The main legal point established in the judgment is that the landlord's bonafide requirement for parking space justified the eviction under Section 14(3)(c) of the Act.

JUDGMENT

Vivek Singh Thakur, J. - This Revision Petition has been preferred under Section 24 (5) of the H.P. Urban Rent Control Act, 1987 (herein after referred to as the Act in short) against the order dated 18.1.2014 passed by learned District Judge, Shimla, exercising the powers of Appellate Authority under the Act (herein after referred to as the Appellate Authority) in Rent Appeal No. RBT No. 52-S/14 of 2013, titled a Prem Lal Vs. Anant Ram, whereby order of eviction dated 26-3 of 2010, passed by Rent Controller, Shimla in Rent Petition No. 33/1 of 2008, titled Anant Ram Vs. Prem Lal, has been upheld with slight modification by removing the condition of production of construction plan for eviction and inserting option of re-entry to respondent/tenant, as per provisions of Section 14(3)(c) of the Act.

2. Petitioner herein is tenant and respondent is landlady and hereinafter they have been referred as tenant and landlord/landlady respectively.

3. Originally landlord Anant Ram had filed a petition for eviction of Prem Lal tenant and after his death, during pendency of petition, his wife Soma Devi is pursuing the eviction proceedings. Landlord/landlady is seeking eviction of tenant from the demised premises rented to him, being used for non-residential purposes, on the ground that the said premises is bonafide required by landlord for the purpose of building/rebuilding/making substantial addition and alterations, particularly in the ground floor for the purpose of parking of his own vehicle and such addition/alteration cannot be carried out in the premises without vacation of the said premises by the tenant, with further plea that landlord being a senior citizen is in dire need/necessity of the premises for parking of his vehicle, particularly on account of recent policy of Government necessitating for parking in each house and also for incidents of car theft parked outside the house.

4. Rent Petition has been opposed by tenant by stating in the reply that it is not maintainable and as it has been filed only to harass the tenant to compel him to increase the rent and initially premises was rented out on 28.3.2005, at the rate of Rs.1100/- per month and since December, 2016 on request of landlord, rent was increased by the tenant to Rs.1400/- per month and bonafide requirement of premises, under the occupation of tenant, for the purpose of building/rebuilding, making substantial additions and alterations, particularly in the ground floor of the premises for the purpose of parking has been denied and it is further case of the tenant that such building/rebuilding/additions/alterations can be carried out in the premises in question without vacating the same by the tenant. It has also been contended on behalf of tenant that there are three other tenants in the ground floor, i.e. the same floor, but no eviction petition has been filed against other tenants and that one shop is in occupation of landlord, as tenant thereof is not living therein since last two years, therefore, tenant has reason to believe that the petition for his ejectment is not bonafide and further that landlord owns a vehicle since 1996-97 and parks it in the vicinity of the building, and now that eviction petition has been filed for blackmailing the tenant to increase the rent.

5. After considering the pleadings, evidence lead by the parties and arguments addressed by respective counsel, Rent Controller had allowed the petition, ordering the eviction of the tenant on the ground that suit premises, consisting of two rooms set in the ground floor, shown in rough sketch map Ex. AW-1/A in Surya Niwas, Cemetery Road, Sanjauli, Shimla for bonafide requirement of landlady for the purpose of making addition and alteration to convert it as a parking space to park her vehicle and tenant was directed to handover the vacant possession of the premises to the landlady within 60 days from passing of the order, but with condition that before execution of ejectment order, landlad