited only on this ground.</p><p>24. The decisions of this Court cited hereinabove were delivered prior to the judgment delivered by the Apex Court in Ram Nar'ain Arora's case. Further more both in Tara Chand Sharma's case and Vijay Kapoor's case decided by this Court, no averment had been made ixi respect of other residential buildings owned by a landlord. There was complete non-disclosure as to whether any such residential building owned by the landlord was in his possession or not. In the present case, as I have held above, the residential premises at 31, The Mall, Shimla was not owned by the landlord and hence these two earlier judgments of this Court are distinguishable on facts also.</p><p>25. In the present case, the landlord has been non-suited only on the ground that he did not disclose the fact that he was in occupation of certain premises on the Mall Road. Under law he was not required to disclose this fact. He was only required to disclose the factum of occupying another residential building owned by him in the urban area concerned. True it may be, that it would have been better if the landlord had disclosed all the facts but non-disclosure of a fact which he was not under law required to disclose could not in my opinion be a ground to dismiss his eviction petition.</p><p>26. However, what are the premises in his occupation even as a tenant can be taken into consideration while deciding the question whether he bona fide requires the demised premises for his personal use or occupation or not.</p><p>27. Lastly comes the question with regard to the bona fide requirement of the landlord. The landlord has no children. According to the landlord as well as his other witnesses i.e. his brother-in-law PW-2 and his wife PW-3, the wife now wants to come back and settle in Shimla. There is no reason to disbelieve their statements. Even according to the evidence led by the tenant the accommodation in possession of the landlord consists of two rooms, kitchen, bath room etc. Admittedly, the landlord is also having his office as an Architect in this building. The landlord belongs to the middle class of the Society. It cannot be expected of a landlord who owns sufficient property to reside in a two room set wherein he also runs his office.</p><p>28. The law by now is well settled that the landlord is the best judge of the suitability of the accommodation required by him. This suitability has however to be judged in the context of reasonable expectations. The landlord and his wife who are both well educated can reasonably be expected to entertain guests and they will have visitors to their house. They would obviously require a drawing room, a bed room and a spare bed room for guests. Even at his residence the landlord may require another room for his professional work. This is the minimum accommodation which they would require. Even if the accommodation possessed by the landlord, though not owned by him, at 31, the Mall, Shimla is taken into consideration such accommodation is not sufficient to meet his requirements since admittedly the landlord is running his profession of Architect from some portion of his these premises.</p><p>29. Keeping in view the entire facts and circumstances, I am of the considered view that the learned Appellate Authority gravely erred in rejecting the eviction petition of the landlord solely on the ground that he had not disclosed the factum of being in possession of the premises at 31, the Mall Shimla. Even though I have held that the said premises are residential premises, in view of the above discussion I hold that the landlord cannot be non-suited only on the ground of his being in possession of such premises since same were not owned by him.</p><p>30. In view of the above discussion, the Revision Petition is allowed, the order of the learned Appellate Authority dated 6.5.2003 is seaside and the order of the Rent Controller dated 22.8.2001 is restored.</p><p>31. Keeping in view the fact that the tenant has been in possession of the premises for a long period he is granted time up to 31st October, 2008 to vacate the premises.</p><p>32. No order as to costs.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '2008(2)ShimLC491',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'Shri S.L. Srivastava',
		'sub' => 'Tenancy',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'shri-arun-bhanwara-vs-s-l-srivastava'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '891084',
	(int) 1 => 'shri-arun-bhanwara-vs-s-l-srivastava'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/891084/shri-arun-bhanwara-vs-s-l-srivastava'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$caseref = 'Ram Narain Arora v. Asha Rani<br>'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>Deepak Gupta, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. This Revision Petition under Section 25(5) of the H.P. Urban Rent Control Act, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) is directed against the order of the learned Appellate Authority, Shimla in CMA No. 60-S/14 of 2001 whereby the appeal filed by the respondent (hereinafter referred to as the tenant) has been allowed, the order of the Rent Controller has been set-aside and the petition for eviction filed by the present petitioner (hereinafter referred to as the Landlord) on the ground of personal bona fide requirement has been set-aside.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. The undisputed facts are that the landlord is owner of the demised premises situated in building known as Tunnel View, Sanjauli, Shimla-6 consisting of two bed rooms with attached bath room and latrine, drawing-cum-dining room, kitchen and balcony. These premises were purchased by the landlord in the year 1986. Thereafter, the landlord had rented out the premises to one Sh. B.K. Chauhan. According to the landlord, when he got married he requested Sh. B.K. Chauhan to vacate the said premises. Sh. Chauhan vacated the said premises but admittedly the landlord did not occupy the same but rented out the same to the tenant in the year 1990.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. In the year 1997 the landlord filed a petition for eviction of the tenant on two grounds; firstly that the tenant is in arrears of rent from 1.11.1990 to 31.7.1997 and secondly that the premises are bona fide required by the landlord for the use and occupation of himself and his family.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>4. This petition was contested by the tenant. After trial, the Rent Controller ordered the eviction of the tenant on two grounds; (i) that the tenant was in arrears of rent from November, 1999 till date of order i.e. 22nd August, 2001 and (ii) that the landlord required the premises for his own use and occupation.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>5. The tenant deposited the rent within the time prescribed. He also filed an appeal challenging the finding on the issue of bona fide requirement. The learned Appellate Authority came to the conclusion that the landlord had not made a proper and full disclosure of facts as required under the provisions of the Act and had withheld material facts from the Court viz. that the landlord was in occupation of residential premises on 31, Mall Road in the urban area of Shimla and as such rejected this petition on this short ground.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>6. Aggrieved by the said order, the landlord has filed the present Revision Petition.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>7. I have heard Sh. Ramakant Sharma, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sh. Bhupinder Gupta, learned senior Counsel for the tenant.',
	(int) 8 => '<p>8. It has been urged on behalf of the landlord that the building which is alleged to be in possession of the landlord i.e. 31, the Mall Shimla is not a residential building and secondly that the building is not owned by him.',
	(int) 9 => '<p>9. On the other hand Sh. Bhupinder Gupta, learned Counsel of the tenant has strenuously urged that the landlord in para 18 has not stated anything about any building being owned by him and has only made an averment that he does not own or possess any other such building within the urban area Shimla. It is contended by Sh. Bhupinder Gupta that the landlord of his own volition did not state anything about the ownership of the building and since he has kept silent about the building which he is in occupation he has made a false averment and therefore his petition for eviction has rightly been rejected.',
	(int) 10 => '<p>10. I am not at all in agreement with the contention of the landlord that the premises known as 31, the Mall Shimla which are admittedly in the occupation of the landlord are commercial premises only and not being used by him for his residence. As pointed out above, the landlord purchased the demised premises in 1986. They fell vacant when he got married despite that he did not occupy the same and rented out the same to the tenant in the year 1990. The question that arises is where was the landlord living for this entire period. According to the landlord after the year 1994 he has been living with his brother-in-law Rajan (wife's brother) PW-2, since the year 1994. Prior to 1994 the landlord will have this Court to believe that he was living off and on with one friend or the other. This story is impossible to believe. The landlord was married in the year 1999. He is an Architect by profession. His wife is a law graduate. It is not believable that such a person would have no permanent abode and would continue to live as a guest with his friends for almost 5 years after his marriage. Even the story that he has been living with his brother-in-law after the year 1994 does not inspire confidence. It stands proved on record that the brother-in-law PW-2 Rajan lives with his own family i.e. wife and children. From the evidence it is also clear that the parents of the brother-in-law also reside with him, His flat consists of only two rooms. The flat in possession of the landlord at 31, the Mall Shimla, also consists of two rooms, kitchen and bath room. Even assuming that he was running an office in the part of the flat it cannot be believed that he would not live on his own flat on the Mall Road and reside with his brother-in-law in cramped premises. Even in the electoral list the landlord is shown to be a resident of 31, The Mall, Shimla. Therefore, I am of the considered view that the building 31, the Mall, Shimla was also being used as a residence by the landlord.',
	(int) 11 => '<p>11. Having held so, the question that arises is whether the landlord can be non-suited only on the ground that he has not made any disclosure about the residential accommodation available with him which premises were admittedly not owned by him.',
	(int) 12 => '<p>12. The short question which arises for decision in this petition is whether the landlord was guilty of suppressing and withholding such relevant facts which would disentitle him from seeking eviction of the tenant. To appreciate these contentions it would be necessary to refer to relevant portion of Section 14(3) of the Act:',
	(int) 13 => '<p>Section 14:',
	(int) 14 => '<p>1 and 2 xxxxxxxxxxx',
	(int) 15 => '<p>(3) A landlord may apply to the Controller for an order directing the tenant to put the landlord in possession-',
	(int) 16 => '<p>(a) in case of residential building, if',
	(int) 17 => '<p>(i) he required it for his own occupation:',
	(int) 18 => '<p>Provided that he is not occupying another residential building owned by him, in the urban area concerned:',
	(int) 19 => '<p>Provided further that he has not vacated such a building without sufficient cause within five years of the filing of the application, in the said urban area....',
	(int) 20 => '<p>13. A perusal of the bare provisions of the Act makes it clear that there are certain essential ingredients which the landlord must satisfy before seeking eviction of the tenant under the Act. Not only must he prove that the residential building is bona fide required by him for his own use and occupation but he must also plead and prove that he is not occupying any other residential building owned by him in the urban area concerned and further that he has not vacated such a building without sufficient cause within 5 years of the filing of the application.',
	(int) 21 => '<p>14. Reference may now be made to the relevant allegations made in para 18 of the eviction petition:',
	(int) 22 => '<p>(ii) That the petitioner bona fide requires the premises for his own use and occupation and also for the use and occupation of his family.',
	(int) 23 => '<p>The petitioner does not own or possess any other such building within the urban area of Simla nor the petitioner has vacated any such premises within five years of the filing of this petition.',
	(int) 24 => '<p>The family of the petitioner presently consists of himself and his wife. Due to paucity of accommodation the petitioner has not been able to keep his wife with himself at Simla, where he is working as an Engineer and she has been residing at Chandigarh since 1991 but on account of her ill health she has been brought to Simla by the petitioner. The petitioner at present is seeking temporary shelter, from time to time, with his relations.',
	(int) 25 => '<p>15. The learned Appellate Authority came to the conclusion that the landlord had falsely pleaded that he does not own or possess any other such building within the urban area of Shimla and hence rejected the eviction petition on this ground.',
	(int) 26 => '<p>16. On a close analysis of the proviso to Section 14(3)(a)(i) of the Act it is clear that a landlord is not entitled to seek eviction of a tenant from residential building even in case of bona fide requirement if the landlord is occupying another residential building owned by him in the urban area concerned. One can read three essential ingredients in this proviso i.e. (i) that the landlord is in occupation of another residential building; (ii) that the said residential building is owned by him and (iii) that the said residential building is situated in the concerned urban area.',
	(int) 27 => '<p>17. The question that arises is what is the impact of the landlord not making a disclosure in respect of premises which he is occupying but are not owned by him.',
	(int) 28 => '<p>18. The Apex Court in Onkar Nath v. Ved Vyas ILR 1979 HP 1, held as follows:',
	(int) 29 => '<p>It is common ground that there are three requirements to make out a cause of action for eviction under that provision, and indeed this is apparent from a bare reading of the sub-section. In the present case the finding is to the effect that the landlord requires the residential building for his own occupation. But, the legislation has taken care to insist upon two more conditions, namely; (a) that the landlord is not occupying any other residential building in the area concerned; and (b) that he has not vacated such a building without sufficient cause. There is not a scintilla of evidence nor indeed there is any averment in compliance with these latter conditions. The necessary consequence follows that not merely is there inadequacy of pleadings sufficient to make out a cause of action but total absence of proof of two vital requirements....',
	(int) 30 => '<p>The Supreme Court also said that:.The statute benignly designed to protect tenants from unreasonable evictions has taken case to put restrictions which must be rigorously construed to fulfil the purpose of the statute.',
	(int) 31 => '<p>19. Following the aforesaid judgment and other pronouncements of the Apex Court, a learned Single Judge of this Court in Tara Chand Sharma v. Baij Nath and Ors. 1992 (2) R.C.J. 323, held as follows:',
	(int) 32 => '<p>16. What appears as the legislative intent, in bold relief, is that the landlord, while seeking eviction of a tenant on the ground that he needs a residential building for his own occupation, must come out clearly and honestly with facts relating to the requirement that he is not occupying another residential building owned by him, in the urban area concerned and that he had not vacated such a building without sufficient cause within five years of the filing of the application, in the said urban area. The primal burden of making a clear disclosure would lie upon the landlord, for, the true facts would be in his special knowledge. An order in his favour by the Rent Controller would depend upon the satisfaction of the Rent Controller in regard not only to the claim that the landlord requires the accommodation, from which he wishes to evict a tenant, for his own occupation but also that he was not occupying another residential building owned by him nor had he vacated such building without sufficient cause within five years of the filing of the application in the application in the urban area concerned....',
	(int) 33 => '<p>It was further held as under:',
	(int) 34 => '<p>18. That the landlord should make a full disclosure of the relevant facts, pertaining to the requirements of Sub-section (3)(a)(i) and the two provisos, becomes all the more necessary because the satisfaction of the Rent Controller in regard thereto is the condition precedent for the making of an order in favour of the landlord....',
	(int) 35 => '<p>20. The aforesaid judgment has been followed in a number of other cases including Vijay Kapoor v. Maya Ram 1997 (2) RCR 437, wherein another learned single Judge of this Court following the aforesaid judgment held that the landlord must make complete and proper disclosure of all the material facts.',
	(int) 36 => '<p>21. On the other hand Sh. Ramakant Sharma has relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in Ram Narain Arora v. Asha Rani 1998(2) RCR 268. In that case the Rent Controller came to the conclusion that the landlord had suppressed material information and had not disclosed the fact that he was already in occupation of a house in Subji Mandi. Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act reads as follows:',
	(int) 37 => '<p>Section 14(1)(e). That the premises let for residential purposes are required bona fide by the landlord for occupation as a residence for himself or for any member of his family dependent on him, if he is the owner thereof, or for any person for whose benefit the premises are held and that the landlord or such person has no other reasonably suitable residential accommodation.',
	(int) 38 => '<p>22. The difference between Delhi Act and the present Act is that under the Delhi Act the only requirement is that the landlord has no other reasonably suitable accommodation whereas under the Himachal Act the residential premises are required to be owned by the landlord. The Apex Court in Rama Narain Arora's case (supra) held that the nondisclosure of the fact that the landlord was in occupation of certain premises in Subji Mandi was.not a ground to non-suit the landlord in view of the facts and circumstances of the case. The Apex Court held as follows:',
	(int) 39 => '<p>9. In making a claim that the suit premises is required bona fide for his own occupation as a residence for himself and other members of his family dependent on him and that he has no other reasonably suitable accommodation is a requirement of law before the Court can state whether the landlord requires the premises bona fide for his use and occupation. In doing so, the Court must also find out whether the landlord or such other person for whose benefit the premises is required has no other reasonably suitable residential accommodation. It cannot be said that the requirement of the landlord is not intermixed with the question of finding out whether he has any other reasonably suitable accommodation. If he has other reasonably suitable accommodation, ihen necessarily it would mean that he does not require the suit premises and his requirement may not be bona fide. In such circumstances further inquiry would be whether that premises is more suitable than the suit premises. Therefore, the questions raised before the Court would not necessarily depend upon only the pleadings. It could be a good defence that the landlord has other reasonably suitable residential accommodation and thereby defend the claim of the landlord.',
