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.

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 plan for reconstruction to the Municipal Committee, Solan. He also provided the details of financial resources available with him, required for reconstruction. It was also submitted that the son of the landlord namely Ashish Garg, who was a mechanical engineer, to commence his own business in the building.

4. It was the case of the landlord that the upper floor of the building was in ruinous condition and was unfit for human habitation. As per him, no repairs were possible and reconstruction was required to be done from the foundation level. It was also submitted that the landlord or his son had no other building owned by them in the concerned Municipal area. Further, they have not vacated such building during the last 20 years or so. It was further alleged by the landlord that the tenant (Shri Pankaj Goyal) had shifted to Shimla and had handed over possession of the building to Shri Neeraj Goyal (respondent No.2 in original petition). On such premise subletting of premises was alleged. The user of the premises in the ground floor was alleged to have been changed from shop to godown without the consent and knowledge of the landlord.

5. The eviction petition was contested by the tenant. The tenancy in the building was claimed to be in the name of M/s Goyal Brothers. Preliminary objections as to the non joinder and mis joinder of parties and estoppel etc., were raised. The tenant contended that the father of the landlord Shri Som Chand had entered into partnership business of running Flour Mill with the tenant Shri Pankaj Goyal on 12.07.1982. The said business failed and was wound up in the year 1983. Thereafter, late Shri Som Chand inducted M/s Goyal Brothers as tenant in the shop in August, 1983. Since then the business of M/s Goyal Brothers was being run in the building. The allegation that the tenant had converted the ground floor of the building into a single shop and that the building had become unfit and unsafe for human habitation were specifically denied. It was submitted that the building was in a quite good condition and was likely to exist for next 35 to 40 years. The alleged requirement of landlord to reconstruct the building as also to be used by his son was also denied.

6. Learned Rent Controller framed the following issues:-

1. Whether the premises in question were sublet to respondent Neeraj Goel by respondent Pankaj Goel without the consent of the petitioners/landlord, as alleged? OPP

2. Whether the building in question has become unsafe or unfit for human habitation and is required bonafide by petitioners for carrying out repairs which cannot be carried out without vacating the premises in question? OPP

3. Whether premises in question are bona-fide required for their own use and occupation by the petitioners? OPP

4. Whether the petition is