Back
2016 Supreme(HP) 2504
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
DHARAM CHAND CHAUDHARY, J.
Sh. Pradeep Kumar Bhandari – Appellant
Versus
Sh. Manohar Lal - Respondent.
CR No. 150 of 2006 along with CMP Nos. 79/2012 & 15033/13
Decided on : 14-03-2016
Advocate Appeared:
For the petitioner:Mr. Ashwani K. Sharma, Senior Advocate with Mr. Nishant Kumar, Advocate.
For the respondent:Mr. Imran Khan, Advocate.
The subsequent events in a case of eviction of a tenant on the ground of personal bonafide requirement are required to be taken into consideration till the final decree is passed.
Headnote:
Eviction - Personal Bonafide Requirement - H.P. Urban Rent Control Act - Section 14(3)(a)(i)
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner-landlord sought eviction of the respondent-tenant from the demised premises on the ground of personal bonafide requirement for providing accommodation to his married son and visiting daughters. The respondent-tenant contested the petition, claiming sufficient accommodation available with the petitioner-landlord in his ancestral house.
Finding of the Court:
The Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority found in favor of the petitioner-landlord, concluding that the demised premises were required by him for his bonafide personal use.
Issues: The main issues included the bonafide requirement of the petitioner, sufficiency of accommodation, and the dismissal of an earlier eviction petition.
Ratio Decidendi: The subsequent events in a case of eviction of a tenant on the ground of personal bonafide requirement are required to be taken into consideration till the final decree is passed. The requirement pleaded by the landlord must not only exist on the date of the action but also subsist till the final decree or order for eviction is made.
Final Decision: The judgment under challenge was quashed and set aside, and the case was remanded to the Rent Controller for fresh decision after taking into account the evidence to be produced by both parties in the changed circumstances.
JUDGMENT :
Dharam Chand Chaudhary, J.
Challenge herein is to the judgment dated 26.8.2008 passed by learned Appellate Authority under H.P. Urban Rent Control Act, whereby the order of eviction of the petitioner herein (respondent-tenant before the Rent Controller) from the demised premises has been affirmed and the appeal dismissed.
2. The respondent is owner of House No. 23, Ward No. 2, Lohali, Post Office, Dalhousie, District Chamba. The house is two storeyed. The respondent was inducted as tenant in the two room set situate in the 1st floor of the building, whereas, a two room set in the same floor was rented out to one Mr. Vijay Deep Singh. The ground floor was leased out to one Sh. Raj Kumar Mehra (since dead). The petitioner-landlord himself was residing in his ancestral house comprising one room and glazed verandha situate in village Lohali itself. On the marriage of his son, he felt necessity of more accommodation and as such, sought the eviction of the respondent-tenant and also of Vijay Deep Singh on the ground of personal bonafide requirement, as according to him the accommodation on 1st floor in the building with them is required by him for providing the same to his married son for residential purposes and also his three daughters though married, however, visiting him off and on at the occasion of festivals and other celebrations with other members of their families.
3. The respondent-tenant has resisted and contested the petition on several grounds, however, mainly that sufficient accommodation is available with the petitioner-landlord in his ancestral house and that the demised premises are not required by him for his personal use. Learned Rent Controller has framed the following issues:
1. Whether premises in question is required by the petitioner for bonafide use as prayed for? OPP.
2. Whether petition in the present form is not maintainable as alleged? OPR.
3. Whether petitioner has no cause of action to file the present petition as alleged? OPR.
4. Whether petition is barred by principle of res judicata as alleged? OPR.
5. Whether petition is barred under Order 2 R. 2 CPC as alleged? OPR.
6. Whether petitioner is estopped from filing the present petition as alleged? OPR.
7. Relief.
4. The petitioner-landlord has himself stepped into the witness box as PW-3 and examined Sh. Praveen Kumar, Patwari, Patwar Circle, Dalhousie to prove certificate Ext. PW-1/A regarding other house of the wife of the petitioner-landlord namely =Mayur Guest House' situate at village Jikkar under Gram Panchayat Jiyunta, District Chamba and Sh. Rajinder Kumar, Dealing Clerk, Municipal Council, Dalhousie to prove that the house where the demised premises situate and his ancestral house situate at Lohali, Ward No. 2, Municipal Council, Dalhousie. PW-4 is Rajesh Chauhan, son of the petitioner-landlord. 5. On the other hand, respondent-tenant has himself stepped into the witness box as RW-1 and examined S/Sh. Jarnail Singh and Chaman Lal to establish that the petitioner-landlord is residing in a residential house at village Jikkar under the jurisdiction of Gram Panchyat, Jiyunta. RW-4 Sh. Raj Kumar Mehra has been examined to establish that the ground floor of the building in question has been rented out to him and that he has not been asked to vacate the same.
6. Learned Rent Controller on appreciation of the evidence has arrived at a conclusion that the petitioner-landlord has successfully pleaded and proved the factum of the demised premises are required by him for his bonafide personal use, as such, the eviction of the respondent-tenant was ordered from the demises premises. Learned Appellate Authority has dismissed the appeal and affirmed the order of eviction passed by learned Rent Controller.
7. The legality and validity of the impugned judgment has been questioned on the grounds inter-alia that the same is against the law and facts of the case. Learned Rent Controller and for that matter the Appellate Authority both have acted beyond its jurisdic
