Bona fide personal need persists till final decree despite subsequent vacation/re-letting of other units in multi-storied building; landlord chooses age-suited premises, tenant cannot dictate; subsequent events considered reciprocally.

JUDGMENT :

Satyen Vaidya, J.

Heard

2. By way of this Revision Petition, filed under Section 25 (5) of the Himachal Pradesh Urban Rent Control Act, 1987 (for short the Act), the petitioner/landlord has laid challenge to judgment dated 29.5.2023, passed by the learned Appellate Authority-II, Kangra at Dharmshala in Rent Appeal No.3-D/XIV/2023, whereby the order of eviction passed by the learned Rent Controller-I, Kangra at Dharmshala in Rent Case No. 6 of 2013 dated 22.2.2023, has been set aside and reversed.

3. Brief facts necessary for adjudication of the petition are that the petitioner herein is the landlord in respect of residential premises in MIG Plot No. 56, Housing Board Colony, Cheelgari at Dharmshala (for short the demised premises). The said premise is in occupation of respondents No. 1 and 2 herein.

4. It is the case of the parties that respondents No. 1 and 2 herein are the wife and daughter of respondent No.3 respectively. Respondents No.1 and 3 had strained matrimonial relation. Respondent No.3 has taken the demised premises on rent for accommodating respondents No. 1 and 2.

5. The landlord filed the petition for eviction of respondents on the ground that the demised premises was bonafide required by him for his personal use. The petition was filed on 6.8.2013 with the averments that the landlord was going to retire from the office of Printing and Stationary Department, H.P. Shimla, as a Mono Operator on 31.1.2014 and since, he was not having any other accommodation at Dharmshala for his residence, the demised premises was bonafide required by him for his own residence.

6. The petition was amended in the year 2019 and the factum of retirement of the petitioner having taken place on 31.1.2014 was incorporated.

7. The prayer of the landlord was contested by respondents No. 1 and 2 herein by filing reply. Objections were raised as to the maintainability of the petition. It was stated that the landlord had no cause of action. The landlord was also accused of not having approached the Court with clean hands. A narration was made that MIG Plot No. 56 was consisting of six residential sets of three bed rooms each. One of these sets was rented to the respondents and another set was stated to have been rented out to one Amrish Sharma before filing of the petition. Remaining four sets were alleged to have remained vacant till last about six months prior to filing of reply. The bonafide of the landlord in filing the petition were also challenged. It was contended that the landlord had sufficient residential accommodation at Kangra and was comfortably residing there after the retirement.

8. Learned Rent Controller framed the following issues: -

i) Whether the premises in dispute are bonafide required by the petitioner for his personal use and occupation, as prayed? OPP
ii) Whether the present petition is not maintainable, as alleged? OPR.
iii) Whether the applicant has no cause of action and locus standi to file the present petition, as alleged? OPR
iv) Whether the petitioner has suppressed material facts and has not approached this forum with clean hands, as alleged? OPR
v). Whether the petition is barred by his act, conduct and acquiescence of petitioner? OPR.
vi) Whether the petition has not been properly valued for the purposes of Court fee & jur