Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
Rajiv Sharma, Judge.
Jagat Ram Chauhan - Petitioner
Versus
Smt. Avinash Partap and another - Respondents
C.R. No. : 16/2014
Decided On: 24.3.2014
Eviction - Himachal Pradesh Urban Rent Control Act, 1987 - 14
Fact of the Case:
The landlords filed a petition for the eviction of the tenant from a disputed shop on the ground of arrears of rent and bona fide requirement for major repairs and alterations for their own personal use and occupation. The tenant resisted the petition, denying arrears of rent and the landlords' bona fide requirement.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the landlords proved their bona fide requirement for enhancing their income by constructing a big hall for tuition classes after carrying out repairs, which cannot be undertaken without evicting the tenant.
Issues: The main issues were the arrears of rent, the landlords' bona fide requirement, and the possibility of carrying out repairs without evicting the tenant.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the landlords have the right to choose the nature and place of business, and once the landlord proves a bona fide requirement, the choice of accommodation to satisfy the requirement should be left to the landlord's subjective choice.
Final Decision: The petition for eviction was dismissed, and the pending application(s) were also dismissed.
Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge.
This revision petition is directed against the judgment dated 16.12.2013 passed by the Appellate Authority (II) Sirmaur District at Nahan in Rent Appeal No. 13-N/14 of 2012.
2. “Key facts” necessary for the adjudication of this petition are that respondents-landlords (hereinafter referred to as the “landlords” for convenience sake) filed petition under section 14 of the Himachal Pradesh Urban Rent Control Act, 1987 for the eviction of petitioner-tenant (hereinafter referred to as the “tenant” for convenience sake) from the disputed shop. The shop is located in Khasra No.278 of Mohal Dhabon, Mohalla Telian, Katcha Tank, Nahan. It was let out to tenant 21-22 years ago on monthly rent of Rs.550/-besides other charges. It was let out for commercial purpose. Tenant is using the same as workshop for repairing the vehicles. Eviction was sought by the landlords on the ground that tenant was in arrears of rent and the premises were required bona fide for major repairs and alterations and for their own personal use and occupation. They intended to dismantle the partition wall between the aforesaid two shops in possession of tenant and another tenant Madan Lal Gupta in order to make a big hall for running tuition classes. Other shop is located adjacent to the two shops. They have claimed to be educated ladies and intended to run tuition classes to enhance their income.
3. The petition was resisted by the tenant. Tenant has denied that tenant is in arrears of rent. According to him, disputed shop is not required by the landlords on account of bona fide requirement. According to him, landlords intended to evict him. The disputed shop abuts the main road and there is a lot of traffic on the road causing noise and air pollution. According to him, the partition wall can be removed without evicting him from the shop.
4. Landlord filed rejoinder to the reply filed by the tenant. Issues were framed by the Rent Controller on 23.9.2010. He allowed the petition on 31.8.2012 and ordered eviction of the tenant from demised premises on the ground of bona fide requirement. Tenant preferred an appeal against the order dated 31.8.2012 before the Appellate Authority (II), Sirmaur District at Nahan. Appellate Authority dismissed the appeal on 16.12.2013. Hence, the present petition.
5. Tenancy has not been disputed by the tenant. PW-1 Sneh Kashyap has proved site plan Ex.PW-1/A. He has put his signatures on the site plan. As per site plan, three shops are located in the ground floor. Landlord intended to dismantle the partition wall and make a big hall as depicted in the proposed ground floor plan. He has denied the suggestion that partition wall can be re moved without evicting the premises by the tenant.
6. PW-2 Avinash Partap has led her evidence by way of affidavit Ex.RW-2/A. According to her, shop is required for running a coaching centre to increase the utility of the premises. She was living with her daughter.
7. Tenant has led his evidence by way of affidavit Ex.RW-1/A. According to him, landlords are having good monthly income and they do not require disputed premises bona fidely. According to him, landlords are already in possession of sufficient accommodation and third storey is also under construction.
8. RW-2 Kuldeep Chauhan son of tenant has also stepped into witness box and tendered his affidavit Ex.RW-2/A. Site plan Ex.RW-1/B does not bear signatures of Kuldeep Chauhan. There is no date mentioned in the site plan. The original copy of the site plan was also not produced before the trial court.
9. It has come in the evidence of tenant that landlords are giving tuition to the students for the last so many years. They are charging Rs.100/- per student upto primary level. It has also come on record that 15-20 students come to take tuition from the landlords. Government High School, Cantt, D.A.V. School, DIET School and Rathi Academy are located in the vicinity of the shops.
10. Smt. Avinash Pratap is getting
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
