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.

JUDGMENT :

Satyen Vaidya, J.

This Revision petition has been filed under Section24(5) of H.P. Urban Rent Control Act (for short, the Act) against the judgment dated 24.07.2023, passed by learned appellate Authority Kinnaur at Rampur Bushahr in Civil Appeal No.1-R/14 of 2023, whereby the order of eviction dated 14.12.2022, passed by learned Rent Controller, Rampur Bushahr in Case No.4/2016 has been affirmed.

2. The petitioner herein is the tenant and respondents are the landlords. For the sake of convenience, they will be hereafter referred to as tenant and landlords, respectively.

3. The landlords filed a petition for eviction of the tenant from the premises i.e. House No.45, Ward No.4, Kasba Bazar Rampur Bushahr, H.P. (hereafter referred to as the “building”)

4. It was alleged that the premises consisted of one shop on the ground floor and two rooms and a kitchen on the first floor. The rent was claimed at Rs.1,200/- per month since 2004, where after the tenant allegedly had stopped the payment. It was alleged that the landlords required the premises for their own use and occupation and for the use of their unemployed young members of the family, who were having professional degrees. It was also alleged that the premises were made of rough stones with no plaster and had outlived its life. The building required reconstruction which was not possible without vacation of premises. The landlords further submitted that they were not occupying any other residential or non-residential building in urban area of Rampur Bushahar and they had also not vacated such a building within last five years preceding the date of filing of petition.

5. The tenant contested the petition by alleging that the tenant hired the accommodation from Mansa Ram, who was the predecessor-in-interest of the landlords. Since, the landlords were not the only legal heirs of Mansa Ram, the petition was bad for non-joinder of necessary parties. The tenant claimed to have paid the rent up to the year 2014. The alleged requirement of the landlords of the building for reconstruction or their personal use was also denied.

6. Learned Rent Controller framed the following issues:

“1) Whether the petitioners are in bonafide requirement of tenanted premises for their own use and occupation, as alleged ….OPP.

2) Whether the respondent is in arrears of rent since 01.01.2014 and if it being so, what is the actual amount of rent due against him, as alleged? ….OPP.

3) Whether tenanted premises is bonafidely required by the petitioners for the purpose of reconstruction, as alleged?….OPP.

4) Whether the petition is not maintainable in the present form, as alleged ….OPP.

5) Whether petition is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties, as alleged ….OPP.

6) Whether petitioners are estopped from filing present petition by their own act, conduct, commission and omission etc., as alleged ….OPP.

7) Whether petitioners have no cause of action to file and maintain this petition against respondent as alleged ….OPR.

8) Whether this forum has no jurisdiction to try and entertain this petition as alleged? ….OPR.

9) Relief.”

7. Issues No.1 and 2 were decided in affirmative and the remaining issues were decided in negative. The petition was allowed on the grounds firstly that the tenant was in arrears of rent w.e.f. 01.01.2014. The rent due from the tenant was calculated at Rs.2,01,432/-. Secondly, the building was held to be required bonafide by the landlords for their personal use.

8. The tenant filed an appeal against the order of eviction passed by learned Rent Controller. Learned appellate authority (Ii) Kinnaur at Rampur Bushahar dismissed the appeal of the tenant vide impugned judgment. The findings and conclusion drawn by learned Rent Controller have been affirmed and the eviction on both grounds has been ordered.

9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record carefully.

10. Learned counsel for tenant has submitted that the findings drawn by learned Rent Controller and