Deposit of rent arrears after 30 days of eviction order, even pursuant to High Court interim direction, does not invoke 3rd proviso to Section 14(2)(i) protecting tenant from eviction; strict statutory compliance required.

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’), by the petitioner/tenant against the judgment dated 2.7.2022, passed by the Appellate Authority- III, Solan, District Solan, H.P. in Rent Appeal No. 3 ADJ-II/14 of 2019, whereby the order of eviction dated 22.2.2019, passed by the learned Rent controller-II, Solan in Rent Petition No. 11/2 of 2015, has been affirmed.

2. Rent Petition No. 11/2 of 2015 was filed by respondent No.1 herein (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Landlord’) under Section 14 of the Act for eviction of the petitioner (hereinafter referred to as the ‘tenant’) from non- residential premises i.e. one shop measuring 10 x 5 feet in House No. 18, Bansal Niwas, Lakkar Bazar, Ward No.9, Solan, H.P. (hereinafter referred to as the “shop”). The eviction was sought on the following grounds: -

i) Arrears of rent.

ii) Personal bonafide requirement of the landlord.

3. The rent was claimed at the rate of Rs. 528/- per month w.e.f. 01.01.2015 and Rs. 580/- per month w.e.f. 01.03.2015. The landlord had also claimed arrears of enhanced rent for the period between 01.03.2012 and 31.12.2014.

4. The landlord had further claimed that he intended to occupy the shop for his personal use, as he had to start his business therein. It was pleaded that the landlord did not possess any other non-residential premises owned by him in the urban area of Solan and he had also not vacated any such premises within five years, preceding the date of filing of the eviction petition. As per landlord, he was residing in Manimajra and was earning his livelihood by running a tea stall. He intended to shift to Solan with his family and to start his own business.

5. The landlord also claimed to be the owner of two residential rooms behind the shop, which were stated to be used by him as a residence. It was claimed that the only available passage to the residential rooms behind the shop was from the shop and for such reasons also, the shop was required by the landlord. It had also been specifically pleaded that earlier there was an alternative passage to the residential rooms behind the shop but the same had been obstructed by putting a gate by the owner of the said passage.

6. The tenant had contested the petition by filing the reply. In reply, the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties was not disputed. However, it was alleged that the shop and residential rooms behind the shop were joint property of landlord and his brothers and since there was no partition between the co-owners, the landlord could not seek the eviction on the ground of personal bonafide requirement. The tenant did not deny the fact that he had not paid rent w.e.f. 01.01.2015. It was the stand of the tenant that prior to 2015, he had been paying rent to the brother of the landlord and in the year 2015 he had again tendered the rent to the brother of the landlord, who had refused to accept the same. According to the tenant, the landlord was wrongly claiming the rent on enhanced rate whereas, the rent was Rs. 500/- per month. The tenant also came up with plea that the residential rooms behind the shop were not in possession of the landlord, as one of the rooms was in possession of one Ramesh Sharma and the other was with the brother of the landlord.

7. The learned trial Court framed the following i