Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SATYEN VAIDYA
Neeraj Goyal – Appellant
Versus
Ashok Kumar (Since Deceased) through his LRs. – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Satyen Vaidya, J.
1. This revision petition has been filed under Section24(5) of the Himachal Pradesh Urban Rent Control Act, 1987 (for short “the Act”), against the judgment dated 30.09.2016 passed by learned Appellate Authority-III, Solan in Rent Appeal No. 23 ADJ-II/13 of 2014, whereby the order of eviction dated 08.07.2014 passed by the learned Rent Controller,Kandaghat camp at Solan in Rent Petition No. RT No.8-S/2/07/04 has been affirmed.
2. Respondent No.1 herein (hereinafter referred to as landlord) filed a petition under Section 14 of the Act against respondent No.2 and petitioner herein impleading them respondents No.1 and 2 respectively (hereinafter referred to as “tenants”) with a prayer to evict the tenants from the premises i.e. shop-cum-residence (shop in the ground floor and residence on the upper floor) in building No. 246/6, Ganj Bazar, Solan (hereinafter referred to as “the building”).
3. It was averred that the building had outlived its life and the landlord intended to reconstruct the same. The reconstruction of the building, as sought by the landlord, could not be undertaken without the building being vacated by the tenant. The landlord had submitted a
The court affirmed the eviction of tenants based on the landlord's bona fide requirement for reconstruction of a dilapidated building, emphasizing the limited scope of revisional jurisdiction.
The substantive right conferred by Section 14(3)(c) of the Act has prospective effect only from the date the amendment was incorporated in the statute.
A landlord can seek eviction if a substantial part of the building is unsafe or unfit for habitation, without waiting for it to collapse.
Eviction of tenant - Bonafide requirement of Landlord for reconstruction of premises – No statutory requirement of having sanctioned/approved plan.
The right to re-entry for tenants post-eviction is contingent upon mutual agreement and completion of rebuilding, not an absolute right.
The court reinforced that bona fide requirement of the landlord for business expansion is legitimate unless proven otherwise by the tenant, affirming limits of revisional jurisdiction in reviewing fa....
The landlord's bonafide requirement for eviction is paramount, and the tenant's claims must be substantiated; revisional jurisdiction does not allow reappraisal of evidence.
The landlord must demonstrate bona fide requirement for eviction, which is substantiated by evidence such as municipal approvals, while the condition of the building is immaterial.
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
