A landlord can seek eviction if a substantial part of the building is unsafe or unfit for habitation, without waiting for it to collapse.

JUDGMENT :

(Bipin Chander Negi, J.)

The present petition has been filed against the judgement dated 03.09.2024 passed by the learned Appellate Authority (Mandi, H.P.) in Rent Appeal No.1 of 2024, whereby the learned Appellate Authority below has confirmed the eviction order dated 16.12.2023, passed by the learned Rent Controller (3) Mandi, District Mandi, HP in Rent Petition No.161 of 2013, titled Charanji Lal & Ors. Vs. Dalip Singh.

2. The present petitioner before this Court was the respondent before the Rent Controller. The facts, in the case at hand, are that the present respondents/landlords before the learned Rent Controller had filed a rent petition under Section 14 of the H.P. Urban Rent Control Act seeking eviction from the tenanted premises—a shop situated at 104/8 Darmyana Mohalla, Mandi Town, District Mandi, H.P., measuring 12.00 sq. meters, on a monthly rent of Rs.242/-. The eviction was sought on the grounds that the building was over 100 years old, in dilapidated condition and required reconstruction into a multi-storeyed RCC structure, for better returns.

3. The present respondent/landlords claimed that the premises had outlived their life, with cracks in the roof/slab, making them unsafe for habitation and that they had approved reconstruction plans from the Municipal Council, Mandi, along with sufficient funds to undertake rebuilding. Additionally, they pleaded bona fide personal requirement for self-occupation.

4. The present petitioner/tenants contested the petition, denying that the building was unsafe or required reconstruction. The tenants asserted that the structure was already RCC (around 50 years old) and in good condition, disputing its location, as being in Palakh Street rather than Balak Rupi Bazar. They also raised preliminary objections regarding the maintainability of the petition, misjoinder of parties, and non-compliance with Rent Control Rules.

5. The learned trial Court framed the following issues on 16.01.2016:

1. Whether the premises are bonafidely required by the petitioners for the purposes of reconstruction/ rebuilding which cannot be carried out without the premises being vacated and demolished? OPP

2. Whether the premises are bonafidely required by the petitioners for their own occupations, as: alleged?OPP.

3. Whether premises has outlived its life and has become unsafe for human habitation?OPP. 4. Whether the petition is non-maintainable, as alleged? OPR.

5. Whether the petition is bad for mis-joinder and non-joinder of necessary parties, as alleged? OPR

6. Whether the petition is not in accordance with rules as framed under HP Urban Rent Contract Act, as alleged? OPR.

7. Relief

6. After considering the evidence, the trial Court partly allowed the eviction petition on 16.12.2023, holding that the landlords had proved their bona fide requirement for reconstruction and that the building in question had outlived its life and had become unsafe for human habitation. Feeling aggrieved with this order, the present petitioner/tenant (Appellant before the Appellate Court) had challenged it, contending that the trial Court mis-appreciated the evidence, wrongly favouring the landlords and that the premises in question were in good condition (cemented, slab-posh) without any need for reconstruction. The Petitioner also alleged improper framing of issues and sought the setting aside of the impugned order with dismissal of the eviction petition with costs. The First Appellate Court post-considering the pleadings and the evidence concerned with the judgment of the learned trial Court.

7. Heard counsel for the parties, perused the petition and the documents appended along with.

8. In order to demonstrate the condition of the building the respondent herein i.e. landlord had examined one Shri Tejinder Kaushal (PW-3). The said individual is an Architect, Structural Engineer and registered with the Town and Country Planning Department. The age of the building is stated to be 65- 70 years old. The building is stated to