	(int) 40 => '<p>10. There cannot be a pedantic or a dogmatic approach in the matter of analysis of pleadings or of the evidence adduced thereto. It is no doubt true that if the pleadings are clearly set out, it would be easy for the Court to decide the matters. But if the pleadings are lacking or vague and if both parties have understood what was the case pleaded and put forth with reference to requirement of law and placed such material before the Court, neither party is prejudiced. If we analyse from this angle, we do not think that the High Court was not justified in interfering with the order made by the Rent Controller.',
	(int) 41 => '<p>23. From the perusal of the judgment of the Apex Court it is apparent that the Rent Controller must approach the matter in a practical manner. In case the non-disclosure is such as that it goes to the very root of the case the Rent Controller would be justified in non-suiting the landlord. However, if the non-disclosure is such that it would not prejudice the rights of the respondent then the landlord should not be non-suited only on this ground.',
	(int) 42 => '<p>24. The decisions of this Court cited hereinabove were delivered prior to the judgment delivered by the Apex Court in Ram Nar'ain Arora's case. Further more both in Tara Chand Sharma's case and Vijay Kapoor's case decided by this Court, no averment had been made ixi respect of other residential buildings owned by a landlord. There was complete non-disclosure as to whether any such residential building owned by the landlord was in his possession or not. In the present case, as I have held above, the residential premises at 31, The Mall, Shimla was not owned by the landlord and hence these two earlier judgments of this Court are distinguishable on facts also.',
	(int) 43 => '<p>25. In the present case, the landlord has been non-suited only on the ground that he did not disclose the fact that he was in occupation of certain premises on the Mall Road. Under law he was not required to disclose this fact. He was only required to disclose the factum of occupying another residential building owned by him in the urban area concerned. True it may be, that it would have been better if the landlord had disclosed all the facts but non-disclosure of a fact which he was not under law required to disclose could not in my opinion be a ground to dismiss his eviction petition.',
	(int) 44 => '<p>26. However, what are the premises in his occupation even as a tenant can be taken into consideration while deciding the question whether he bona fide requires the demised premises for his personal use or occupation or not.',
	(int) 45 => '<p>27. Lastly comes the question with regard to the bona fide requirement of the landlord. The landlord has no children. According to the landlord as well as his other witnesses i.e. his brother-in-law PW-2 and his wife PW-3, the wife now wants to come back and settle in Shimla. There is no reason to disbelieve their statements. Even according to the evidence led by the tenant the accommodation in possession of the landlord consists of two rooms, kitchen, bath room etc. Admittedly, the landlord is also having his office as an Architect in this building. The landlord belongs to the middle class of the Society. It cannot be expected of a landlord who owns sufficient property to reside in a two room set wherein he also runs his office.',
	(int) 46 => '<p>28. The law by now is well settled that the landlord is the best judge of the suitability of the accommodation required by him. This suitability has however to be judged in the context of reasonable expectations. The landlord and his wife who are both well educated can reasonably be expected to entertain guests and they will have visitors to their house. They would obviously require a drawing room, a bed room and a spare bed room for guests. Even at his residence the landlord may require another room for his professional work. This is the minimum accommodation which they would require. Even if the accommodation possessed by the landlord, though not owned by him, at 31, the Mall, Shimla is taken into consideration such accommodation is not sufficient to meet his requirements since admittedly the landlord is running his profession of Architect from some portion of his these premises.',
	(int) 47 => '<p>29. Keeping in view the entire facts and circumstances, I am of the considered view that the learned Appellate Authority gravely erred in rejecting the eviction petition of the landlord solely on the ground that he had not disclosed the factum of being in possession of the premises at 31, the Mall Shimla. Even though I have held that the said premises are residential premises, in view of the above discussion I hold that the landlord cannot be non-suited only on the ground of his being in possession of such premises since same were not owned by him.',
	(int) 48 => '<p>30. In view of the above discussion, the Revision Petition is allowed, the order of the learned Appellate Authority dated 6.5.2003 is seaside and the order of the Rent Controller dated 22.8.2001 is restored.',
	(int) 49 => '<p>31. Keeping in view the fact that the tenant has been in possession of the premises for a long period he is granted time up to 31st October, 2008 to vacate the premises.',
	(int) 50 => '<p>32. No order as to costs.<p>',
	(int) 51 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 52
$i = (int) 49
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

31. Keeping in view the fact that the tenant has been in possession of the premises for a long period he is granted time up to 31st October, 2008 to vacate the premises.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Shri Arun Bhanwara Vs Shri S L Srivastava - Citation 891084 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '891084',
			'acts' => '',
			'appealno' => '',
			'appellant' => 'Shri Arun Bhanwara',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Shri Arun Bhanwara Vs. Shri S.L. Srivastava',
			'casenote' => ' - CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908.[C.A. No. 5/1908]. Order 14, Rule 2 [As amended by Amending Act of 1976]: [V.K. Gupta, CJ, Deepak Gupta & Surjit Singh, JJ] Preliminary issue of law and fact  Court framing all issues both of law and facts together and also  tried all the issues together, including the issue relating to jurisdiction of Court  Held, Except in situations perceived or warranted under sub-rule (2) of Rule 2 of Order 14 where a  Court in fact frames only issues of law in the first instance and postpones settlement of other issues, clearly and explicitly in situations where the Court has framed all issues together, both of law as well as facts and has also tried all these issues together, it is not open to the Court to adopt the principle of severability and proceed to decide issues of law first, without taking up simultaneously other issues for decision. This course of action is not available to a Court because sub-rule (1) does not permit the  Court to adopt any such principle of severability and to dispose of a suit only on preliminary issues, or what can be termed as issues of law. Sub-rule (1)  clearly mandates that in a situation contemplated under it, where all the issues have been together and have also been taken up for adjudication during the course of the trial, these must be decided together and the judgment in the suit as a whole must be pronounced by the Court covering all the issues framed in the suit.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => 'Ram Narain Arora v. Asha Rani;',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => '',
			'counseldef' => '',
			'court' => 'Himachal Pradesh',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2008-07-31',
			'deposition' => 'Petition allowed',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => ' Deepak Gupta, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">Deepak Gupta, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. This Revision Petition under Section 25(5) of the H.P. Urban Rent Control Act, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) is directed against the order of the learned Appellate Authority, Shimla in CMA No. 60-S/14 of 2001 whereby the appeal filed by the respondent (hereinafter referred to as the tenant) has been allowed, the order of the Rent Controller has been set-aside and the petition for eviction filed by the present petitioner (hereinafter referred to as the Landlord) on the ground of personal bona fide requirement has been set-aside.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The undisputed facts are that the landlord is owner of the demised premises situated in building known as Tunnel View, Sanjauli, Shimla-6 consisting of two bed rooms with attached bath room and latrine, drawing-cum-dining room, kitchen and balcony. These premises were purchased by the landlord in the year 1986. Thereafter, the landlord had rented out the premises to one Sh. B.K. Chauhan. According to the landlord, when he got married he requested Sh. B.K. Chauhan to vacate the said premises. Sh. Chauhan vacated the said premises but admittedly the landlord did not occupy the same but rented out the same to the tenant in the year 1990.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. In the year 1997 the landlord filed a petition for eviction of the tenant on two grounds; firstly that the tenant is in arrears of rent from 1.11.1990 to 31.7.1997 and secondly that the premises are bona fide required by the landlord for the use and occupation of himself and his family.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. This petition was contested by the tenant. After trial, the Rent Controller ordered the eviction of the tenant on two grounds; (i) that the tenant was in arrears of rent from November, 1999 till date of order i.e. 22nd August, 2001 and (ii) that the landlord required the premises for his own use and occupation.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. The tenant deposited the rent within the time prescribed. He also filed an appeal challenging the finding on the issue of bona fide requirement. The learned Appellate Authority came to the conclusion that the landlord had not made a proper and full disclosure of facts as required under the provisions of the Act and had withheld material facts from the Court viz. that the landlord was in occupation of residential premises on 31, Mall Road in the urban area of Shimla and as such rejected this petition on this short ground.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. Aggrieved by the said order, the landlord has filed the present Revision Petition.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. I have heard Sh. Ramakant Sharma, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sh. Bhupinder Gupta, learned senior Counsel for the tenant.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. It has been urged on behalf of the landlord that the building which is alleged to be in possession of the landlord i.e. 31, the Mall Shimla is not a residential building and secondly that the building is not owned by him.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. On the other hand Sh. Bhupinder Gupta, learned Counsel of the tenant has strenuously urged that the landlord in para 18 has not stated anything about any building being owned by him and has only made an averment that he does not own or possess any other such building within the urban area Shimla. It is contended by Sh. Bhupinder Gupta that the landlord of his own volition did not state anything about the ownership of the building and since he has kept silent about the building which he is in occupation he has made a false averment and therefore his petition for eviction has rightly been rejected.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. I am not at all in agreement with the contention of the landlord that the premises known as 31, the Mall Shimla which are admittedly in the occupation of the landlord are commercial premises only and not being used by him for his residence. As pointed out above, the landlord purchased the demised premises in 1986. They fell vacant when he got married despite that he did not occupy the same and rented out the same to the tenant in the year 1990. The question that arises is where was the landlord living for this entire period. According to the landlord after the year 1994 he has been living with his brother-in-law Rajan (wife's brother) PW-2, since the year 1994. Prior to 1994 the landlord will have this Court to believe that he was living off and on with one friend or the other. This story is impossible to believe. The landlord was married in the year 1999. He is an Architect by profession. His wife is a law graduate. It is not believable that such a person would have no permanent abode and would continue to live as a guest with his friends for almost 5 years after his marriage. Even the story that he has been living with his brother-in-law after the year 1994 does not inspire confidence. It stands proved on record that the brother-in-law PW-2 Rajan lives with his own family i.e. wife and children. From the evidence it is also clear that the parents of the brother-in-law also reside with him, His flat consists of only two rooms. The flat in possession of the landlord at 31, the Mall Shimla, also consists of two rooms, kitchen and bath room. Even assuming that he was running an office in the part of the flat it cannot be believed that he would not live on his own flat on the Mall Road and reside with his brother-in-law in cramped premises. Even in the electoral list the landlord is shown to be a resident of 31, The Mall, Shimla. Therefore, I am of the considered view that the building 31, the Mall, Shimla was also being used as a residence by the landlord.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. Having held so, the question that arises is whether the landlord can be non-suited only on the ground that he has not made any disclosure about the residential accommodation available with him which premises were admittedly not owned by him.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. The short question which arises for decision in this petition is whether the landlord was guilty of suppressing and withholding such relevant facts which would disentitle him from seeking eviction of the tenant. To appreciate these contentions it would be necessary to refer to relevant portion of Section 14(3) of the Act:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Section 14:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1 and 2 xxxxxxxxxxx</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(3) A landlord may apply to the Controller for an order directing the tenant to put the landlord in possession-</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(a) in case of residential building, if</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(i) he required it for his own occupation:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Provided that he is not occupying another residential building owned by him, in the urban area concerned:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Provided further that he has not vacated such a building without sufficient cause within five years of the filing of the application, in the said urban area....</p><p style="text-align: justify;">13. A perusal of the bare provisions of the Act makes it clear that there are certain essential ingredients which the landlord must satisfy before seeking eviction of the tenant under the Act. Not only must he prove that the residential building is bona fide required by him for his own use and occupation but he must also plead and prove that he is not occupying any other residential building owned by him in the urban area concerned and further that he has not vacated such a building without sufficient cause within 5 years of the filing of the application.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">14. Reference may now be made to the relevant allegations made in para 18 of the eviction petition:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(ii) That the petitioner bona fide requires the premises for his own use and occupation and also for the use and occupation of his family.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The petitioner does not own or possess any other such building within the urban area of Simla nor the petitioner has vacated any such premises within five years of the filing of this petition.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The family of the petitioner presently consists of himself and his wife. Due to paucity of accommodation the petitioner has not been able to keep his wife with himself at Simla, where he is working as an Engineer and she has been residing at Chandigarh since 1991 but on account of her ill health she has been brought to Simla by the petitioner. The petitioner at present is seeking temporary shelter, from time to time, with his relations.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">15. The learned Appellate Authority came to the conclusion that the landlord had falsely pleaded that he does not own or possess any other such building within the urban area of Shimla and hence rejected the eviction petition on this ground.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">16. On a close analysis of the proviso to Section 14(3)(a)(i) of the Act it is clear that a landlord is not entitled to seek eviction of a tenant from residential building even in case of bona fide requirement if the landlord is occupying another residential building owned by him in the urban area concerned. One can read three essential ingredients in this proviso i.e. (i) that the landlord is in occupation of another residential building; (ii) that the said residential building is owned by him and (iii) that the said residential building is situated in the concerned urban area.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">17. The question that arises is what is the impact of the landlord not making a disclosure in respect of premises which he is occupying but are not owned by him.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">18. The Apex Court in Onkar Nath v. Ved Vyas ILR 1979 HP 1, held as follows:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">It is common ground that there are three requirements to make out a cause of action for eviction under that provision, and indeed this is apparent from a bare reading of the sub-section. In the present case the finding is to the effect that the landlord requires the residential building for his own occupation. But, the legislation has taken care to insist upon two more conditions, namely; (a) that the landlord is not occupying any other residential building in the area concerned; and (b) that he has not vacated such a building without sufficient cause. There is not a scintilla of evidence nor indeed there is any averment in compliance with these latter conditions. The necessary consequence follows that not merely is there inadequacy of pleadings sufficient to make out a cause of action but total absence of proof of two vital requirements....</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The Supreme Court also said that:.The statute benignly designed to protect tenants from unreasonable evictions has taken case to put restrictions which must be rigorously construed to fulfil the purpose of the statute.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">19. Following the aforesaid judgment and other pronouncements of the Apex Court, a learned Single Judge of this Court in Tara Chand Sharma v. Baij Nath and Ors. 1992 (2) R.C.J. 323, held as follows:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">16. What appears as the legislative intent, in bold relief, is that the landlord, while seeking eviction of a tenant on the ground that he needs a residential building for his own occupation, must come out clearly and honestly with facts relating to the requirement that he is not occupying another residential building owned by him, in the urban area concerned and that he had not vacated such a building without sufficient cause within five years of the filing of the application, in the said urban area. The primal burden of making a clear disclosure would lie upon the landlord, for, the true facts would be in his special knowledge. An order in his favour by the Rent Controller would depend upon the satisfaction of the Rent Controller in regard not only to the claim that the landlord requires the accommodation, from which he wishes to evict a tenant, for his own occupation but also that he was not occupying another residential building owned by him nor had he vacated such building without sufficient cause within five years of the filing of the application in the application in the urban area concerned....