Dismissed

S C Bhatia v. Karandeep

Himachal Pradesh HC2 Jul 2010CR/10/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Himachal Pradesh dismissed the tenant's civil revision challenging an eviction order. Upholding findings that the building was unsafe and old, the court rejected additional evidence applications and affirmed the landlord's right to vacate premises for reconstruction.

What did the court decide?

Ejection order confirmed; application for additional evidence rejected; revision dismissed.

S C Bhatia Vs Karandeep — Landlord and Tenant | Himachal Pradesh HC (2010)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

¶2

Civil Revision No. 10 of 2010.

¶3

Judgement reserved on: 25.5.2010. Date of decision: 2.7.2010.

¶4

S.C.Bhatia ….. Petitioner.

¶5

Vs.

¶6

Karandeep …. Respondent.

¶7

Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kuldip Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?¹

¶8

For the petitioner : Mr. Ajay Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. B.C. Negi, Advocate.

¶9

Kuldip Singh, Judge .

¶10

The tenant has come in revision against judgement dated 17.11.2009 passed by learned Appellate Authority, Fast Track Court, Shimla in Rent Appeal No. 49-S/14 of 2009 affirming the order dated 22.7.2009 passed by learned Rent Controller in Rent Petition No. 30-2 of 2008 ordering eviction of petitioner from the premises. 2. The respondent had filed a petition under Section 14 of H.P. Urban Rent Control Act, 1987 (for short, the Act) against the petitioner on the grounds of premises has become unsafe and unfit for human habitation, bonafide requirement of premises for reconstruction which cannot be carried out unless the premises is vacated, arrears of rent, cease to occupy and tenant has acquired alternative accommodation which is reasonably sufficient for his requirement.

¶11

Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment?

¶12

…2…

¶13

3. The petition was contested and the claim of the respondent was denied, pleas of estoppel, maintainability, want of better and material particulars were taken. The petition has been filed in order to enhance the rent. It has been denied that premises is 180 years old or outlived its life due to dilapidated condition. The reconstruction is not possible unless all tenants vacate the building. The submission of plans by respondent and availability of funds with respondent for reconstruction were also denied. The premises can be reconstructed without vacating the building. The petitioner resided in the premises till June 2008 when the premises was damaged by the respondent by carrying out excavation near the wall of the premises as a result of which the wall of the premises came down. It has been denied that petitioner has acquired alternative accommodation. The petitioner was willing to pay the arrears of rent. It has been denied that life of the premises has come to an end.

¶14

4. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed:-

¶15

Whether the suit premises has become unfit and unsafe for human habitation as alleged? OPP.

¶16

2. Whether the suit premises is bonafide required by the petitioner for building and reconstruction which cannot be carried out without getting the suit premises vacated as alleged? OPP.

¶17

3. Whether the respondent is also in arrears of rent. If so, to what amount as alleged? OPP.

¶18

…3…

¶19

4. Whether the respondent has ceased to occupy the suit premises as alleged? OPP.

¶20

5. Whether the respondent has acquired alternative accommodation reasonably sufficient for his requirements as alleged? OPP.

¶21

6. Whether the petitioner estopped from filing the petition as alleged? OPR.

¶22

7. Whether the petition is not maintainable as alleged? OPR.

¶23

8. Relief.

¶24

The issues No. 1 to 4 were answered in affirmative, issues No. 5 to 7 in negative and on 22.7.2009, the learned Rent Controller ordered the eviction of the petitioner. The ejectment order dated 22.7.2009 was assailed by the petitioner in appeal in which following points were formulated:-

¶25

Whether the respondent/ tenant is in arrears of rent from September, 2000, onwards as alleged?

¶26

Whether the suit premises have become unfit and unsafe for human habitation as claimed?

¶27

Whether the disputed premises are bonafidely required by the petitioner/ landlord for carrying out the rebuilding/ reconstruction work which is not possible without their vacation?

¶28

Whether the respondent/ tenant has ceased to occupy the tenanted premises as alleged?

¶29

…4…

¶30

Whether the order under challenge is legally and factually sustainable?

