Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BIPIN CHANDER NEGI
Ram Prakash – Appellant
Versus
Vijay Kumar Goel (since deceased), through his LRs. – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
(Bipin Chander Negi, J.)
A single eviction petition, in the case at hand, was filed on 01.03.2011 before the concerned Rent Controller with respect to the premises in the case at hand. The same was filed against Ram Prakash, Ram Shankar. The said two individuals in a judgment dated 16.12.2011 passed in Civil Revision No 26 of 2006 titled Vijay Kumar Goel vs Ram Shankar had been held to be joint tenants with respect to the premises in the case at hand.
2. The building, in which the tenanted premises is situated, is a five storey building. The ground floor, first floor and second floor of the building abut the Lower Bazar. At the Lower Bazar level, the building is identified as Building No.104, Lower Bazar, Shimla. The tenanted premises exist in the ground floor of the building bearing No.104, Lower Bazar, Shimla. Against the other tenants in the building eviction petitions on the ground of the demised premises having become unfit and unsafe for human habitation and on account of rebuilding and reconstruction have been filed.
3. In the eviction petition filed, it is an admitted fact that one shop in the top floor of the building, i.e., Shop No.91 A, the Mall Shimla and the thi
The court affirmed that a landlord can seek eviction on grounds of a building being unsafe for habitation, and the need for reconstruction must be bona fide.
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.
A landlord can seek eviction if a substantial part of the building is unsafe or unfit for habitation, without waiting for it to collapse.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of the definition of 'building' under the UP Urban Buildings Act and the jurisdictional aspects of suits before the Small Causes....
The judgment establishes that the erection of permanent structures by a tenant without the landlord's consent, in violation of Section 16(1)(b) of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999, can lead to ....
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