</p><p style="text-align: justify;">It was further held as under:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">18. That the landlord should make a full disclosure of the relevant facts, pertaining to the requirements of Sub-section (3)(a)(i) and the two provisos, becomes all the more necessary because the satisfaction of the Rent Controller in regard thereto is the condition precedent for the making of an order in favour of the landlord....</p><p style="text-align: justify;">20. The aforesaid judgment has been followed in a number of other cases including Vijay Kapoor v. Maya Ram 1997 (2) RCR 437, wherein another learned single Judge of this Court following the aforesaid judgment held that the landlord must make complete and proper disclosure of all the material facts.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">21. On the other hand Sh. Ramakant Sharma has relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in Ram Narain Arora v. Asha Rani 1998(2) RCR 268. In that case the Rent Controller came to the conclusion that the landlord had suppressed material information and had not disclosed the fact that he was already in occupation of a house in Subji Mandi. Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act reads as follows:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Section 14(1)(e). That the premises let for residential purposes are required bona fide by the landlord for occupation as a residence for himself or for any member of his family dependent on him, if he is the owner thereof, or for any person for whose benefit the premises are held and that the landlord or such person has no other reasonably suitable residential accommodation.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">22. The difference between Delhi Act and the present Act is that under the Delhi Act the only requirement is that the landlord has no other reasonably suitable accommodation whereas under the Himachal Act the residential premises are required to be owned by the landlord. The Apex Court in Rama Narain Arora's case (supra) held that the nondisclosure of the fact that the landlord was in occupation of certain premises in Subji Mandi was.not a ground to non-suit the landlord in view of the facts and circumstances of the case. The Apex Court held as follows:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. In making a claim that the suit premises is required bona fide for his own occupation as a residence for himself and other members of his family dependent on him and that he has no other reasonably suitable accommodation is a requirement of law before the Court can state whether the landlord requires the premises bona fide for his use and occupation. In doing so, the Court must also find out whether the landlord or such other person for whose benefit the premises is required has no other reasonably suitable residential accommodation. It cannot be said that the requirement of the landlord is not intermixed with the question of finding out whether he has any other reasonably suitable accommodation. If he has other reasonably suitable accommodation, ihen necessarily it would mean that he does not require the suit premises and his requirement may not be bona fide. In such circumstances further inquiry would be whether that premises is more suitable than the suit premises. Therefore, the questions raised before the Court would not necessarily depend upon only the pleadings. It could be a good defence that the landlord has other reasonably suitable residential accommodation and thereby defend the claim of the landlord.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. There cannot be a pedantic or a dogmatic approach in the matter of analysis of pleadings or of the evidence adduced thereto. It is no doubt true that if the pleadings are clearly set out, it would be easy for the Court to decide the matters. But if the pleadings are lacking or vague and if both parties have understood what was the case pleaded and put forth with reference to requirement of law and placed such material before the Court, neither party is prejudiced. If we analyse from this angle, we do not think that the High Court was not justified in interfering with the order made by the Rent Controller.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">23. From the perusal of the judgment of the Apex Court it is apparent that the Rent Controller must approach the matter in a practical manner. In case the non-disclosure is such as that it goes to the very root of the case the Rent Controller would be justified in non-suiting the landlord. However, if the non-disclosure is such that it would not prejudice the rights of the respondent then the landlord should not be non-suited only on this ground.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">24. The decisions of this Court cited hereinabove were delivered prior to the judgment delivered by the Apex Court in Ram Nar'ain Arora's case. Further more both in Tara Chand Sharma's case and Vijay Kapoor's case decided by this Court, no averment had been made ixi respect of other residential buildings owned by a landlord. There was complete non-disclosure as to whether any such residential building owned by the landlord was in his possession or not. In the present case, as I have held above, the residential premises at 31, The Mall, Shimla was not owned by the landlord and hence these two earlier judgments of this Court are distinguishable on facts also.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">25. In the present case, the landlord has been non-suited only on the ground that he did not disclose the fact that he was in occupation of certain premises on the Mall Road. Under law he was not required to disclose this fact. He was only required to disclose the factum of occupying another residential building owned by him in the urban area concerned. True it may be, that it would have been better if the landlord had disclosed all the facts but non-disclosure of a fact which he was not under law required to disclose could not in my opinion be a ground to dismiss his eviction petition.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">26. However, what are the premises in his occupation even as a tenant can be taken into consideration while deciding the question whether he bona fide requires the demised premises for his personal use or occupation or not.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">27. Lastly comes the question with regard to the bona fide requirement of the landlord. The landlord has no children. According to the landlord as well as his other witnesses i.e. his brother-in-law PW-2 and his wife PW-3, the wife now wants to come back and settle in Shimla. There is no reason to disbelieve their statements. Even according to the evidence led by the tenant the accommodation in possession of the landlord consists of two rooms, kitchen, bath room etc. Admittedly, the landlord is also having his office as an Architect in this building. The landlord belongs to the middle class of the Society. It cannot be expected of a landlord who owns sufficient property to reside in a two room set wherein he also runs his office.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">28. The law by now is well settled that the landlord is the best judge of the suitability of the accommodation required by him. This suitability has however to be judged in the context of reasonable expectations. The landlord and his wife who are both well educated can reasonably be expected to entertain guests and they will have visitors to their house. They would obviously require a drawing room, a bed room and a spare bed room for guests. Even at his residence the landlord may require another room for his professional work. This is the minimum accommodation which they would require. Even if the accommodation possessed by the landlord, though not owned by him, at 31, the Mall, Shimla is taken into consideration such accommodation is not sufficient to meet his requirements since admittedly the landlord is running his profession of Architect from some portion of his these premises.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">29. Keeping in view the entire facts and circumstances, I am of the considered view that the learned Appellate Authority gravely erred in rejecting the eviction petition of the landlord solely on the ground that he had not disclosed the factum of being in possession of the premises at 31, the Mall Shimla. Even though I have held that the said premises are residential premises, in view of the above discussion I hold that the landlord cannot be non-suited only on the ground of his being in possession of such premises since same were not owned by him.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">30. In view of the above discussion, the Revision Petition is allowed, the order of the learned Appellate Authority dated 6.5.2003 is seaside and the order of the Rent Controller dated 22.8.2001 is restored.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">31. Keeping in view the fact that the tenant has been in possession of the premises for a long period he is granted time up to 31st October, 2008 to vacate the premises.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">32. No order as to costs.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '2008(2)ShimLC491',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'Shri S.L. Srivastava',
			'sub' => 'Tenancy',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'shri-arun-bhanwara-vs-s-l-srivastava',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '891084',
		(int) 1 => 'shri-arun-bhanwara-vs-s-l-srivastava'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Shri Arun Bhanwara Vs Shri S L Srivastava - Citation 891084 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '891084',
		'acts' => '',
		'appealno' => '',
		'appellant' => 'Shri Arun Bhanwara',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Shri Arun Bhanwara Vs. Shri S.L. Srivastava',
		'casenote' => ' - CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908.[C.A. No. 5/1908]. Order 14, Rule 2 [As amended by Amending Act of 1976]: [V.K. Gupta, CJ, Deepak Gupta & Surjit Singh, JJ] Preliminary issue of law and fact  Court framing all issues both of law and facts together and also  tried all the issues together, including the issue relating to jurisdiction of Court  Held, Except in situations perceived or warranted under sub-rule (2) of Rule 2 of Order 14 where a  Court in fact frames only issues of law in the first instance and postpones settlement of other issues, clearly and explicitly in situations where the Court has framed all issues together, both of law as well as facts and has also tried all these issues together, it is not open to the Court to adopt the principle of severability and proceed to decide issues of law first, without taking up simultaneously other issues for decision. This course of action is not available to a Court because sub-rule (1) does not permit the  Court to adopt any such principle of severability and to dispose of a suit only on preliminary issues, or what can be termed as issues of law. Sub-rule (1)  clearly mandates that in a situation contemplated under it, where all the issues have been together and have also been taken up for adjudication during the course of the trial, these must be decided together and the judgment in the suit as a whole must be pronounced by the Court covering all the issues framed in the suit.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => 'Ram Narain Arora v. Asha Rani;',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => '',
		'counseldef' => '',
		'court' => 'Himachal Pradesh',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2008-07-31',
		'deposition' => 'Petition allowed',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => ' Deepak Gupta, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>Deepak Gupta, J.</p><p>1. This Revision Petition under Section 25(5) of the H.P. Urban Rent Control Act, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) is directed against the order of the learned Appellate Authority, Shimla in CMA No. 60-S/14 of 2001 whereby the appeal filed by the respondent (hereinafter referred to as the tenant) has been allowed, the order of the Rent Controller has been set-aside and the petition for eviction filed by the present petitioner (hereinafter referred to as the Landlord) on the ground of personal bona fide requirement has been set-aside.</p><p>2. The undisputed facts are that the landlord is owner of the demised premises situated in building known as Tunnel View, Sanjauli, Shimla-6 consisting of two bed rooms with attached bath room and latrine, drawing-cum-dining room, kitchen and balcony. These premises were purchased by the landlord in the year 1986. Thereafter, the landlord had rented out the premises to one Sh. B.K. Chauhan. According to the landlord, when he got married he requested Sh. B.K. Chauhan to vacate the said premises. Sh. Chauhan vacated the said premises but admittedly the landlord did not occupy the same but rented out the same to the tenant in the year 1990.</p><p>3. In the year 1997 the landlord filed a petition for eviction of the tenant on two grounds; firstly that the tenant is in arrears of rent from 1.11.1990 to 31.7.1997 and secondly that the premises are bona fide required by the landlord for the use and occupation of himself and his family.</p><p>4. This petition was contested by the tenant. After trial, the Rent Controller ordered the eviction of the tenant on two grounds; (i) that the tenant was in arrears of rent from November, 1999 till date of order i.e. 22nd August, 2001 and (ii) that the landlord required the premises for his own use and occupation.</p><p>5. The tenant deposited the rent within the time prescribed. He also filed an appeal challenging the finding on the issue of bona fide requirement. The learned Appellate Authority came to the conclusion that the landlord had not made a proper and full disclosure of facts as required under the provisions of the Act and had withheld material facts from the Court viz. that the landlord was in occupation of residential premises on 31, Mall Road in the urban area of Shimla and as such rejected this petition on this short ground.</p><p>6. Aggrieved by the said order, the landlord has filed the present Revision Petition.</p><p>7. I have heard Sh. Ramakant Sharma, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sh. Bhupinder Gupta, learned senior Counsel for the tenant.</p><p>8. It has been urged on behalf of the landlord that the building which is alleged to be in possession of the landlord i.e. 31, the Mall Shimla is not a residential building and secondly that the building is not owned by him.</p><p>9. On the other hand Sh. Bhupinder Gupta, learned Counsel of the tenant has strenuously urged that the landlord in para 18 has not stated anything about any building being owned by him and has only made an averment that he does not own or possess any other such building within the urban area Shimla. It is contended by Sh. Bhupinder Gupta that the landlord of his own volition did not state anything about the ownership of the building and since he has kept silent about the building which he is in occupation he has made a false averment and therefore his petition for eviction has rightly been rejected.</p><p>10. I am not at all in agreement with the contention of the landlord that the premises known as 31, the Mall Shimla which are admittedly in the occupation of the landlord are commercial premises only and not being used by him for his residence. As pointed out above, the landlord purchased the demised premises in 1986. They fell vacant when he got married despite that he did not occupy the same and rented out the same to the tenant in the year 1990. The question that arises is where was the landlord living for this entire period. According to the landlord after the year 1994 he has been living with his brother-in-law Rajan (wife's brother) PW-2, since the year 1994. Prior to 1994 the landlord will have this Court to believe that he was living off and on with one friend or the other. This story is impossible to believe. The landlord was married in the year 1999. He is an Architect by profession. His wife is a law graduate. It is not believable that such a person would have no permanent abode and would continue to live as a guest with his friends for almost 5 years after his marriage. Even the story that he has been living with his brother-in-law after the year 1994 does not inspire confidence. It stands proved on record that the brother-in-law PW-2 Rajan lives with his own family i.e. wife and children. From the evidence it is also clear that the parents of the brother-in-law also reside with him, His flat consists of only two rooms. The flat in possession of the landlord at 31, the Mall Shimla, also consists of two rooms, kitchen and bath room. Even assuming that he was running an office in the part of the flat it cannot be believed that he would not live on his own flat on the Mall Road and reside with his brother-in-law in cramped premises. Even in the electoral list the landlord is shown to be a resident of 31, The Mall, Shimla. Therefore, I am of the considered view that the building 31, the Mall, Shimla was also being used as a residence by the landlord.</p><p>11. Having held so, the question that arises is whether the landlord can be non-suited only on the ground that he has not made any disclosure about the residential accommodation available with him which premises were admittedly not owned by him.</p><p>12. The short question which arises for decision in this petition is whether the landlord was guilty of suppressing and withholding such relevant facts which would disentitle him from seeking eviction of the tenant. To appreciate these contentions it would be necessary to refer to relevant portion of Section 14(3) of the Act:</p><p>Section 14:</p><p>1 and 2 xxxxxxxxxxx</p><p>(3) A landlord may apply to the Controller for an order directing the tenant to put the landlord in possession-</p><p>(a) in case of residential building, if</p><p>(i) he required it for his own occupation:</p><p>Provided that he is not occupying another residential building owned by him, in the urban area concerned:</p><p>Provided further that he has not vacated such a building without sufficient cause within five years of the filing of the application, in the said urban area....</p><p>13. A perusal of the bare provisions of the Act makes it clear that there are certain essential ingredients which the landlord must satisfy before seeking eviction of the tenant under the Act. Not only must he prove that the residential building is bona fide required by him for his own use and occupation but he must also plead and prove that he is not occupying any other residential building owned by him in the urban area concerned and further that he has not vacated such a building without sufficient cause within 5 years of the filing of the application.</p><p>14. Reference may now be made to the relevant allegations made in para 18 of the eviction petition:</p><p>(ii) That the petitioner bona fide requires the premises for his own use and occupation and also for the use and occupation of his family.</p><p>The petitioner does not own or possess any other such building within the urban area of Simla nor the petitioner has vacated any such premises within five years of the filing of this petition.</p><p>The family of the petitioner presently consists of himself and his wife. Due to paucity of accommodation the petitioner has not been able to keep his wife with himself at Simla, where he is working as an Engineer and she has been residing at Chandigarh since 1991 but on account of her ill health she has been brought to Simla by the petitioner. The petitioner at present is seeking temporary shelter, from time to time, with his relations.</p><p>15. The learned Appellate Authority came to the conclusion that the landlord had falsely pleaded that he does not own or possess any other such building within the urban area of Shimla and hence rejected the eviction petition on this ground.