¶31

6. Final order.

¶32

Points No. 1 to 5 were answered in affirmative and the appeal was dismissed by the learned Appellate Authority on 17.11.2009. In these circumstances, the tenant has come in revision.

¶33

5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that learned authorities below have not drawn proper inference from the evidence on record and have erred in allowing the petition on the grounds of condition of building, reconstruction, arrears of rent and cease to occupy. It has been submitted that petitioner is tenant in Sidhowal Annexe, but petition has been filed for eviction from Sidhowal lodge, where the petitioner is not a tenant. This aspect has not been properly appreciated by the learned two authorities. The evidence has been misread and two authorities below have failed to exercise jurisdiction vested in them. The age of the building has not been proved. The statement of PW 5 L.P.Gupta and report Ex. PW 5/D-1 have been wrongly relied. The plan pertains to Sidhowal Lodge and not Sidhowal Annexe. The statement of PW 2 has been wrongly relied. The petitioner is residing in the premises and evidence is also to this effect, but contrary finding has been recorded on the point of cease to occupy. There is no evidence that the building has become unsafe and unfit for human habitation nor bonafide need of respondent for reconstruction of the

¶34

…5…

¶35

premises has been proved. The petitioner has filed CMP No. 88 of 2010 for additional evidence. The learned counsel for the petitioner has prayed for allowing the application for additional evidence. The learned counsel for the respondent has supported the impugned judgement and has submitted that two authorities below have concurrently recorded findings of facts, which emerge from evidence on record. In the revision, the scope of interference is limited, the petitioner has failed to make out a case for interference. The learned counsel for the respondent has opposed the application for additional evidence.

¶36

6. Ex. PW 2/A dated 27.9.2007 is the sanction letter regarding the building plan of respondent. Ex. PW 3/A is the consumption record certificate of A/C BRD 285-D, Sidhowal Lodge w.e.f. November 2004 to June 2008 showing nil consumption of electricity from December 2004 to June 2008. Ex. PW 5/A to Ex. PW 5/D are the photographs. The report dated 25.6.2008 of L.P. Gupta is Ex. PW 5/B. Ex. PW 1/C is photostat copy of passbook of respondent of Central Bank, Sector-17, Chandigarh.

¶37

7. The petitioner by way of additional evidence intends to bring on record technical report of V.K.Sood, which was prepared by him on the basis of alleged inspection dated 20.6.2008 of the premises. The petitioner also intends to bring on record certified copy of judgement dated 8.11.1983 passed by learned Rent Controller (3) Shimla in case No. 8/2 of 82 Smt. Shubhsheer Kaur Ranjit Singh vs. S.C. Bhatia. The perusal of technical report of V.K.Sood indicates that it was prepared on or after 20.6.2008, but no date of preparation of report has been given on the report. The petition was filed on 26.6.2008. There is no worth believing explanation in the application

¶38

…6…

¶39

why technical report of V.K.Sood was not proved when the matter was before the learned Rent Controller. The petitioner is not entitled to lead additional evidence for placing on record the technical report on the vague ground that due to inadvertent mistake and despite due diligence the technical report could not be produced earlier. There is no explanation why no steps were taken for bringing on record technical report when the matter was before the learned appellate authority. The judgement dated 8.11.1983 is in the rent petition Smt. Shubhsheer Kaur Ranjit Singh vs. S.C. Bhatia, in which the grounds of eviction were arrears of rent and bonafide requirement of the land lady of the premises for her servants. In the present petition, there is no ground that premises is required bonafide by the respondent for his servants. In these circumstances, the petitioner cannot be permitted to lead additional evidence for proving technical report of V.K.Sood and placing on record judgement dated 8.11.1983. The application for additional evidence is thus rejected.

