Point of Law: It is more than settled that all landlords are not necessarily to file separate petitions or joint petitions by including all other landlords for eviction of tenant by filing Rent Petition.

JUDGMENT :

(Vivek Singh Thakur, J.)

1. Present Revision Petition has been preferred by tenant against judgment dated 16.06.2010, passed by Appellate Authority, Shimla, in Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.69-S/14 of 2009, titled as Gopal Krishan vs. Dashodha & others, affirming order dated 30.09.2009, passed by Rent Controller(V), Shimla, in Rent Petition No.14-2 of 2006, titled as Dashoda & others vs Gopal Krishan, ordering ejectment of the tenant on the ground of arrears of rent as well as on the basis of bonafide requirement of the landlords, has been upheld.

2. Landlords (respondents herein) had filed Eviction Petition against the tenant on the grounds that tenant (petitioner herein) has been in arrears of rent @ Rs. 100/- per month w.e.f. 13.09.2003, the premises in reference is required bonafide by the landlords for the purpose of building or rebuilding which is not possible without premises being vacated, and premises is required by the landlords for making substantial addition and alteration, which are not possible without premises being vacated.

3. Eviction Petition has been opposed by the tenant on the ground that there is no relationship of landlords and tenant between the parties and property in question is jointly owned by various co-owners and in absence of all co-owners, petition is not maintainable. Further that, landlords has no exclusive right to reconstruct or rebuild the premises as alleged and, therefore, plea of requirement of premises bonafide, has been opposed.

4. Landlords have examined three witnesses. Whereas, tenant has examined five witnesses in his support.

5. The ground of requirement for making substantial addition and alteration was not pressed by the landlords before the Rent Controller.

6. After taking into consideration entire evidence and material placed on record, Rent Controller passed eviction order dated 30.09.2009 against the tenant, with finding that tenant was in arrears of rent @ Rs.100/- per month w.e.f. 13.09.2003 till the date of pronouncement of order and landlords were also held entitled for statutory interest @ 9% on the arrears of rent till its realization, and tenant was also held liable to be evicted as the premises was required bonafide by the landlords for the purpose of rebuilding which was not possible without the premises being vacated.

7. Tenant, being aggrieved by the aforesaid eviction order, preferred an appeal before the Appellate Authority, which was dismissed on 16.06.2010. The said judgment has been assailed in present petition.

8. PW.1 Surinder Thakur has deposed on behalf of the landlords and PW.2 Dr. S.D. Sharma is local resident of the area. Whereas,PW.3 B.C. Sharma has prepared technical report Ex.PW.3/A and he has proved photographs Ex.PW.3/C to Ex.PW.3/E.

9. Gopal Krishan tenant has appeared as RW.1 and has also examined RW.2 Suresh Kumar, who has prepared technical report Ex.RW.2/A and Map Ex.RW.2/B. RW.3 Sanam Negi, RW.4 Bhim Singh and RW.5 Khem Dass have been examined by tenant as local residents of area. RW.4 is nephew of Gopal Krishan.

10. Landlord Surinder Thakur, examined as PW.1, in his deposition has asserted that he alongwith co-owners is owner of the premises in reference which is in dilapidated condition and, therefore, landlords intend to reconstruct this building through RCC structure. He has further stated that tenant has not been paying rent etc. to the landlords despite issuance of notices by post. He has also stated that rent w.e.f. September 2003 till date was due which was required to be paid alongwith interest.

11. In cross-examination, nothing favourable could be elucidated in favour of the tenant as PW.1 has reiterated the stand of the landlords taken in the petition as well as in her examination-in-chief.

12. PW.2 Dr.S.D. Sharma has also corroborated the case of the landlords. PW.3 B.C. Sharma has proved Expert’s report prepared by him with respect to status of the building on record.

13. Tenant-Gopal Krishan RW.1, in his deposition has stated tha