</p><p>16. On a close analysis of the proviso to Section 14(3)(a)(i) of the Act it is clear that a landlord is not entitled to seek eviction of a tenant from residential building even in case of bona fide requirement if the landlord is occupying another residential building owned by him in the urban area concerned. One can read three essential ingredients in this proviso i.e. (i) that the landlord is in occupation of another residential building; (ii) that the said residential building is owned by him and (iii) that the said residential building is situated in the concerned urban area.</p><p>17. The question that arises is what is the impact of the landlord not making a disclosure in respect of premises which he is occupying but are not owned by him.</p><p>18. The Apex Court in Onkar Nath v. Ved Vyas ILR 1979 HP 1, held as follows:</p><p>It is common ground that there are three requirements to make out a cause of action for eviction under that provision, and indeed this is apparent from a bare reading of the sub-section. In the present case the finding is to the effect that the landlord requires the residential building for his own occupation. But, the legislation has taken care to insist upon two more conditions, namely; (a) that the landlord is not occupying any other residential building in the area concerned; and (b) that he has not vacated such a building without sufficient cause. There is not a scintilla of evidence nor indeed there is any averment in compliance with these latter conditions. The necessary consequence follows that not merely is there inadequacy of pleadings sufficient to make out a cause of action but total absence of proof of two vital requirements....</p><p>The Supreme Court also said that:.The statute benignly designed to protect tenants from unreasonable evictions has taken case to put restrictions which must be rigorously construed to fulfil the purpose of the statute.</p><p>19. Following the aforesaid judgment and other pronouncements of the Apex Court, a learned Single Judge of this Court in Tara Chand Sharma v. Baij Nath and Ors. 1992 (2) R.C.J. 323, held as follows:</p><p>16. What appears as the legislative intent, in bold relief, is that the landlord, while seeking eviction of a tenant on the ground that he needs a residential building for his own occupation, must come out clearly and honestly with facts relating to the requirement that he is not occupying another residential building owned by him, in the urban area concerned and that he had not vacated such a building without sufficient cause within five years of the filing of the application, in the said urban area. The primal burden of making a clear disclosure would lie upon the landlord, for, the true facts would be in his special knowledge. An order in his favour by the Rent Controller would depend upon the satisfaction of the Rent Controller in regard not only to the claim that the landlord requires the accommodation, from which he wishes to evict a tenant, for his own occupation but also that he was not occupying another residential building owned by him nor had he vacated such building without sufficient cause within five years of the filing of the application in the application in the urban area concerned....</p><p>It was further held as under:</p><p>18. That the landlord should make a full disclosure of the relevant facts, pertaining to the requirements of Sub-section (3)(a)(i) and the two provisos, becomes all the more necessary because the satisfaction of the Rent Controller in regard thereto is the condition precedent for the making of an order in favour of the landlord....</p><p>20. The aforesaid judgment has been followed in a number of other cases including Vijay Kapoor v. Maya Ram 1997 (2) RCR 437, wherein another learned single Judge of this Court following the aforesaid judgment held that the landlord must make complete and proper disclosure of all the material facts.</p><p>21. On the other hand Sh. Ramakant Sharma has relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in Ram Narain Arora v. Asha Rani 1998(2) RCR 268. In that case the Rent Controller came to the conclusion that the landlord had suppressed material information and had not disclosed the fact that he was already in occupation of a house in Subji Mandi. Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act reads as follows:</p><p>Section 14(1)(e). That the premises let for residential purposes are required bona fide by the landlord for occupation as a residence for himself or for any member of his family dependent on him, if he is the owner thereof, or for any person for whose benefit the premises are held and that the landlord or such person has no other reasonably suitable residential accommodation.</p><p>22. The difference between Delhi Act and the present Act is that under the Delhi Act the only requirement is that the landlord has no other reasonably suitable accommodation whereas under the Himachal Act the residential premises are required to be owned by the landlord. The Apex Court in Rama Narain Arora's case (supra) held that the nondisclosure of the fact that the landlord was in occupation of certain premises in Subji Mandi was.not a ground to non-suit the landlord in view of the facts and circumstances of the case. The Apex Court held as follows:</p><p>9. In making a claim that the suit premises is required bona fide for his own occupation as a residence for himself and other members of his family dependent on him and that he has no other reasonably suitable accommodation is a requirement of law before the Court can state whether the landlord requires the premises bona fide for his use and occupation. In doing so, the Court must also find out whether the landlord or such other person for whose benefit the premises is required has no other reasonably suitable residential accommodation. It cannot be said that the requirement of the landlord is not intermixed with the question of finding out whether he has any other reasonably suitable accommodation. If he has other reasonably suitable accommodation, ihen necessarily it would mean that he does not require the suit premises and his requirement may not be bona fide. In such circumstances further inquiry would be whether that premises is more suitable than the suit premises. Therefore, the questions raised before the Court would not necessarily depend upon only the pleadings. It could be a good defence that the landlord has other reasonably suitable residential accommodation and thereby defend the claim of the landlord.</p><p>10. There cannot be a pedantic or a dogmatic approach in the matter of analysis of pleadings or of the evidence adduced thereto. It is no doubt true that if the pleadings are clearly set out, it would be easy for the Court to decide the matters. But if the pleadings are lacking or vague and if both parties have understood what was the case pleaded and put forth with reference to requirement of law and placed such material before the Court, neither party is prejudiced. If we analyse from this angle, we do not think that the High Court was not justified in interfering with the order made by the Rent Controller.</p><p>23. From the perusal of the judgment of the Apex Court it is apparent that the Rent Controller must approach the matter in a practical manner. In case the non-disclosure is such as that it goes to the very root of the case the Rent Controller would be justified in non-suiting the landlord. However, if the non-disclosure is such that it would not prejudice the rights of the respondent then the landlord should not be non-suited only on this ground.</p><p>24. The decisions of this Court cited hereinabove were delivered prior to the judgment delivered by the Apex Court in Ram Nar'ain Arora's case. Further more both in Tara Chand Sharma's case and Vijay Kapoor's case decided by this Court, no averment had been made ixi respect of other residential buildings owned by a landlord. There was complete non-disclosure as to whether any such residential building owned by the landlord was in his possession or not. In the present case, as I have held above, the residential premises at 31, The Mall, Shimla was not owned by the landlord and hence these two earlier judgments of this Court are distinguishable on facts also.</p><p>25. In the present case, the landlord has been non-suited only on the ground that he did not disclose the fact that he was in occupation of certain premises on the Mall Road. Under law he was not required to disclose this fact. He was only required to disclose the factum of occupying another residential building owned by him in the urban area concerned. True it may be, that it would have been better if the landlord had disclosed all the facts but non-disclosure of a fact which he was not under law required to disclose could not in my opinion be a ground to dismiss his eviction petition.</p><p>26. However, what are the premises in his occupation even as a tenant can be taken into consideration while deciding the question whether he bona fide requires the demised premises for his personal use or occupation or not.</p><p>27. Lastly comes the question with regard to the bona fide requirement of the landlord. The landlord has no children. According to the landlord as well as his other witnesses i.e. his brother-in-law PW-2 and his wife PW-3, the wife now wants to come back and settle in Shimla. There is no reason to disbelieve their statements. Even according to the evidence led by the tenant the accommodation in possession of the landlord consists of two rooms, kitchen, bath room etc. Admittedly, the landlord is also having his office as an Architect in this building. The landlord belongs to the middle class of the Society. It cannot be expected of a landlord who owns sufficient property to reside in a two room set wherein he also runs his office.</p><p>28. The law by now is well settled that the landlord is the best judge of the suitability of the accommodation required by him. This suitability has however to be judged in the context of reasonable expectations. The landlord and his wife who are both well educated can reasonably be expected to entertain guests and they will have visitors to their house. They would obviously require a drawing room, a bed room and a spare bed room for guests. Even at his residence the landlord may require another room for his professional work. This is the minimum accommodation which they would require. Even if the accommodation possessed by the landlord, though not owned by him, at 31, the Mall, Shimla is taken into consideration such accommodation is not sufficient to meet his requirements since admittedly the landlord is running his profession of Architect from some portion of his these premises.</p><p>29. Keeping in view the entire facts and circumstances, I am of the considered view that the learned Appellate Authority gravely erred in rejecting the eviction petition of the landlord solely on the ground that he had not disclosed the factum of being in possession of the premises at 31, the Mall Shimla. Even though I have held that the said premises are residential premises, in view of the above discussion I hold that the landlord cannot be non-suited only on the ground of his being in possession of such premises since same were not owned by him.</p><p>30. In view of the above discussion, the Revision Petition is allowed, the order of the learned Appellate Authority dated 6.5.2003 is seaside and the order of the Rent Controller dated 22.8.2001 is restored.</p><p>31. Keeping in view the fact that the tenant has been in possession of the premises for a long period he is granted time up to 31st October, 2008 to vacate the premises.</p><p>32. No order as to costs.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '2008(2)ShimLC491',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'Shri S.L. Srivastava',
		'sub' => 'Tenancy',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'shri-arun-bhanwara-vs-s-l-srivastava'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '891084',
	(int) 1 => 'shri-arun-bhanwara-vs-s-l-srivastava'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/891084/shri-arun-bhanwara-vs-s-l-srivastava'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$caseref = 'Ram Narain Arora v. Asha Rani<br>'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>Deepak Gupta, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. This Revision Petition under Section 25(5) of the H.P. Urban Rent Control Act, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) is directed against the order of the learned Appellate Authority, Shimla in CMA No. 60-S/14 of 2001 whereby the appeal filed by the respondent (hereinafter referred to as the tenant) has been allowed, the order of the Rent Controller has been set-aside and the petition for eviction filed by the present petitioner (hereinafter referred to as the Landlord) on the ground of personal bona fide requirement has been set-aside.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. The undisputed facts are that the landlord is owner of the demised premises situated in building known as Tunnel View, Sanjauli, Shimla-6 consisting of two bed rooms with attached bath room and latrine, drawing-cum-dining room, kitchen and balcony. These premises were purchased by the landlord in the year 1986. Thereafter, the landlord had rented out the premises to one Sh. B.K. Chauhan. According to the landlord, when he got married he requested Sh. B.K. Chauhan to vacate the said premises. Sh. Chauhan vacated the said premises but admittedly the landlord did not occupy the same but rented out the same to the tenant in the year 1990.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. In the year 1997 the landlord filed a petition for eviction of the tenant on two grounds; firstly that the tenant is in arrears of rent from 1.11.1990 to 31.7.1997 and secondly that the premises are bona fide required by the landlord for the use and occupation of himself and his family.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>4. This petition was contested by the tenant. After trial, the Rent Controller ordered the eviction of the tenant on two grounds; (i) that the tenant was in arrears of rent from November, 1999 till date of order i.e. 22nd August, 2001 and (ii) that the landlord required the premises for his own use and occupation.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>5. The tenant deposited the rent within the time prescribed. He also filed an appeal challenging the finding on the issue of bona fide requirement. The learned Appellate Authority came to the conclusion that the landlord had not made a proper and full disclosure of facts as required under the provisions of the Act and had withheld material facts from the Court viz. that the landlord was in occupation of residential premises on 31, Mall Road in the urban area of Shimla and as such rejected this petition on this short ground.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>6. Aggrieved by the said order, the landlord has filed the present Revision Petition.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>7. I have heard Sh. Ramakant Sharma, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sh. Bhupinder Gupta, learned senior Counsel for the tenant.',
	(int) 8 => '<p>8. It has been urged on behalf of the landlord that the building which is alleged to be in possession of the landlord i.e. 31, the Mall Shimla is not a residential building and secondly that the building is not owned by him.',
	(int) 9 => '<p>9. On the other hand Sh. Bhupinder Gupta, learned Counsel of the tenant has strenuously urged that the landlord in para 18 has not stated anything about any building being owned by him and has only made an averment that he does not own or possess any other such building within the urban area Shimla. It is contended by Sh. Bhupinder Gupta that the landlord of his own volition did not state anything about the ownership of the building and since he has kept silent about the building which he is in occupation he has made a false averment and therefore his petition for eviction has rightly been rejected.',
	(int) 10 => '<p>10. I am not at all in agreement with the contention of the landlord that the premises known as 31, the Mall Shimla which are admittedly in the occupation of the landlord are commercial premises only and not being used by him for his residence. As pointed out above, the landlord purchased the demised premises in 1986. They fell vacant when he got married despite that he did not occupy the same and rented out the same to the tenant in the year 1990. The question that arises is where was the landlord living for this entire period. According to the landlord after the year 1994 he has been living with his brother-in-law Rajan (wife's brother) PW-2, since the year 1994. Prior to 1994 the landlord will have this Court to believe that he was living off and on with one friend or the other. This story is impossible to believe. The landlord was married in the year 1999. He is an Architect by profession. His wife is a law graduate. It is not believable that such a person would have no permanent abode and would continue to live as a guest with his friends for almost 5 years after his marriage. Even the story that he has been living with his brother-in-law after the year 1994 does not inspire confidence. It stands proved on record that the brother-in-law PW-2 Rajan lives with his own family i.e. wife and children. From the evidence it is also clear that the parents of the brother-in-law also reside with him, His flat consists of only two rooms. The flat in possession of the landlord at 31, the Mall Shimla, also consists of two rooms, kitchen and bath room. Even assuming that he was running an office in the part of the flat it cannot be believed that he would not live on his own flat on the Mall Road and reside with his brother-in-law in cramped premises. Even in the electoral list the landlord is shown to be a resident of 31, The Mall, Shimla. Therefore, I am of the considered view that the building 31, the Mall, Shimla was also being used as a residence by the landlord.',
	(int) 11 => '<p>11. Having held so, the question that arises is whether the landlord can be non-suited only on the ground that he has not made any disclosure about the residential accommodation available with him which premises were admittedly not owned by him.',
	(int) 12 => '<p>12. The short question which arises for decision in this petition is whether the landlord was guilty of suppressing and withholding such relevant facts which would disentitle him from seeking eviction of the tenant. To appreciate these contentions it would be necessary to refer to relevant portion of Section 14(3) of the Act:',
	(int) 13 => '<p>Section 14:',
	(int) 14 => '<p>1 and 2 xxxxxxxxxxx',
	(int) 15 => '<p>(3) A landlord may apply to the Controller for an order directing the tenant to put the landlord in possession-',
	(int) 16 => '<p>(a) in case of residential building, if',
	(int) 17 => '<p>(i) he required it for his own occupation:',
	(int) 18 => '<p>Provided that he is not occupying another residential building owned by him, in the urban area concerned:',
	(int) 19 => '<p>Provided further that he has not vacated such a building without sufficient cause within five years of the filing of the application, in the said urban area....',
	(int) 20 => '<p>13. A perusal of the bare provisions of the Act makes it clear that there are certain essential ingredients which the landlord must satisfy before seeking eviction of the tenant under the Act. Not only must he prove that the residential building is bona fide required by him for his own use and occupation but he must also plead and prove that he is not occupying any other residential building owned by him in the urban area concerned and further that he has not vacated such a building without sufficient cause within 5 years of the filing of the application.',
	(int) 21 => '<p>14. Reference may now be made to the relevant allegations made in para 18 of the eviction petition:',
	(int) 22 => '<p>(ii) That the petitioner bona fide requires the premises for his own use and occupation and also for the use and occupation of his family.',
	(int) 23 => '<p>The petitioner does not own or possess any other such building within the urban area of Simla nor the petitioner has vacated any such premises within five years of the filing of this petition.',
