IMPORTANT POINT
In an eviction petition under Section 14(3)(c) of the Himachal Pradesh Urban Rent Control Act, when the tenanted premises are required bona fide by the landlord for carrying out repairs, there is no requirement to go into the condition of the building.

JUDGMENT

K. Venkataswami, J.-The respondent as a landlord of the suit premises filed Case No. 70/2 of 1987 before the Rent Controller, Solan (H.P.), for eviction of the appellant. The grounds for eviction were (a) the appellant defaulted in payment of rent from 1.1.87 up to the date of filing of the eviction petition and (b) that the suit premises was bona fide required by him for the purpose of building/re-building, which cannot be carried out without the premises being vacated. We may at once state that the ground of default in payment of rent was found against the landlord by the Rent Controller and the same was not pursued by the landlord before the Appellate Authority and the High Court. We are, therefore, concerned only with the ground of bona fide requirement of the premises for building/re-building by the landlord. This ground is covered by Section 14(3)(c) of the Himachal Pradesh Urban Rent Control Act, 1987 (hereinafter called the Act ).

2. The Rent Controller on the basis of evidence oral and documentary and placing reliance on a judgment of this Court in Metalware & Co. Ltd. etc. v. Bansilal Sarma & Co. etc1, found that there was no evidence regarding the condition of the building and consequent bona fide requirement of the same for demolition and reconstruction and that factor being a vital one for the purpose of granting an order for eviction dismissed the petition.

3. The respondent-landlord aggrieved by the dismissal of the eviction petition preferred C.M.A. No. 20-8/14 of 1990 before the Appellate Authority, Solan. The Appellate Authority on an analysis of Section 14(3)(c) of the Act and in view of the fact that the appellant-tenant had not disputed the availability of the resources with the landlord and compliance of other requirements except regarding the dilapidated condition of the building, found that the Rent Controller was not right in dismissing the eviction petition. According to the Appellate Authority, the ruling of this Court in Metalware & Co. case rendered interpreting Section 14(1)(b) of the Tamil Nadu Rent Control Act may not apply to the relevant provision in the Himachal Pradesh Act, which did not contemplate the condition of the building as one of the relevant factors for the purpose of ordering eviction on the facts of the case. The Appellate Authority also found that what was let out to the tenant was not a building as defined in Section 2(b) of the Act, but an open plot measuring 100 x 95 with a shed thereon. The Appellate Authority found that Section 14(3)(c) of the Act applies to the tenanted land as well and, therefore, it is all the more reason that the Rent Controller was not right in applying the decision of this Court in Metalware & Co. case. On the basis of the above conclusions, the Appellate Authority by reversing the decision of the Rent Controller allowed the application for eviction.

4. The appellant aggrieved by the order of the Appellate Authority preferred a Revision to the High Court of Himachal Pradesh at Shimla. The learned Judge confirmed the view taken by the Appellate Authority and dismissed the Revision. Hence, the present appeal by special leave.

5. Mr. Sree Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the appellant-tenant, reiterated that the ruling of this Court in Metalware & Co. case, which has been considered in a recent Constitution Bench judgment of this Court in Vijay Singh & Ors. v. Vijayalakshmi Ammal2, squarely applies to the facts of this case and, therefore, the Appellate Authority and the High Court were not right in coming to the conclusion that the ruling of this Court in Metalware & Co. case will not apply to the facts of this case.

6. Mr. Salman Khursheed, learned senior counsel for the respondent, submitted that the Appellate Authority was right in holding that on the basis of the language employed in Section 14(3)(c) of the Act there is no warrant for contending that the condition of the building was sine qua non for ordering eviction of the ten