The eviction of tenants under the H.P. Urban Rent Control Act necessitates strict adherence to statutory grounds, particularly regarding personal bona fide requirements and timely rent deposits.

JUDGMENT :

Satyen Vaidya, J.

The instant Revision Petition has been filed under Section 24 (5) of the H.P. Urban Rent Control Act, 1987 (for short, “The Act”) against the judgment dated 29.06.2024 passed by learned Appellate Authority-I, Una, District Una, H.P. in Rent Appeal Regn. No.1/2020, whereby the order dated 31.10.2018 passed by learned Rent Controller, Court No.1 Amb, District Una, H.P. in Rent Petition No. 2/2012 has been affirmed.

2. The petitioner herein faced eviction proceedings at the hands of respondent-landlord in respect of two shops in Ward No.7, Nagar Panchayat, Gagret, Tehsil Amb, District Una, H.P. on the grounds firstly that the respondent-landlord required the shops i.e. one shop for establishing his son named Ankesh and the other for his own business and, secondly, that the tenant had not paid rent of the shops @ Rs.1500/- and Rs.1700/- per month respectively since January, 2012.

3. The petition was instituted on 17.04.2012.

4. The parties, hereafter shall be referred to as the tenant and the landlord respectively.

5. The tenant filed reply and raised legal objections as to maintainability, cause of action, locus standi and estoppel etc. It was submitted that the landlord had seven shops. There were three/four other tenants of the landlord. As regards the arrears of rent, as claimed by the landlord, it was stated that an amounts of Rs.18,700/- and Rs.16,500/- were lying with the landlord as security. It was admitted that one of the shops was let out to the tenant on 23.03.2010 at the rate of Rs.1500/- per month and the other was let out on 18.11.2011 at the rate of Rs.1700/- per month. It was further submitted that the tenant was always ready to pay rent to the landlord and he had filed an application before learned Rent Controller on the first day of hearing showing his readiness to deposit the arrears of rent to the tune of Rs.12,800/-. It was also submitted that the landlord was residing at Shimla and his nephew named Manoj Kumar had been authorized to receive the rent, who had been paid rent up to the month of January, 2012.

6. As per tenant, the landlord was permanently settled at Shimla and he had so many other shops lying vacant and thus, the landlord was not requiring the shops in possession of tenant as alleged.

7. It was also alleged that one Dinesh Kumar an influential person had threatened the tenant of being forcibly dispossessed from the shops, which had driven the tenant to file a suit for injunction against said Dinesh Kumar. In retaliation, the eviction proceedings were filed by the landlord at the instance of Dinesh Kumar. Another allegation leveled by the tenant was that the eviction proceedings were filed with a purpose to force him to enhance the rent exorbitantly.

8. Learned Rent Controller, framed the following issues:

1. Whether the respondent is in arrears of rent since January ,2012 amounting to Rs. 12,800/-? OPP
2. Whether the tenanted premises are required by the petitioner for personal use, as claimed? OPP
3. Whether the rented premises are bonafide required by the petitioner, as claimed OPP
4. Whether the petitioner has concealed true and real facts from the Court? OPR
5. Whether the petitioner is estopped by his act and conduct from filing the petition? OPR
6. Relief.

9. Issues No. 1 to 3 were answered in affirmative and the eviction of the tenant was ordered on both the grounds. It was held that the landlord required the shops bonafide for his personal use. In addition, the tenant was held to be in arrears of rent w.e.f. May, 2012 to 31.10.2018 at the rate of Rs.1500/- and Rs.1700/- per month respectively alongwith interest @ 9% per annum. The arrears were calculated as Rs.2,72,064/-. It was held that the tenant would not be evicted on the ground of arrears of rent in case he deposited the arrears of rent within 30 days.

10. The appeal filed by the tenant against the aforesaid eviction order has also been dismissed vide impugned order passed by learned Appellate Authority. The findings o