	(int) 24 => '<p>The family of the petitioner presently consists of himself and his wife. Due to paucity of accommodation the petitioner has not been able to keep his wife with himself at Simla, where he is working as an Engineer and she has been residing at Chandigarh since 1991 but on account of her ill health she has been brought to Simla by the petitioner. The petitioner at present is seeking temporary shelter, from time to time, with his relations.',
	(int) 25 => '<p>15. The learned Appellate Authority came to the conclusion that the landlord had falsely pleaded that he does not own or possess any other such building within the urban area of Shimla and hence rejected the eviction petition on this ground.',
	(int) 26 => '<p>16. On a close analysis of the proviso to Section 14(3)(a)(i) of the Act it is clear that a landlord is not entitled to seek eviction of a tenant from residential building even in case of bona fide requirement if the landlord is occupying another residential building owned by him in the urban area concerned. One can read three essential ingredients in this proviso i.e. (i) that the landlord is in occupation of another residential building; (ii) that the said residential building is owned by him and (iii) that the said residential building is situated in the concerned urban area.',
	(int) 27 => '<p>17. The question that arises is what is the impact of the landlord not making a disclosure in respect of premises which he is occupying but are not owned by him.',
	(int) 28 => '<p>18. The Apex Court in Onkar Nath v. Ved Vyas ILR 1979 HP 1, held as follows:',
	(int) 29 => '<p>It is common ground that there are three requirements to make out a cause of action for eviction under that provision, and indeed this is apparent from a bare reading of the sub-section. In the present case the finding is to the effect that the landlord requires the residential building for his own occupation. But, the legislation has taken care to insist upon two more conditions, namely; (a) that the landlord is not occupying any other residential building in the area concerned; and (b) that he has not vacated such a building without sufficient cause. There is not a scintilla of evidence nor indeed there is any averment in compliance with these latter conditions. The necessary consequence follows that not merely is there inadequacy of pleadings sufficient to make out a cause of action but total absence of proof of two vital requirements....',
	(int) 30 => '<p>The Supreme Court also said that:.The statute benignly designed to protect tenants from unreasonable evictions has taken case to put restrictions which must be rigorously construed to fulfil the purpose of the statute.',
	(int) 31 => '<p>19. Following the aforesaid judgment and other pronouncements of the Apex Court, a learned Single Judge of this Court in Tara Chand Sharma v. Baij Nath and Ors. 1992 (2) R.C.J. 323, held as follows:',
	(int) 32 => '<p>16. What appears as the legislative intent, in bold relief, is that the landlord, while seeking eviction of a tenant on the ground that he needs a residential building for his own occupation, must come out clearly and honestly with facts relating to the requirement that he is not occupying another residential building owned by him, in the urban area concerned and that he had not vacated such a building without sufficient cause within five years of the filing of the application, in the said urban area. The primal burden of making a clear disclosure would lie upon the landlord, for, the true facts would be in his special knowledge. An order in his favour by the Rent Controller would depend upon the satisfaction of the Rent Controller in regard not only to the claim that the landlord requires the accommodation, from which he wishes to evict a tenant, for his own occupation but also that he was not occupying another residential building owned by him nor had he vacated such building without sufficient cause within five years of the filing of the application in the application in the urban area concerned....',
	(int) 33 => '<p>It was further held as under:',
	(int) 34 => '<p>18. That the landlord should make a full disclosure of the relevant facts, pertaining to the requirements of Sub-section (3)(a)(i) and the two provisos, becomes all the more necessary because the satisfaction of the Rent Controller in regard thereto is the condition precedent for the making of an order in favour of the landlord....',
	(int) 35 => '<p>20. The aforesaid judgment has been followed in a number of other cases including Vijay Kapoor v. Maya Ram 1997 (2) RCR 437, wherein another learned single Judge of this Court following the aforesaid judgment held that the landlord must make complete and proper disclosure of all the material facts.',
	(int) 36 => '<p>21. On the other hand Sh. Ramakant Sharma has relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in Ram Narain Arora v. Asha Rani 1998(2) RCR 268. In that case the Rent Controller came to the conclusion that the landlord had suppressed material information and had not disclosed the fact that he was already in occupation of a house in Subji Mandi. Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act reads as follows:',
	(int) 37 => '<p>Section 14(1)(e). That the premises let for residential purposes are required bona fide by the landlord for occupation as a residence for himself or for any member of his family dependent on him, if he is the owner thereof, or for any person for whose benefit the premises are held and that the landlord or such person has no other reasonably suitable residential accommodation.',
	(int) 38 => '<p>22. The difference between Delhi Act and the present Act is that under the Delhi Act the only requirement is that the landlord has no other reasonably suitable accommodation whereas under the Himachal Act the residential premises are required to be owned by the landlord. The Apex Court in Rama Narain Arora's case (supra) held that the nondisclosure of the fact that the landlord was in occupation of certain premises in Subji Mandi was.not a ground to non-suit the landlord in view of the facts and circumstances of the case. The Apex Court held as follows:',
	(int) 39 => '<p>9. In making a claim that the suit premises is required bona fide for his own occupation as a residence for himself and other members of his family dependent on him and that he has no other reasonably suitable accommodation is a requirement of law before the Court can state whether the landlord requires the premises bona fide for his use and occupation. In doing so, the Court must also find out whether the landlord or such other person for whose benefit the premises is required has no other reasonably suitable residential accommodation. It cannot be said that the requirement of the landlord is not intermixed with the question of finding out whether he has any other reasonably suitable accommodation. If he has other reasonably suitable accommodation, ihen necessarily it would mean that he does not require the suit premises and his requirement may not be bona fide. In such circumstances further inquiry would be whether that premises is more suitable than the suit premises. Therefore, the questions raised before the Court would not necessarily depend upon only the pleadings. It could be a good defence that the landlord has other reasonably suitable residential accommodation and thereby defend the claim of the landlord.',
	(int) 40 => '<p>10. There cannot be a pedantic or a dogmatic approach in the matter of analysis of pleadings or of the evidence adduced thereto. It is no doubt true that if the pleadings are clearly set out, it would be easy for the Court to decide the matters. But if the pleadings are lacking or vague and if both parties have understood what was the case pleaded and put forth with reference to requirement of law and placed such material before the Court, neither party is prejudiced. If we analyse from this angle, we do not think that the High Court was not justified in interfering with the order made by the Rent Controller.',
	(int) 41 => '<p>23. From the perusal of the judgment of the Apex Court it is apparent that the Rent Controller must approach the matter in a practical manner. In case the non-disclosure is such as that it goes to the very root of the case the Rent Controller would be justified in non-suiting the landlord. However, if the non-disclosure is such that it would not prejudice the rights of the respondent then the landlord should not be non-suited only on this ground.',
	(int) 42 => '<p>24. The decisions of this Court cited hereinabove were delivered prior to the judgment delivered by the Apex Court in Ram Nar'ain Arora's case. Further more both in Tara Chand Sharma's case and Vijay Kapoor's case decided by this Court, no averment had been made ixi respect of other residential buildings owned by a landlord. There was complete non-disclosure as to whether any such residential building owned by the landlord was in his possession or not. In the present case, as I have held above, the residential premises at 31, The Mall, Shimla was not owned by the landlord and hence these two earlier judgments of this Court are distinguishable on facts also.',
	(int) 43 => '<p>25. In the present case, the landlord has been non-suited only on the ground that he did not disclose the fact that he was in occupation of certain premises on the Mall Road. Under law he was not required to disclose this fact. He was only required to disclose the factum of occupying another residential building owned by him in the urban area concerned. True it may be, that it would have been better if the landlord had disclosed all the facts but non-disclosure of a fact which he was not under law required to disclose could not in my opinion be a ground to dismiss his eviction petition.',
	(int) 44 => '<p>26. However, what are the premises in his occupation even as a tenant can be taken into consideration while deciding the question whether he bona fide requires the demised premises for his personal use or occupation or not.',
	(int) 45 => '<p>27. Lastly comes the question with regard to the bona fide requirement of the landlord. The landlord has no children. According to the landlord as well as his other witnesses i.e. his brother-in-law PW-2 and his wife PW-3, the wife now wants to come back and settle in Shimla. There is no reason to disbelieve their statements. Even according to the evidence led by the tenant the accommodation in possession of the landlord consists of two rooms, kitchen, bath room etc. Admittedly, the landlord is also having his office as an Architect in this building. The landlord belongs to the middle class of the Society. It cannot be expected of a landlord who owns sufficient property to reside in a two room set wherein he also runs his office.',
	(int) 46 => '<p>28. The law by now is well settled that the landlord is the best judge of the suitability of the accommodation required by him. This suitability has however to be judged in the context of reasonable expectations. The landlord and his wife who are both well educated can reasonably be expected to entertain guests and they will have visitors to their house. They would obviously require a drawing room, a bed room and a spare bed room for guests. Even at his residence the landlord may require another room for his professional work. This is the minimum accommodation which they would require. Even if the accommodation possessed by the landlord, though not owned by him, at 31, the Mall, Shimla is taken into consideration such accommodation is not sufficient to meet his requirements since admittedly the landlord is running his profession of Architect from some portion of his these premises.',
	(int) 47 => '<p>29. Keeping in view the entire facts and circumstances, I am of the considered view that the learned Appellate Authority gravely erred in rejecting the eviction petition of the landlord solely on the ground that he had not disclosed the factum of being in possession of the premises at 31, the Mall Shimla. Even though I have held that the said premises are residential premises, in view of the above discussion I hold that the landlord cannot be non-suited only on the ground of his being in possession of such premises since same were not owned by him.',
	(int) 48 => '<p>30. In view of the above discussion, the Revision Petition is allowed, the order of the learned Appellate Authority dated 6.5.2003 is seaside and the order of the Rent Controller dated 22.8.2001 is restored.',
	(int) 49 => '<p>31. Keeping in view the fact that the tenant has been in possession of the premises for a long period he is granted time up to 31st October, 2008 to vacate the premises.',
	(int) 50 => '<p>32. No order as to costs.<p>',
	(int) 51 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 52
$i = (int) 50
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

32. No order as to costs.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Shri Arun Bhanwara Vs Shri S L Srivastava - Citation 891084 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '891084',
			'acts' => '',
			'appealno' => '',
			'appellant' => 'Shri Arun Bhanwara',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Shri Arun Bhanwara Vs. Shri S.L. Srivastava',
			'casenote' => ' - CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908.[C.A. No. 5/1908]. Order 14, Rule 2 [As amended by Amending Act of 1976]: [V.K. Gupta, CJ, Deepak Gupta & Surjit Singh, JJ] Preliminary issue of law and fact  Court framing all issues both of law and facts together and also  tried all the issues together, including the issue relating to jurisdiction of Court  Held, Except in situations perceived or warranted under sub-rule (2) of Rule 2 of Order 14 where a  Court in fact frames only issues of law in the first instance and postpones settlement of other issues, clearly and explicitly in situations where the Court has framed all issues together, both of law as well as facts and has also tried all these issues together, it is not open to the Court to adopt the principle of severability and proceed to decide issues of law first, without taking up simultaneously other issues for decision. This course of action is not available to a Court because sub-rule (1) does not permit the  Court to adopt any such principle of severability and to dispose of a suit only on preliminary issues, or what can be termed as issues of law. Sub-rule (1)  clearly mandates that in a situation contemplated under it, where all the issues have been together and have also been taken up for adjudication during the course of the trial, these must be decided together and the judgment in the suit as a whole must be pronounced by the Court covering all the issues framed in the suit.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => 'Ram Narain Arora v. Asha Rani;',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => '',
			'counseldef' => '',
			'court' => 'Himachal Pradesh',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2008-07-31',
			'deposition' => 'Petition allowed',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => ' Deepak Gupta, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">Deepak Gupta, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. This Revision Petition under Section 25(5) of the H.P. Urban Rent Control Act, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) is directed against the order of the learned Appellate Authority, Shimla in CMA No. 60-S/14 of 2001 whereby the appeal filed by the respondent (hereinafter referred to as the tenant) has been allowed, the order of the Rent Controller has been set-aside and the petition for eviction filed by the present petitioner (hereinafter referred to as the Landlord) on the ground of personal bona fide requirement has been set-aside.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The undisputed facts are that the landlord is owner of the demised premises situated in building known as Tunnel View, Sanjauli, Shimla-6 consisting of two bed rooms with attached bath room and latrine, drawing-cum-dining room, kitchen and balcony. These premises were purchased by the landlord in the year 1986. Thereafter, the landlord had rented out the premises to one Sh. B.K. Chauhan. According to the landlord, when he got married he requested Sh. B.K. Chauhan to vacate the said premises. Sh. Chauhan vacated the said premises but admittedly the landlord did not occupy the same but rented out the same to the tenant in the year 1990.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. In the year 1997 the landlord filed a petition for eviction of the tenant on two grounds; firstly that the tenant is in arrears of rent from 1.11.1990 to 31.7.1997 and secondly that the premises are bona fide required by the landlord for the use and occupation of himself and his family.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. This petition was contested by the tenant. After trial, the Rent Controller ordered the eviction of the tenant on two grounds; (i) that the tenant was in arrears of rent from November, 1999 till date of order i.e. 22nd August, 2001 and (ii) that the landlord required the premises for his own use and occupation.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. The tenant deposited the rent within the time prescribed. He also filed an appeal challenging the finding on the issue of bona fide requirement. The learned Appellate Authority came to the conclusion that the landlord had not made a proper and full disclosure of facts as required under the provisions of the Act and had withheld material facts from the Court viz. that the landlord was in occupation of residential premises on 31, Mall Road in the urban area of Shimla and as such rejected this petition on this short ground.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. Aggrieved by the said order, the landlord has filed the present Revision Petition.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. I have heard Sh. Ramakant Sharma, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sh. Bhupinder Gupta, learned senior Counsel for the tenant.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. It has been urged on behalf of the landlord that the building which is alleged to be in possession of the landlord i.e. 31, the Mall Shimla is not a residential building and secondly that the building is not owned by him.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. On the other hand Sh. Bhupinder Gupta, learned Counsel of the tenant has strenuously urged that the landlord in para 18 has not stated anything about any building being owned by him and has only made an averment that he does not own or possess any other such building within the urban area Shimla. It is contended by Sh. Bhupinder Gupta that the landlord of his own volition did not state anything about the ownership of the building and since he has kept silent about the building which he is in occupation he has made a false averment and therefore his petition for eviction has rightly been rejected.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. I am not at all in agreement with the contention of the landlord that the premises known as 31, the Mall Shimla which are admittedly in the occupation of the landlord are commercial premises only and not being used by him for his residence. As pointed out above, the landlord purchased the demised premises in 1986. They fell vacant when he got married despite that he did not occupy the same and rented out the same to the tenant in the year 1990. The question that arises is where was the landlord living for this entire period. According to the landlord after the year 1994 he has been living with his brother-in-law Rajan (wife's brother) PW-2, since the year 1994. Prior to 1994 the landlord will have this Court to believe that he was living off and on with one friend or the other. This story is impossible to believe. The landlord was married in the year 1999. He is an Architect by profession. His wife is a law graduate. It is not believable that such a person would have no permanent abode and would continue to live as a guest with his friends for almost 5 years after his marriage. Even the story that he has been living with his brother-in-law after the year 1994 does not inspire confidence. It stands proved on record that the brother-in-law PW-2 Rajan lives with his own family i.e. wife and children. From the evidence it is also clear that the parents of the brother-in-law also reside with him, His flat consists of only two rooms. The flat in possession of the landlord at 31, the Mall Shimla, also consists of two rooms, kitchen and bath room. Even assuming that he was running an office in the part of the flat it cannot be believed that he would not live on his own flat on the Mall Road and reside with his brother-in-law in cramped premises. Even in the electoral list the landlord is shown to be a resident of 31, The Mall, Shimla. Therefore, I am of the considered view that the building 31, the Mall, Shimla was also being used as a residence by the landlord.