The court reinforced that bona fide requirement of the landlord for business expansion is legitimate unless proven otherwise by the tenant, affirming limits of revisional jurisdiction in reviewing factual determinations.

JUDGMENT : 

VIVEK SINGH THAKUR, J.

1. Petitioner has filed this Revision Petition under Section 24(5) of Himachal Pradesh Urban Rent Control Act, 1987 (herein-after referred to as ‘Rent Act’) against the judgment dated 2.4.2016 passed by the Appellate Authority-II, Shimla, District Shimla in Rent Appeal No. 7-S/13(B) of 2015 titled as Tulsi Ram vs. Mushtaq Qureshi, whereby order dated 25.6.2015 passed by the Rent Controller, Shimla, District Shimla in Rent Petition No. 198/2 of 2013/2012 titled as Mustaq Qureshi vs. Tulsi Ram has been affirmed.

2. For convenience petitioner and respondent shall be referred hereinafter according to their status in the Rent Petition, i.e. tenant and landlord respectively.

3. I have heard learned counsel for parties at length and have also gone through record.

4. Landlord preferred a petition under Section 14(3)(b)(i) of the Act on the ground of bonafide requirement with submission that elder son of landlord was working in a private firm at Shimla and younger son was about to complete his 12th Class from the Senior Secondary School, Sunni who was living with landlord and his wife, and was their only caretaker at old age and in view of ailment of landlord and his wife as well as their old age, landlord intended to settle his younger son as soon as possible by expanding his business of gifts and cosmetics which was being run in a small shop adjoining to the shop occupied by the tenant/respondent, and as the shop was only means of earning of livelihood to landlord and his family and with the changing time, it had become difficult to him to maintain himself from the earning of such a small shop and thus, he wanted to settle down his younger son immediately after completion of his study by expanding his business/shop. As shop in possession of landlord was too small and it was not possible for landlord to expand his business and settle his son without vacating the tenanted shop of tenant, petition was preferred by landlord for eviction of tenant after issuing notice dated 18.1.2012 directing the tenant to vacate the tenanted premises before 31.3.2012 which was not replied by tenant.

5. Eviction petition was resisted by tenant on the ground that landlord was harassing the tenant by one way or other and during night of 26/27th July, 2012, for pressurizing the tenant to evict from the premises, a hole was made in the lentil of tenant whereupon tenant had to file civil suit restraining the landlord from such acts and petition for evicting the tenant was also filed to harass the tenant, whereas landlord was estopped from filing the eviction petition due to his own acts, deeds, conduct, omission and commission etc. Tenant had refuted the claim of landlord that rent of premises was Rs.400/- per month plus Municipal Corporation taxes with submission that rent of premises was Rs.660/- per month including taxes, which was being paid by tenant by depositing in the bank account of landlord. The tenant had also contended that the premises was rented out to him in the year 1985 instead of 1.4.2006 and therefore, it was stated that landlord had not approached the Court with clean hands. Further that tenant, a contractual tenant, was paying the rent regularly and thus he could not be forced to be evicted from the premises by landlord. Further that landlord was not in need of premises in reference for expansion of business as he was getting sufficient pension, being a retired person, for his livelihood and he was also having sufficient accommodation with him to expand the business. Tenant had also denied service of notice dated 18.1.2012.

6. Present petition has been preferred on the ground that landlord has failed to establish the bonafide requirement and also to satisfy the proviso of Section 14 (3)(a)(i) of the Act which mandates that in case landlord requires the premises for his own occupation then landlord has to categorically plead and prove that he has not been occupying another residential or non-residential building