Landlords must establish compliance with statutory requirements for eviction under the H.P. Urban Rent Control Act, including not occupying another building and not vacating without sufficient cause.

JUDGMENT :

Satyen Vaidya, J.

1. This is a revision petition of tenant under Section 24 (5) of the H.P. Urban Rent Control Act, 1987 (for short the ‘Act’) against judgment dated 27.1.2018, passed by the learned Appellate Authority, Hamirpur in Rent Appeal No. 3 of 2014, whereby the eviction order dated 18.9.2014, passed by the learned Rent Controller-I, Hamirpur in Rent Petition No. 2 of 2012 has been affirmed.

2. The petitioner and the respondents shall hereinafter be referred as the tenant and the landlords respectively.

3. Rent Petition No. 2 of 2012 was filed by the landlords against the tenant seeking his eviction from the premises having one shop in the ground floor and one shop on the first floor of building comprised in Khasra No. 1294, situated in Up-Mohal Gandhinagar, Tehsil and District Hamirpur (hereinafter referred to as the ‘premises’).The grounds were that the tenant had failed to pay the rent w.e.f. the month of October, 2009 till the filing of the petitioner and the premises were required by the landlords for their bonafide personal use and occupation, as their children despite having professional qualifications were unemployed and the landlords were having no other building which could be used by them for their personal use and occupation. In the prayer clause of the petition, it was also mentioned that the landlords had not vacated such a building without sufficient cause within five years of the filing of the application in the said urban area.

4. The tenant contested the petition. He raised objection as to maintainability of the petition. As regards the payment of rent, his submission was that he was ready and willing to pay the rent and whenever retendered the same the landlords refused to accept. The alleged requirement of the landlords for bonafide personal use was specifically denied. The landlords were also blamed for not having approached the Court with clean hands and of having suppressed the material facts.

5. The learned Rent Controller framed the following issues:-

“i) Whether the respondent in arrears of rent from October, 2009 till date as claimed?OPP.

ii) Whether the shop is in question is bonafide required for personal use by the petitioners as claimed? OPP.

iii) Whether the respondent made a valid tender to the petitioner but he refused the rent as claimed? OPP.

iv) Whether the petition is not maintainable as alleged? OPR.

v) Relief.”

6. Issues No. 1 and 2 were decided in affirmative and the remaining issues were answered in negative. The petition of the landlords was allowed. The tenant was held liable to pay rent due to the tune of Rs. 1,66,232.50/- and the tenant was also ordered to be evicted from the premises on the ground of bonafide requirement of the landlords.

7. The tenant assailed the order of eviction passed by the learned Rent Controller before the learned Appellate Authority, Hamirpur but remained unsuccessful. Hence this petition.

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

9. Mr. Bhupender Gupta, learned Senior Counsel representing the tenant would contend that the petition lacked basic jurisdictional facts and in absence thereof, no order of eviction could have been passed on the ground of personal bonafide requirement. He submitted that the landlords had not categorically pleaded that they were not occupying any other similar accommodation in the same urban area and also that they had not vacated any such premises without sufficient cause within five years of the filing of the petition.

10. He would further assert that it was not clear as to for whose use the premises was required by the landlords. The plea raised by the landlords in the eviction petition was quite vague and indefinite. He pointed out that on one hand landlords stated that the premises were required for their bonafide personal use and occupation as their children were unemployed and on the other, it was submitted that the landlords Krishan Chand, Raj Kumar and Mangla Devi