Point of Law: Eviction of tenant - Bonafide requirement of Landlord for reconstruction of premises – No statutory requirement of having sanctioned/approved plan.

ORDER :

Petitioners have approached this Court invoking the revisional jurisdiction under Section 24(5) of H.P. Urban Rent Control Act, 1987 (in short “the Act”), against order dated 24.10.2018 passed in Rent Appeal No. 1-D/XIV/2018 titled Moti Lal and others vs. Shankar Kumar by learned Appellate Authority-II, Kangra at Dharamshala whereby order dated 5.7.2018 passed in Rent Case No. 3 of 2007 titled Shankar Kumar vs. Moti Lal and others by the Rent Controller-cum-Civil Judge, Court No. II, Kangra, District Kangra evicting the petitioners has been affirmed.

2. Petitioners have been ordered to be evicted from demised premises for arrears of rent w.e.f. 1.7.1987 till passing of order as well as on the ground that demised premises are required by petitioners bonafide for the purpose of rebuilding the same, which cannot be carried out without eviction of petitioners therefrom, with further observations that if petitioners would pay the arrears of rent calculated in the order within a period of 30 days from passing of order, they shall not be liable to be evicted from demised premises on the ground of non-payment of arrears of rent.

3. Learned counsel for petitioners has submitted that petitioners have deposited the arrears of rent, calculated by Rent Controller, within a period of 30 days as ordered by the Rent Controller and therefore, said ground for eviction does not survive.

4. Learned counsel for petitioners has submitted that Rent Petition was not maintainable on the ground that respondent is not landlord as he is not owner of demised premises, and further that earlier also a Rent Petition titled as Mansha Devi etc. vs. Khindu Ram etc. bearing Rent Petition No. 9 of 1983 filed by predecessors-in-interest of respondent seeking eviction of predecessors-in-interest of petitioners on the same ground was dismissed and dismissal of the said Rent Petition was upheld by the High Court of Himachal Pradesh and, therefore, successive petition, in view of Section 18 of the Act, on the same ground is not maintainable. It has been further contended on behalf of petitioners that shops, in reference, are in good condition and bonafide requirement for rebuilding and reconstruction has not been established on record and further that respondent, for not having permission for construction and approved sanctioned plan for re-construction and rebuilding, is not entitled to seek eviction of petitioners.

5. Learned counsel for petitioners has submitted that despite framing of issue with respect to previous litigation, the Courts below have not returned findings in that regard, whereas, respondent was not having any locus to maintain his eviction petition. Further that actual owner of premises in question is the Government and mutation attested in favour of respondent has been assailed by petitioners before the concerned Authority which is pending adjudication before the Additional District Magistrate, Kangra.

6. Learned counsel for respondent has controverted the submissions made on behalf of petitioners and has supported findings returned by the Courts below for the reasons assigned in impugned orders. In response to contentions that respondent is not landlord, he has also referred judgment dated 6.1.2011 passed in Civil Revision No. 149 of 2010, titled Moti Ram vs. Shankar Kumar, which was filed by petitioner Moti Lal against order dated 2.11.2010 passed by Rent Controller in Rent Petition, in reference, in present lis. Vide order dated 2.11.2010, the Rent Controller had dismissed the application filed by petitioners seeking amendment to the reply on the ground that State of H.P. was true owner of land and shops and mutation of proprietorship of shops in question had been wrongly attested in favour of respondent/predecessors-in-interest of respondent and further that no sanction had been accorded by State of HP for construction and reconstruction. The aforesaid Revision Petition No. 149 of 2010 preferred by petitioners was dismissed by this High Court