J U D G E M E N T

By way of this revision petition filed under Section

24(5) of the Himachal Pradesh Urban Rent Control Act (hereinafter to be referred as ‘the Rent Act’), the petitioners/tenants (hereinafter to be referred as the ‘tenants’) have challenged both the order passed by leaned Rent Controller (1), Shimla, in Rent Petition No. 4-2 of 2007, titled as Surender Singh Khera Vs. Sh. Varesh Dawar, dated 17.02.2014, in terms whereof, the eviction petition filed under Section 14 of the Rent Act by the respondent/ landlord (hereinafter to be referred as the ‘landlord’), has been allowed and the tenants have been ordered to be evicted on the ground of bonafide requirement of the landlord for the purpose of rebuilding and reconstruction of the demised premises, which reconstruction as per learned Rent Controller cannot be carried out without vacating the demised premises as reconstruction has to be done after demolition of the building and also against the judgment passed by learned Appellate Authority in Rent Appeal No. 31-S/14 of 2015/14, titled as Sh. Suman Dawar and another Vs. Sh. Surinder Singh Khera and another, dated 09.09.2019, in terms whereof, the appeal preferred by the tenants against the order of eviction stands dismissed.

2. Brief facts necessary for the adjudication of the present petition are that the landlord filed an eviction petition qua the demised premises known as ‘5 North Brooke Terrace, The Mall Shimla’, against the tenants on the ground that the demised premises was old and its condition was not good. The landlord required the same for rebuilding and reconstruction, which is not possible without the building being vacated. According to the landlord, the proposed construction was not only to increase the value of the property as it was situated in the heart of the city but the same would also have had enhanced the income of the landlord.

3. The petition was resisted by the tenants on the ground that the demised premises was not in a dilapidated condition and was in a perfectly habitable condition. According to the tenants, there was no bonafide requirement of the landlord for the purpose of reconstruction and rebuilding. The landlord was already running a shop which is below the demised premises, which belied the claim of the landlord that the condition of the building was not good. The tenants also challenged the status of the petitioner therein as landlord of the demised premises, as according to them, the alleged purchase was in violation of the H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act, 1972. It was also alleged by the tenants that the eviction petition lack material particulars and construction was not permissible in the area where the demised premises was situated.

4. The stand of the tenants was denied by way of rejoinder by the landlord who reiterated his stand and claimed that rebuilding and reconstruction was permissible on old lines in the area where the demised premises was situated.

5. On the basis of pleadings of the parties, learned Rent Controller framed the following issues:-

“1. Whether the premises in question under the occupation and tenancy of respondent are bonafide required by the petitioner for the purpose of re-building and reconstruction and that such re-building and reconstruction cannot be carried out without the rented premises being vacated by the respondent? OPA.

2 Whether the present application is not maintainable?

OPR

3 Whether there is no relationship of landlord and tenant between the applicant and respondent? OPR

4 Whether the applicant is stopped from filing the present application from his own acts, deeds and commissioners and acquiescence? OPR

5 Relief.

6. In terms of order dated 17.02.2014, the issues so framed were decided by learned Rent Controller as under:-

Issue No. 1 : Yes. Issue No. 2: No. Issue No. 3: No. Issue No. 4: No.

Relief : The petition is allowed as per operative pat of the order.”

7. While allowing the petition, learned Rent Controller held that though the tenants had