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. Having held so, the question that arises is whether the landlord can be non-suited only on the ground that he has not made any disclosure about the residential accommodation available with him which premises were admittedly not owned by him.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. The short question which arises for decision in this petition is whether the landlord was guilty of suppressing and withholding such relevant facts which would disentitle him from seeking eviction of the tenant. To appreciate these contentions it would be necessary to refer to relevant portion of Section 14(3) of the Act:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Section 14:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1 and 2 xxxxxxxxxxx</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(3) A landlord may apply to the Controller for an order directing the tenant to put the landlord in possession-</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(a) in case of residential building, if</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(i) he required it for his own occupation:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Provided that he is not occupying another residential building owned by him, in the urban area concerned:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Provided further that he has not vacated such a building without sufficient cause within five years of the filing of the application, in the said urban area....</p><p style="text-align: justify;">13. A perusal of the bare provisions of the Act makes it clear that there are certain essential ingredients which the landlord must satisfy before seeking eviction of the tenant under the Act. Not only must he prove that the residential building is bona fide required by him for his own use and occupation but he must also plead and prove that he is not occupying any other residential building owned by him in the urban area concerned and further that he has not vacated such a building without sufficient cause within 5 years of the filing of the application.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">14. Reference may now be made to the relevant allegations made in para 18 of the eviction petition:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(ii) That the petitioner bona fide requires the premises for his own use and occupation and also for the use and occupation of his family.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The petitioner does not own or possess any other such building within the urban area of Simla nor the petitioner has vacated any such premises within five years of the filing of this petition.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The family of the petitioner presently consists of himself and his wife. Due to paucity of accommodation the petitioner has not been able to keep his wife with himself at Simla, where he is working as an Engineer and she has been residing at Chandigarh since 1991 but on account of her ill health she has been brought to Simla by the petitioner. The petitioner at present is seeking temporary shelter, from time to time, with his relations.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">15. The learned Appellate Authority came to the conclusion that the landlord had falsely pleaded that he does not own or possess any other such building within the urban area of Shimla and hence rejected the eviction petition on this ground.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">16. On a close analysis of the proviso to Section 14(3)(a)(i) of the Act it is clear that a landlord is not entitled to seek eviction of a tenant from residential building even in case of bona fide requirement if the landlord is occupying another residential building owned by him in the urban area concerned. One can read three essential ingredients in this proviso i.e. (i) that the landlord is in occupation of another residential building; (ii) that the said residential building is owned by him and (iii) that the said residential building is situated in the concerned urban area.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">17. The question that arises is what is the impact of the landlord not making a disclosure in respect of premises which he is occupying but are not owned by him.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">18. The Apex Court in Onkar Nath v. Ved Vyas ILR 1979 HP 1, held as follows:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">It is common ground that there are three requirements to make out a cause of action for eviction under that provision, and indeed this is apparent from a bare reading of the sub-section. In the present case the finding is to the effect that the landlord requires the residential building for his own occupation. But, the legislation has taken care to insist upon two more conditions, namely; (a) that the landlord is not occupying any other residential building in the area concerned; and (b) that he has not vacated such a building without sufficient cause. There is not a scintilla of evidence nor indeed there is any averment in compliance with these latter conditions. The necessary consequence follows that not merely is there inadequacy of pleadings sufficient to make out a cause of action but total absence of proof of two vital requirements....</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The Supreme Court also said that:.The statute benignly designed to protect tenants from unreasonable evictions has taken case to put restrictions which must be rigorously construed to fulfil the purpose of the statute.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">19. Following the aforesaid judgment and other pronouncements of the Apex Court, a learned Single Judge of this Court in Tara Chand Sharma v. Baij Nath and Ors. 1992 (2) R.C.J. 323, held as follows:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">16. What appears as the legislative intent, in bold relief, is that the landlord, while seeking eviction of a tenant on the ground that he needs a residential building for his own occupation, must come out clearly and honestly with facts relating to the requirement that he is not occupying another residential building owned by him, in the urban area concerned and that he had not vacated such a building without sufficient cause within five years of the filing of the application, in the said urban area. The primal burden of making a clear disclosure would lie upon the landlord, for, the true facts would be in his special knowledge. An order in his favour by the Rent Controller would depend upon the satisfaction of the Rent Controller in regard not only to the claim that the landlord requires the accommodation, from which he wishes to evict a tenant, for his own occupation but also that he was not occupying another residential building owned by him nor had he vacated such building without sufficient cause within five years of the filing of the application in the application in the urban area concerned....</p><p style="text-align: justify;">It was further held as under:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">18. That the landlord should make a full disclosure of the relevant facts, pertaining to the requirements of Sub-section (3)(a)(i) and the two provisos, becomes all the more necessary because the satisfaction of the Rent Controller in regard thereto is the condition precedent for the making of an order in favour of the landlord....</p><p style="text-align: justify;">20. The aforesaid judgment has been followed in a number of other cases including Vijay Kapoor v. Maya Ram 1997 (2) RCR 437, wherein another learned single Judge of this Court following the aforesaid judgment held that the landlord must make complete and proper disclosure of all the material facts.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">21. On the other hand Sh. Ramakant Sharma has relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in Ram Narain Arora v. Asha Rani 1998(2) RCR 268. In that case the Rent Controller came to the conclusion that the landlord had suppressed material information and had not disclosed the fact that he was already in occupation of a house in Subji Mandi. Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act reads as follows:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Section 14(1)(e). That the premises let for residential purposes are required bona fide by the landlord for occupation as a residence for himself or for any member of his family dependent on him, if he is the owner thereof, or for any person for whose benefit the premises are held and that the landlord or such person has no other reasonably suitable residential accommodation.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">22. The difference between Delhi Act and the present Act is that under the Delhi Act the only requirement is that the landlord has no other reasonably suitable accommodation whereas under the Himachal Act the residential premises are required to be owned by the landlord. The Apex Court in Rama Narain Arora's case (supra) held that the nondisclosure of the fact that the landlord was in occupation of certain premises in Subji Mandi was.not a ground to non-suit the landlord in view of the facts and circumstances of the case. The Apex Court held as follows:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. In making a claim that the suit premises is required bona fide for his own occupation as a residence for himself and other members of his family dependent on him and that he has no other reasonably suitable accommodation is a requirement of law before the Court can state whether the landlord requires the premises bona fide for his use and occupation. In doing so, the Court must also find out whether the landlord or such other person for whose benefit the premises is required has no other reasonably suitable residential accommodation. It cannot be said that the requirement of the landlord is not intermixed with the question of finding out whether he has any other reasonably suitable accommodation. If he has other reasonably suitable accommodation, ihen necessarily it would mean that he does not require the suit premises and his requirement may not be bona fide. In such circumstances further inquiry would be whether that premises is more suitable than the suit premises. Therefore, the questions raised before the Court would not necessarily depend upon only the pleadings. It could be a good defence that the landlord has other reasonably suitable residential accommodation and thereby defend the claim of the landlord.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. There cannot be a pedantic or a dogmatic approach in the matter of analysis of pleadings or of the evidence adduced thereto. It is no doubt true that if the pleadings are clearly set out, it would be easy for the Court to decide the matters. But if the pleadings are lacking or vague and if both parties have understood what was the case pleaded and put forth with reference to requirement of law and placed such material before the Court, neither party is prejudiced. If we analyse from this angle, we do not think that the High Court was not justified in interfering with the order made by the Rent Controller.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">23. From the perusal of the judgment of the Apex Court it is apparent that the Rent Controller must approach the matter in a practical manner. In case the non-disclosure is such as that it goes to the very root of the case the Rent Controller would be justified in non-suiting the landlord. However, if the non-disclosure is such that it would not prejudice the rights of the respondent then the landlord should not be non-suited only on this ground.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">24. The decisions of this Court cited hereinabove were delivered prior to the judgment delivered by the Apex Court in Ram Nar'ain Arora's case. Further more both in Tara Chand Sharma's case and Vijay Kapoor's case decided by this Court, no averment had been made ixi respect of other residential buildings owned by a landlord. There was complete non-disclosure as to whether any such residential building owned by the landlord was in his possession or not. In the present case, as I have held above, the residential premises at 31, The Mall, Shimla was not owned by the landlord and hence these two earlier judgments of this Court are distinguishable on facts also.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">25. In the present case, the landlord has been non-suited only on the ground that he did not disclose the fact that he was in occupation of certain premises on the Mall Road. Under law he was not required to disclose this fact. He was only required to disclose the factum of occupying another residential building owned by him in the urban area concerned. True it may be, that it would have been better if the landlord had disclosed all the facts but non-disclosure of a fact which he was not under law required to disclose could not in my opinion be a ground to dismiss his eviction petition.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">26. However, what are the premises in his occupation even as a tenant can be taken into consideration while deciding the question whether he bona fide requires the demised premises for his personal use or occupation or not.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">27. Lastly comes the question with regard to the bona fide requirement of the landlord. The landlord has no children. According to the landlord as well as his other witnesses i.e. his brother-in-law PW-2 and his wife PW-3, the wife now wants to come back and settle in Shimla. There is no reason to disbelieve their statements. Even according to the evidence led by the tenant the accommodation in possession of the landlord consists of two rooms, kitchen, bath room etc. Admittedly, the landlord is also having his office as an Architect in this building. The landlord belongs to the middle class of the Society. It cannot be expected of a landlord who owns sufficient property to reside in a two room set wherein he also runs his office.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">28. The law by now is well settled that the landlord is the best judge of the suitability of the accommodation required by him. This suitability has however to be judged in the context of reasonable expectations. The landlord and his wife who are both well educated can reasonably be expected to entertain guests and they will have visitors to their house. They would obviously require a drawing room, a bed room and a spare bed room for guests. Even at his residence the landlord may require another room for his professional work. This is the minimum accommodation which they would require. Even if the accommodation possessed by the landlord, though not owned by him, at 31, the Mall, Shimla is taken into consideration such accommodation is not sufficient to meet his requirements since admittedly the landlord is running his profession of Architect from some portion of his these premises.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">29. Keeping in view the entire facts and circumstances, I am of the considered view that the learned Appellate Authority gravely erred in rejecting the eviction petition of the landlord solely on the ground that he had not disclosed the factum of being in possession of the premises at 31, the Mall Shimla. Even though I have held that the said premises are residential premises, in view of the above discussion I hold that the landlord cannot be non-suited only on the ground of his being in possession of such premises since same were not owned by him.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">30. In view of the above discussion, the Revision Petition is allowed, the order of the learned Appellate Authority dated 6.5.2003 is seaside and the order of the Rent Controller dated 22.8.2001 is restored.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">31. Keeping in view the fact that the tenant has been in possession of the premises for a long period he is granted time up to 31st October, 2008 to vacate the premises.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">32. No order as to costs.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '2008(2)ShimLC491',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'Shri S.L. Srivastava',
			'sub' => 'Tenancy',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'shri-arun-bhanwara-vs-s-l-srivastava',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '891084',
		(int) 1 => 'shri-arun-bhanwara-vs-s-l-srivastava'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Shri Arun Bhanwara Vs Shri S L Srivastava - Citation 891084 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '891084',
		'acts' => '',
		'appealno' => '',
		'appellant' => 'Shri Arun Bhanwara',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Shri Arun Bhanwara Vs. Shri S.L. Srivastava',
		'casenote' => ' - CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908.[C.A. No. 5/1908]. Order 14, Rule 2 [As amended by Amending Act of 1976]: [V.K. Gupta, CJ, Deepak Gupta & Surjit Singh, JJ] Preliminary issue of law and fact  Court framing all issues both of law and facts together and also  tried all the issues together, including the issue relating to jurisdiction of Court  Held, Except in situations perceived or warranted under sub-rule (2) of Rule 2 of Order 14 where a  Court in fact frames only issues of law in the first instance and postpones settlement of other issues, clearly and explicitly in situations where the Court has framed all issues together, both of law as well as facts and has also tried all these issues together, it is not open to the Court to adopt the principle of severability and proceed to decide issues of law first, without taking up simultaneously other issues for decision. This course of action is not available to a Court because sub-rule (1) does not permit the  Court to adopt any such principle of severability and to dispose of a suit only on preliminary issues, or what can be termed as issues of law. Sub-rule (1)  clearly mandates that in a situation contemplated under it, where all the issues have been together and have also been taken up for adjudication during the course of the trial, these must be decided together and the judgment in the suit as a whole must be pronounced by the Court covering all the issues framed in the suit.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => 'Ram Narain Arora v. Asha Rani;',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => '',
		'counseldef' => '',
		'court' => 'Himachal Pradesh',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2008-07-31',
