Jiya Lal Bhardwaj, Judge

1. The petitioners, who are tenants, have assailed the order dated 18.12.2017, passed by the learned Rent Controller, Solan, District Solan, H.P., in Rent Case No.07/2 of 2009, titled, Himachal Shiksha Samiti Saraswati Vidya Mandir Vs. Leela Thakur and another, whereby, the eviction petition preferred by the respondent/Landlord, has been partly allowed, on the grounds of material additions and alterations being made by the petitioners in the tenanted premises, which order has also been affirmed by the learned Appellate Authority-II, Solan, District Solan, H.P.

Whether approved for reporting?¹1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes

2. The grounds of challenge in the petition are that the respondent had not pleaded in the eviction petition that what alterations/additions have impaired materially the value and utility of the tenanted premises and the learned Rent Controller has not adhered to the principles and requirements, so postulated in Section 14(2)(iii) of the Himachal Pradesh Urban Rent Control Act, 1987 (for short “the Act”).

3. Although, the learned Appellate Authority has returned a finding that the alteration and repairing work has been carried out, but at the same time it has presumed that certainly when the premises were let out about 44-45 years back, deterioration and wear and tear must have occurred in the building, for which repair and construction is required, however, the said findings are unsustainable for the reasons that the same cannot be based on mere presumption.

4. The respondent has not produced any documentary or oral evidence to show that at any point of time, there existed an open verandah, in the building. The reliance cannot be placed upon the notice (Exhibit PW-2/C), issued by the Municipal Council, Solan, to hold that the premises are unsafe and unfit for human habitation. It has not been proved from the report that the condition of the building was not fit for habitation. It has also not been proved that the alteration was done after creation of the tenancy. Notice was issued by the Municipal Council, Solan, behind the back of the petitioners and thus, the findings recorded by the learned Rent Controller are unsustainable in law.

5. The respondent filed the eviction petition against the petitioners on the ground that the premises had become unsafe and unfit for human habitation and the tenanted premises is required bona fide by the respondent, for the purpose of re-building and such building or re-building cannot be carried out without the building/rented premises being vacated. Another ground, which was raised was that the petitioners have illegally converted the verandah into one room and kitchen, without the written consent and permission of the respondent and his predecessor-in-interest and also of local authority and hence the additions/alternations and structural changes in the tenanted premises have made the petitioners liable for eviction.

6. The petitioners filed reply to the eviction petition and took preliminary objections that the respondent is neither competent nor authorized to file present petition, there is no relationship of tenant and landlord between the respondent and the petitioners; and the petition is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties etc.

7. On merits, it was admitted that the petitioners are residing in the demised premises along-with other legal representatives of deceased Saroj Thakur, original tenant. It was however, denied that the petitioners converted the verandah into one room and kitchen. The accommodation with them is stated to be same from the very beginning. It was denied that the rented premises had become unsafe and unfit for human habitation. It is pleaded that the respondent intends to start commercial activity by opening a school and is harassing the tenants, so that the premises can be vacated. The respondent is not entitled to construct any portion of the ten