		'deposition' => 'Petition allowed',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => ' Deepak Gupta, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>Deepak Gupta, J.</p><p>1. This Revision Petition under Section 25(5) of the H.P. Urban Rent Control Act, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) is directed against the order of the learned Appellate Authority, Shimla in CMA No. 60-S/14 of 2001 whereby the appeal filed by the respondent (hereinafter referred to as the tenant) has been allowed, the order of the Rent Controller has been set-aside and the petition for eviction filed by the present petitioner (hereinafter referred to as the Landlord) on the ground of personal bona fide requirement has been set-aside.</p><p>2. The undisputed facts are that the landlord is owner of the demised premises situated in building known as Tunnel View, Sanjauli, Shimla-6 consisting of two bed rooms with attached bath room and latrine, drawing-cum-dining room, kitchen and balcony. These premises were purchased by the landlord in the year 1986. Thereafter, the landlord had rented out the premises to one Sh. B.K. Chauhan. According to the landlord, when he got married he requested Sh. B.K. Chauhan to vacate the said premises. Sh. Chauhan vacated the said premises but admittedly the landlord did not occupy the same but rented out the same to the tenant in the year 1990.</p><p>3. In the year 1997 the landlord filed a petition for eviction of the tenant on two grounds; firstly that the tenant is in arrears of rent from 1.11.1990 to 31.7.1997 and secondly that the premises are bona fide required by the landlord for the use and occupation of himself and his family.</p><p>4. This petition was contested by the tenant. After trial, the Rent Controller ordered the eviction of the tenant on two grounds; (i) that the tenant was in arrears of rent from November, 1999 till date of order i.e. 22nd August, 2001 and (ii) that the landlord required the premises for his own use and occupation.</p><p>5. The tenant deposited the rent within the time prescribed. He also filed an appeal challenging the finding on the issue of bona fide requirement. The learned Appellate Authority came to the conclusion that the landlord had not made a proper and full disclosure of facts as required under the provisions of the Act and had withheld material facts from the Court viz. that the landlord was in occupation of residential premises on 31, Mall Road in the urban area of Shimla and as such rejected this petition on this short ground.</p><p>6. Aggrieved by the said order, the landlord has filed the present Revision Petition.</p><p>7. I have heard Sh. Ramakant Sharma, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sh. Bhupinder Gupta, learned senior Counsel for the tenant.</p><p>8. It has been urged on behalf of the landlord that the building which is alleged to be in possession of the landlord i.e. 31, the Mall Shimla is not a residential building and secondly that the building is not owned by him.</p><p>9. On the other hand Sh. Bhupinder Gupta, learned Counsel of the tenant has strenuously urged that the landlord in para 18 has not stated anything about any building being owned by him and has only made an averment that he does not own or possess any other such building within the urban area Shimla. It is contended by Sh. Bhupinder Gupta that the landlord of his own volition did not state anything about the ownership of the building and since he has kept silent about the building which he is in occupation he has made a false averment and therefore his petition for eviction has rightly been rejected.</p><p>10. I am not at all in agreement with the contention of the landlord that the premises known as 31, the Mall Shimla which are admittedly in the occupation of the landlord are commercial premises only and not being used by him for his residence. As pointed out above, the landlord purchased the demised premises in 1986. They fell vacant when he got married despite that he did not occupy the same and rented out the same to the tenant in the year 1990. The question that arises is where was the landlord living for this entire period. According to the landlord after the year 1994 he has been living with his brother-in-law Rajan (wife's brother) PW-2, since the year 1994. Prior to 1994 the landlord will have this Court to believe that he was living off and on with one friend or the other. This story is impossible to believe. The landlord was married in the year 1999. He is an Architect by profession. His wife is a law graduate. It is not believable that such a person would have no permanent abode and would continue to live as a guest with his friends for almost 5 years after his marriage. Even the story that he has been living with his brother-in-law after the year 1994 does not inspire confidence. It stands proved on record that the brother-in-law PW-2 Rajan lives with his own family i.e. wife and children. From the evidence it is also clear that the parents of the brother-in-law also reside with him, His flat consists of only two rooms. The flat in possession of the landlord at 31, the Mall Shimla, also consists of two rooms, kitchen and bath room. Even assuming that he was running an office in the part of the flat it cannot be believed that he would not live on his own flat on the Mall Road and reside with his brother-in-law in cramped premises. Even in the electoral list the landlord is shown to be a resident of 31, The Mall, Shimla. Therefore, I am of the considered view that the building 31, the Mall, Shimla was also being used as a residence by the landlord.</p><p>11. Having held so, the question that arises is whether the landlord can be non-suited only on the ground that he has not made any disclosure about the residential accommodation available with him which premises were admittedly not owned by him.</p><p>12. The short question which arises for decision in this petition is whether the landlord was guilty of suppressing and withholding such relevant facts which would disentitle him from seeking eviction of the tenant. To appreciate these contentions it would be necessary to refer to relevant portion of Section 14(3) of the Act:</p><p>Section 14:</p><p>1 and 2 xxxxxxxxxxx</p><p>(3) A landlord may apply to the Controller for an order directing the tenant to put the landlord in possession-</p><p>(a) in case of residential building, if</p><p>(i) he required it for his own occupation:</p><p>Provided that he is not occupying another residential building owned by him, in the urban area concerned:</p><p>Provided further that he has not vacated such a building without sufficient cause within five years of the filing of the application, in the said urban area....</p><p>13. A perusal of the bare provisions of the Act makes it clear that there are certain essential ingredients which the landlord must satisfy before seeking eviction of the tenant under the Act. Not only must he prove that the residential building is bona fide required by him for his own use and occupation but he must also plead and prove that he is not occupying any other residential building owned by him in the urban area concerned and further that he has not vacated such a building without sufficient cause within 5 years of the filing of the application.</p><p>14. Reference may now be made to the relevant allegations made in para 18 of the eviction petition:</p><p>(ii) That the petitioner bona fide requires the premises for his own use and occupation and also for the use and occupation of his family.</p><p>The petitioner does not own or possess any other such building within the urban area of Simla nor the petitioner has vacated any such premises within five years of the filing of this petition.</p><p>The family of the petitioner presently consists of himself and his wife. Due to paucity of accommodation the petitioner has not been able to keep his wife with himself at Simla, where he is working as an Engineer and she has been residing at Chandigarh since 1991 but on account of her ill health she has been brought to Simla by the petitioner. The petitioner at present is seeking temporary shelter, from time to time, with his relations.</p><p>15. The learned Appellate Authority came to the conclusion that the landlord had falsely pleaded that he does not own or possess any other such building within the urban area of Shimla and hence rejected the eviction petition on this ground.</p><p>16. On a close analysis of the proviso to Section 14(3)(a)(i) of the Act it is clear that a landlord is not entitled to seek eviction of a tenant from residential building even in case of bona fide requirement if the landlord is occupying another residential building owned by him in the urban area concerned. One can read three essential ingredients in this proviso i.e. (i) that the landlord is in occupation of another residential building; (ii) that the said residential building is owned by him and (iii) that the said residential building is situated in the concerned urban area.</p><p>17. The question that arises is what is the impact of the landlord not making a disclosure in respect of premises which he is occupying but are not owned by him.</p><p>18. The Apex Court in Onkar Nath v. Ved Vyas ILR 1979 HP 1, held as follows:</p><p>It is common ground that there are three requirements to make out a cause of action for eviction under that provision, and indeed this is apparent from a bare reading of the sub-section. In the present case the finding is to the effect that the landlord requires the residential building for his own occupation. But, the legislation has taken care to insist upon two more conditions, namely; (a) that the landlord is not occupying any other residential building in the area concerned; and (b) that he has not vacated such a building without sufficient cause. There is not a scintilla of evidence nor indeed there is any averment in compliance with these latter conditions. The necessary consequence follows that not merely is there inadequacy of pleadings sufficient to make out a cause of action but total absence of proof of two vital requirements....</p><p>The Supreme Court also said that:.The statute benignly designed to protect tenants from unreasonable evictions has taken case to put restrictions which must be rigorously construed to fulfil the purpose of the statute.</p><p>19. Following the aforesaid judgment and other pronouncements of the Apex Court, a learned Single Judge of this Court in Tara Chand Sharma v. Baij Nath and Ors. 1992 (2) R.C.J. 323, held as follows:</p><p>16. What appears as the legislative intent, in bold relief, is that the landlord, while seeking eviction of a tenant on the ground that he needs a residential building for his own occupation, must come out clearly and honestly with facts relating to the requirement that he is not occupying another residential building owned by him, in the urban area concerned and that he had not vacated such a building without sufficient cause within five years of the filing of the application, in the said urban area. The primal burden of making a clear disclosure would lie upon the landlord, for, the true facts would be in his special knowledge. An order in his favour by the Rent Controller would depend upon the satisfaction of the Rent Controller in regard not only to the claim that the landlord requires the accommodation, from which he wishes to evict a tenant, for his own occupation but also that he was not occupying another residential building owned by him nor had he vacated such building without sufficient cause within five years of the filing of the application in the application in the urban area concerned....</p><p>It was further held as under:</p><p>18. That the landlord should make a full disclosure of the relevant facts, pertaining to the requirements of Sub-section (3)(a)(i) and the two provisos, becomes all the more necessary because the satisfaction of the Rent Controller in regard thereto is the condition precedent for the making of an order in favour of the landlord....</p><p>20. The aforesaid judgment has been followed in a number of other cases including Vijay Kapoor v. Maya Ram 1997 (2) RCR 437, wherein another learned single Judge of this Court following the aforesaid judgment held that the landlord must make complete and proper disclosure of all the material facts.</p><p>21. On the other hand Sh. Ramakant Sharma has relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in Ram Narain Arora v. Asha Rani 1998(2) RCR 268. In that case the Rent Controller came to the conclusion that the landlord had suppressed material information and had not disclosed the fact that he was already in occupation of a house in Subji Mandi. Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act reads as follows:</p><p>Section 14(1)(e). That the premises let for residential purposes are required bona fide by the landlord for occupation as a residence for himself or for any member of his family dependent on him, if he is the owner thereof, or for any person for whose benefit the premises are held and that the landlord or such person has no other reasonably suitable residential accommodation.</p><p>22. The difference between Delhi Act and the present Act is that under the Delhi Act the only requirement is that the landlord has no other reasonably suitable accommodation whereas under the Himachal Act the residential premises are required to be owned by the landlord. The Apex Court in Rama Narain Arora's case (supra) held that the nondisclosure of the fact that the landlord was in occupation of certain premises in Subji Mandi was.not a ground to non-suit the landlord in view of the facts and circumstances of the case. The Apex Court held as follows:</p><p>9. In making a claim that the suit premises is required bona fide for his own occupation as a residence for himself and other members of his family dependent on him and that he has no other reasonably suitable accommodation is a requirement of law before the Court can state whether the landlord requires the premises bona fide for his use and occupation. In doing so, the Court must also find out whether the landlord or such other person for whose benefit the premises is required has no other reasonably suitable residential accommodation. It cannot be said that the requirement of the landlord is not intermixed with the question of finding out whether he has any other reasonably suitable accommodation. If he has other reasonably suitable accommodation, ihen necessarily it would mean that he does not require the suit premises and his requirement may not be bona fide. In such circumstances further inquiry would be whether that premises is more suitable than the suit premises. Therefore, the questions raised before the Court would not necessarily depend upon only the pleadings. It could be a good defence that the landlord has other reasonably suitable residential accommodation and thereby defend the claim of the landlord.</p><p>10. There cannot be a pedantic or a dogmatic approach in the matter of analysis of pleadings or of the evidence adduced thereto. It is no doubt true that if the pleadings are clearly set out, it would be easy for the Court to decide the matters. But if the pleadings are lacking or vague and if both parties have understood what was the case pleaded and put forth with reference to requirement of law and placed such material before the Court, neither party is prejudiced. If we analyse from this angle, we do not think that the High Court was not justified in interfering with the order made by the Rent Controller.</p><p>23. From the perusal of the judgment of the Apex Court it is apparent that the Rent Controller must approach the matter in a practical manner. In case the non-disclosure is such as that it goes to the very root of the case the Rent Controller would be justified in non-suiting the landlord. However, if the non-disclosure is such that it would not prejudice the rights of the respondent then the landlord should not be non-suited only on this ground.</p><p>24. The decisions of this Court cited hereinabove were delivered prior to the judgment delivered by the Apex Court in Ram Nar'ain Arora's case. Further more both in Tara Chand Sharma's case and Vijay Kapoor's case decided by this Court, no averment had been made ixi respect of other residential buildings owned by a landlord. There was complete non-disclosure as to whether any such residential building owned by the landlord was in his possession or not. In the present case, as I have held above, the residential premises at 31, The Mall, Shimla was not owned by the landlord and hence these two earlier judgments of this Court are distinguishable on facts also.</p><p>25. In the present case, the landlord has been non-suited only on the ground that he did not disclose the fact that he was in occupation of certain premises on the Mall Road. Under law he was not required to disclose this fact. He was only required to disclose the factum of occupying another residential building owned by him in the urban area concerned. True it may be, that it would have been better if the landlord had disclosed all the facts but non-disclosure of a fact which he was not under law required to disclose could not in my opinion be a ground to dismiss his eviction petition.</p><p>26. However, what are the premises in his occupation even as a tenant can be taken into consideration while deciding the question whether he bona fide requires the demised premises for his personal use or occupation or not.</p><p>27. Lastly comes the question with regard to the bona fide requirement of the landlord. The landlord has no children. According to the landlord as well as his other witnesses i.e. his brother-in-law PW-2 and his wife PW-3, the wife now wants to come back and settle in Shimla. There is no reason to disbelieve their statements. Even according to the evidence led by the tenant the accommodation in possession of the landlord consists of two rooms, kitchen, bath room etc. Admittedly, the landlord is also having his office as an Architect in this building. The landlord belongs to the middle class of the Society. It cannot be expected of a landlord who owns sufficient property to reside in a two room set wherein he also runs his office.</p><p>28. The law by now is well settled that the landlord is the best judge of the suitability of the accommodation required by him. This suitability has however to be judged in the context of reasonable expectations. The landlord and his wife who are both well educated can reasonably be expected to entertain guests and they will have visitors to their house. They would obviously require a drawing room, a bed room and a spare bed room for guests. Even at his residence the landlord may require another room for his professional work. This is the minimum accommodation which they would require. Even if the accommodation possessed by the landlord, though not owned by him, at 31, the Mall, Shimla is taken into consideration such accommodation is not sufficient to meet his requirements since admittedly the landlord is running his profession of Architect from some portion of his these premises.</p><p>29. Keeping in view the entire facts and circumstances, I am of the considered view that the learned Appellate Authority gravely erred in rejecting the eviction petition of the landlord solely on the ground that he had not disclosed the factum of being in possession of the premises at 31, the Mall Shimla. Even though I have held that the said premises are residential premises, in view of the above discussion I hold that the landlord cannot be non-suited only on the ground of his being in possession of such premises since same were not owned by him.</p><p>30. In view of the above discussion, the Revision Petition is allowed, the order of the learned Appellate Authority dated 6.5.2003 is seaside and the order of the Rent Controller dated 22.8.2001 is restored.</p><p>31. Keeping in view the fact that the tenant has been in possession of the premises for a long period he is granted time up to 31st October, 2008 to vacate the premises.</p><p>32. No order as to costs.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '2008(2)ShimLC491',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'Shri S.L. Srivastava',
		'sub' => 'Tenancy',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'shri-arun-bhanwara-vs-s-l-srivastava'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '891084',
	(int) 1 => 'shri-arun-bhanwara-vs-s-l-srivastava'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/891084/shri-arun-bhanwara-vs-s-l-srivastava'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$caseref = 'Ram Narain Arora v. Asha Rani<br>'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>Deepak Gupta, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. This Revision Petition under Section 25(5) of the H.P. Urban Rent Control Act, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) is directed against the order of the learned Appellate Authority, Shimla in CMA No. 60-S/14 of 2001 whereby the appeal filed by the respondent (hereinafter referred to as the tenant) has been allowed, the order of the Rent Controller has been set-aside and the petition for eviction filed by the present petitioner (hereinafter referred to as the Landlord) on the ground of personal bona fide requirement has been set-aside.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. The undisputed facts are that the landlord is owner of the demised premises situated in building known as Tunnel View, Sanjauli, Shimla-6 consisting of two bed rooms with attached bath room and latrine, drawing-cum-dining room, kitchen and balcony. These premises were purchased by the landlord in the year 1986. Thereafter, the landlord had rented out the premises to one Sh. B.K. Chauhan. According to the landlord, when he got married he requested Sh. B.K. Chauhan to vacate the said premises. Sh. Chauhan vacated the said premises but admittedly the landlord did not occupy the same but rented out the same to the tenant in the year 1990.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. In the year 1997 the landlord filed a petition for eviction of the tenant on two grounds; firstly that the tenant is in arrears of rent from 1.11.1990 to 31.7.1997 and secondly that the premises are bona fide required by the landlord for the use and occupation of himself and his family.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>4. This petition was contested by the tenant. After trial, the Rent Controller ordered the eviction of the tenant on two grounds; (i) that the tenant was in arrears of rent from November, 1999 till date of order i.e. 22nd August, 2001 and (ii) that the landlord required the premises for his own use and occupation.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>5. The tenant deposited the rent within the time prescribed. He also filed an appeal challenging the finding on the issue of bona fide requirement. The learned Appellate Authority came to the conclusion that the landlord had not made a proper and full disclosure of facts as required under the provisions of the Act and had withheld material facts from the Court viz. that the landlord was in occupation of residential premises on 31, Mall Road in the urban area of Shimla and as such rejected this petition on this short ground.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>6. Aggrieved by the said order, the landlord has filed the present Revision Petition.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>7. I have heard Sh. Ramakant Sharma, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sh. Bhupinder Gupta, learned senior Counsel for the tenant.',
	(int) 8 => '<p>8. It has been urged on behalf of the landlord that the building which is alleged to be in possession of the landlord i.e. 31, the Mall Shimla is not a residential building and secondly that the building is not owned by him.',
	(int) 9 => '<p>9. On the other hand Sh. Bhupinder Gupta, learned Counsel of the tenant has strenuously urged that the landlord in para 18 has not stated anything about any building being owned by him and has only made an averment that he does not own or possess any other such building within the urban area Shimla. It is contended by Sh. Bhupinder Gupta that the landlord of his own volition did not state anything about the ownership of the building and since he has kept silent about the building which he is in occupation he has made a false averment and therefore his petition for eviction has rightly been rejected.',
	(int) 10 => '<p>10. I am not at all in agreement with the contention of the landlord that the premises known as 31, the Mall Shimla which are admittedly in the occupation of the landlord are commercial premises only and not being used by him for his residence. As pointed out above, the landlord purchased the demised premises in 1986. They fell vacant when he got married despite that he did not occupy the same and rented out the same to the tenant in the year 1990. The question that arises is where was the landlord living for this entire period. According to the landlord after the year 1994 he has been living with his brother-in-law Rajan (wife's brother) PW-2, since the year 1994. Prior to 1994 the landlord will have this Court to believe that he was living off and on with one friend or the other. This story is impossible to believe. The landlord was married in the year 1999. He is an Architect by profession. His wife is a law graduate. It is not believable that such a person would have no permanent abode and would continue to live as a guest with his friends for almost 5 years after his marriage. Even the story that he has been living with his brother-in-law after the year 1994 does not inspire confidence. It stands proved on record that the brother-in-law PW-2 Rajan lives with his own family i.e. wife and children. From the evidence it is also clear that the parents of the brother-in-law also reside with him, His flat consists of only two rooms. The flat in possession of the landlord at 31, the Mall Shimla, also consists of two rooms, kitchen and bath room. Even assuming that he was running an office in the part of the flat it cannot be believed that he would not live on his own flat on the Mall Road and reside with his brother-in-law in cramped premises. Even in the electoral list the landlord is shown to be a resident of 31, The Mall, Shimla. Therefore, I am of the considered view that the building 31, the Mall, Shimla was also being used as a residence by the landlord.',
	(int) 11 => '<p>11. Having held so, the question that arises is whether the landlord can be non-suited only on the ground that he has not made any disclosure about the residential accommodation available with him which premises were admittedly not owned by him.',
	(int) 12 => '<p>12. The short question which arises for decision in this petition is whether the landlord was guilty of suppressing and withholding such relevant facts which would disentitle him from seeking eviction of the tenant. To appreciate these contentions it would be necessary to refer to relevant portion of Section 14(3) of the Act:',
	(int) 13 => '<p>Section 14:',
	(int) 14 => '<p>1 and 2 xxxxxxxxxxx',
	(int) 15 => '<p>(3) A landlord may apply to the Controller for an order directing the tenant to put the landlord in possession-',
	(int) 16 => '<p>(a) in case of residential building, if',
	(int) 17 => '<p>(i) he required it for his own occupation:',
	(int) 18 => '<p>Provided that he is not occupying another residential building owned by him, in the urban area concerned:',
	(int) 19 => '<p>Provided further that he has not vacated such a building without sufficient cause within five years of the filing of the application, in the said urban area....',
	(int) 20 => '<p>13. A perusal of the bare provisions of the Act makes it clear that there are certain essential ingredients which the landlord must satisfy before seeking eviction of the tenant under the Act. Not only must he prove that the residential building is bona fide required by him for his own use and occupation but he must also plead and prove that he is not occupying any other residential building owned by him in the urban area concerned and further that he has not vacated such a building without sufficient cause within 5 years of the filing of the application.',
	(int) 21 => '<p>14. Reference may now be made to the relevant allegations made in para 18 of the eviction petition:',
	(int) 22 => '<p>(ii) That the petitioner bona fide requires the premises for his own use and occupation and also for the use and occupation of his family.',
	(int) 23 => '<p>The petitioner does not own or possess any other such building within the urban area of Simla nor the petitioner has vacated any such premises within five years of the filing of this petition.',
	(int) 24 => '<p>The family of the petitioner presently consists of himself and his wife. Due to paucity of accommodation the petitioner has not been able to keep his wife with himself at Simla, where he is working as an Engineer and she has been residing at Chandigarh since 1991 but on account of her ill health she has been brought to Simla by the petitioner. The petitioner at present is seeking temporary shelter, from time to time, with his relations.',
	(int) 25 => '<p>15. The learned Appellate Authority came to the conclusion that the landlord had falsely pleaded that he does not own or possess any other such building within the urban area of Shimla and hence rejected the eviction petition on this ground.',
	(int) 26 => '<p>16. On a close analysis of the proviso to Section 14(3)(a)(i) of the Act it is clear that a landlord is not entitled to seek eviction of a tenant from residential building even in case of bona fide requirement if the landlord is occupying another residential building owned by him in the urban area concerned. One can read three essential ingredients in this proviso i.e. (i) that the landlord is in occupation of another residential building; (ii) that the said residential building is owned by him and (iii) that the said residential building is situated in the concerned urban area.',
	(int) 27 => '<p>17. The question that arises is what is the impact of the landlord not making a disclosure in respect of premises which he is occupying but are not owned by him.',
	(int) 28 => '<p>18. The Apex Court in Onkar Nath v. Ved Vyas ILR 1979 HP 1, held as follows:',
	(int) 29 => '<p>It is common ground that there are three requirements to make out a cause of action for eviction under that provision, and indeed this is apparent from a bare reading of the sub-section. In the present case the finding is to the effect that the landlord requires the residential building for his own occupation. But, the legislation has taken care to insist upon two more conditions, namely; (a) that the landlord is not occupying any other residential building in the area concerned; and (b) that he has not vacated such a building without sufficient cause. There is not a scintilla of evidence nor indeed there is any averment in compliance with these latter conditions. The necessary consequence follows that not merely is there inadequacy of pleadings sufficient to make out a cause of action but total absence of proof of two vital requirements....',
	(int) 30 => '<p>The Supreme Court also said that:.The statute benignly designed to protect tenants from unreasonable evictions has taken case to put restrictions which must be rigorously construed to fulfil the purpose of the statute.',
	(int) 31 => '<p>19. Following the aforesaid judgment and other pronouncements of the Apex Court, a learned Single Judge of this Court in Tara Chand Sharma v. Baij Nath and Ors. 1992 (2) R.C.J. 323, held as follows:',
	(int) 32 => '<p>16. What appears as the legislative intent, in bold relief, is that the landlord, while seeking eviction of a tenant on the ground that he needs a residential building for his own occupation, must come out clearly and honestly with facts relating to the requirement that he is not occupying another residential building owned by him, in the urban area concerned and that he had not vacated such a building without sufficient cause within five years of the filing of the application, in the said urban area. The primal burden of making a clear disclosure would lie upon the landlord, for, the true facts would be in his special knowledge. An order in his favour by the Rent Controller would depend upon the satisfaction of the Rent Controller in regard not only to the claim that the landlord requires the accommodation, from which he wishes to evict a tenant, for his own occupation but also that he was not occupying another residential building owned by him nor had he vacated such building without sufficient cause within five years of the filing of the application in the application in the urban area concerned....',
	(int) 33 => '<p>It was further held as under:',
	(int) 34 => '<p>18. That the landlord should make a full disclosure of the relevant facts, pertaining to the requirements of Sub-section (3)(a)(i) and the two provisos, becomes all the more necessary because the satisfaction of the Rent Controller in regard thereto is the condition precedent for the making of an order in favour of the landlord....',
	(int) 35 => '<p>20. The aforesaid judgment has been followed in a number of other cases including Vijay Kapoor v. Maya Ram 1997 (2) RCR 437, wherein another learned single Judge of this Court following the aforesaid judgment held that the landlord must make complete and proper disclosure of all the material facts.',
	(int) 36 => '<p>21. On the other hand Sh. Ramakant Sharma has relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in Ram Narain Arora v. Asha Rani 1998(2) RCR 268. In that case the Rent Controller came to the conclusion that the landlord had suppressed material information and had not disclosed the fact that he was already in occupation of a house in Subji Mandi. Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act reads as follows:',
	(int) 37 => '<p>Section 14(1)(e). That the premises let for residential purposes are required bona fide by the landlord for occupation as a residence for himself or for any member of his family dependent on him, if he is the owner thereof, or for any person for whose benefit the premises are held and that the landlord or such person has no other reasonably suitable residential accommodation.',
	(int) 38 => '<p>22. The difference between Delhi Act and the present Act is that under the Delhi Act the only requirement is that the landlord has no other reasonably suitable accommodation whereas under the Himachal Act the residential premises are required to be owned by the landlord. The Apex Court in Rama Narain Arora's case (supra) held that the nondisclosure of the fact that the landlord was in occupation of certain premises in Subji Mandi was.not a ground to non-suit the landlord in view of the facts and circumstances of the case. The Apex Court held as follows:',
	(int) 39 => '<p>9. In making a claim that the suit premises is required bona fide for his own occupation as a residence for himself and other members of his family dependent on him and that he has no other reasonably suitable accommodation is a requirement of law before the Court can state whether the landlord requires the premises bona fide for his use and occupation. In doing so, the Court must also find out whether the landlord or such other person for whose benefit the premises is required has no other reasonably suitable residential accommodation. It cannot be said that the requirement of the landlord is not intermixed with the question of finding out whether he has any other reasonably suitable accommodation. If he has other reasonably suitable accommodation, ihen necessarily it would mean that he does not require the suit premises and his requirement may not be bona fide. In such circumstances further inquiry would be whether that premises is more suitable than the suit premises. Therefore, the questions raised before the Court would not necessarily depend upon only the pleadings. It could be a good defence that the landlord has other reasonably suitable residential accommodation and thereby defend the claim of the landlord.',
	(int) 40 => '<p>10. There cannot be a pedantic or a dogmatic approach in the matter of analysis of pleadings or of the evidence adduced thereto. It is no doubt true that if the pleadings are clearly set out, it would be easy for the Court to decide the matters. But if the pleadings are lacking or vague and if both parties have understood what was the case pleaded and put forth with reference to requirement of law and placed such material before the Court, neither party is prejudiced. If we analyse from this angle, we do not think that the High Court was not justified in interfering with the order made by the Rent Controller.',
	(int) 41 => '<p>23. From the perusal of the judgment of the Apex Court it is apparent that the Rent Controller must approach the matter in a practical manner. In case the non-disclosure is such as that it goes to the very root of the case the Rent Controller would be justified in non-suiting the landlord. However, if the non-disclosure is such that it would not prejudice the rights of the respondent then the landlord should not be non-suited only on this ground.',
	(int) 42 => '<p>24. The decisions of this Court cited hereinabove were delivered prior to the judgment delivered by the Apex Court in Ram Nar'ain Arora's case. Further more both in Tara Chand Sharma's case and Vijay Kapoor's case decided by this Court, no averment had been made ixi respect of other residential buildings owned by a landlord. There was complete non-disclosure as to whether any such residential building owned by the landlord was in his possession or not. In the present case, as I have held above, the residential premises at 31, The Mall, Shimla was not owned by the landlord and hence these two earlier judgments of this Court are distinguishable on facts also.',
	(int) 43 => '<p>25. In the present case, the landlord has been non-suited only on the ground that he did not disclose the fact that he was in occupation of certain premises on the Mall Road. Under law he was not required to disclose this fact. He was only required to disclose the factum of occupying another residential building owned by him in the urban area concerned. True it may be, that it would have been better if the landlord had disclosed all the facts but non-disclosure of a fact which he was not under law required to disclose could not in my opinion be a ground to dismiss his eviction petition.',
	(int) 44 => '<p>26. However, what are the premises in his occupation even as a tenant can be taken into consideration while deciding the question whether he bona fide requires the demised premises for his personal use or occupation or not.',
	(int) 45 => '<p>27. Lastly comes the question with regard to the bona fide requirement of the landlord. The landlord has no children. According to the landlord as well as his other witnesses i.e. his brother-in-law PW-2 and his wife PW-3, the wife now wants to come back and settle in Shimla. There is no reason to disbelieve their statements. Even according to the evidence led by the tenant the accommodation in possession of the landlord consists of two rooms, kitchen, bath room etc. Admittedly, the landlord is also having his office as an Architect in this building. The landlord belongs to the middle class of the Society. It cannot be expected of a landlord who owns sufficient property to reside in a two room set wherein he also runs his office.',
	(int) 46 => '<p>28. The law by now is well settled that the landlord is the best judge of the suitability of the accommodation required by him. This suitability has however to be judged in the context of reasonable expectations. The landlord and his wife who are both well educated can reasonably be expected to entertain guests and they will have visitors to their house. They would obviously require a drawing room, a bed room and a spare bed room for guests. Even at his residence the landlord may require another room for his professional work. This is the minimum accommodation which they would require. Even if the accommodation possessed by the landlord, though not owned by him, at 31, the Mall, Shimla is taken into consideration such accommodation is not sufficient to meet his requirements since admittedly the landlord is running his profession of Architect from some portion of his these premises.',
	(int) 47 => '<p>29. Keeping in view the entire facts and circumstances, I am of the considered view that the learned Appellate Authority gravely erred in rejecting the eviction petition of the landlord solely on the ground that he had not disclosed the factum of being in possession of the premises at 31, the Mall Shimla. Even though I have held that the said premises are residential premises, in view of the above discussion I hold that the landlord cannot be non-suited only on the ground of his being in possession of such premises since same were not owned by him.',
	(int) 48 => '<p>30. In view of the above discussion, the Revision Petition is allowed, the order of the learned Appellate Authority dated 6.5.2003 is seaside and the order of the Rent Controller dated 22.8.2001 is restored.',
	(int) 49 => '<p>31. Keeping in view the fact that the tenant has been in possession of the premises for a long period he is granted time up to 31st October, 2008 to vacate the premises.',
	(int) 50 => '<p>32. No order as to costs.<p>',
	(int) 51 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 52
$i = (int) 51
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109