¶40

8. PW 5 L.P. Gupta, Retired Executive Engineer has stated that he had inspected Sidhowal Lodge and prepared inspection report Ex. PW 5/B and plan Ex. PW 5/C. The premises is in bad shape and one wall has already fallen. The premises is not worth living. It has rotten wooden floor. According to him the building is more than 180 years old. The premises cannot be reconstructed without vacation. In cross-examination, he has been given suggestion that the condition of the building is good, which he has denied. He has not been crossexamined specifically regarding other aspects of the building which he has stated in the examination-in-chief. In report Ex.PW 5/B, he

¶41

…7…

¶42

has stated that roof of the building had got rusted due to passage of time and started leaking. The walls of both the floors have soaked with rain water, thus bulged out and tilted. The mud plaster of the walls has fallen down. The wood work has decayed and rotten. The stones used in the building have crushed and lost their strength due to passage of time. The building in its present condition is extremely unsafe. It has outlived its life. The entire structure is likely to collapse either by continuous rain or with allied causes. The premises is not worth habitable nor fit for living. The premises requires reconstruction and the persons occupying the building will have to vacate for reconstruction.

¶43

9. PW 1 Karandeep has stated that premises is about 182 years old and for this he has relied Ext. PW 1/A extract of the book. The premises is not worth living, there are cracks in the walls. Only three walls of the building are standing. The wooden floor has decayed and part of it has fallen. The premises was got inspected by L.P.Gupta. No-one is occupying the premises for the last four years. There is no consumption of electricity in the premises. He has Rs.1,19,000/- in Central Bank, Rs.1,24,000/- in Hong-Kong and Shanghai Banking Corporation, Chandigarh. He has taken home finance loan from ICICI worth Rs.32 lacs. He is income tax assessee. The building plan has been sanctioned by the Municipal Corporation, Shimla. He was cross-examined by the petitioner, but nothing favourable to the petitioner was extracted in his cross-examination. 10. PW 2 Yashwant Singh, Sr. Clerk, Architect Planner Branch, MC Shimla has proved sanction letter Ex. PW 2/A regarding

¶44

…8…

¶45

the building of the respondent. PW 3 Ghanshyam Sharma has proved electricity consumption record Ex. PW 3/A, which indicates no consumption of electricity in A/C BRD 285-D of petitioner from December 2004 to June 2008. In para-5 of the petition, it has been pleaded “nobody is residing in the premises in question as premises is totally collapsed”. In reply, the petitioner has not disputed the contents of para-5 of the petition.

¶46

11. The petitioner appeared as RW 1 and has admitted Ex.PW 1/5-D (sic Ex.PW 5/D) photograph of the premises so also photograph Ex. PW 1/5-A (sic Ex. PW 5/A). He has stated that he resides in Sidhowal Annexe, which is part of Sidhowal Estate. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that petitioner is a tenant in Sidhowal Annexe, but petition has been filed for eviction from Sidhowal Lodge where the petitioner is not a tenant. The identification of the premises is not in dispute inasmuch as in the memo of parties of ejectment petition the tenant has been shown r/o Sidhowal Lodge (Annexe). There is no specific objection in the reply regarding the mis- description of the premises or identification of the premises. The petitioner in his statement has admitted that Sidhowal Annexe is part of Sidhowal Estate.

¶47

12. It has come on record that premises in question is in bad shape, its walls have cracks. There is seepage in the walls and for that reason the walls have bulged out. The mud plaster has fallen down, the wooden floor has decayed and a part of it has fallen down. The petitioner is not residing in the premises, which is clear from the fact that there is no consumption of electricity in the premises from

¶48

…9…

¶49

December 2004 to June 2008. In fact, it has come on record that petitioner has made an alternative arrangement. The building plan of the petitioner has been sanctioned. The petitioner has means to raise the construction, the premises is just on the side of Ridge, a centrally located place of the city. The photographs Ex. PW 5/A and Ex. PW 5/D indicate that a good part of the premises has fallen down. It has also come on record that premises cannot be reconstructed unless vacated by tenant. The petitioner in the reply has not disputed the arrears of rent. The two authorities below have rightly appreciated the material on record and recorded findings of facts that petitioner is in arrears of rent, premises has become unfit and unsafe for human habitation. The premises is required by the respondent for carrying out reconstruction, which cannot be carried out unless the premises is vacated. The petitioner has ceased to occupy the premises. The view taken by the two authorities below emerges from the evidence on record. The learned counsel for the petitioner has failed to make out any case for misconstruction of pleadings and evidence. There is no merit in the revision, which is liable to be dismissed.

¶50

13. No other point was urged.

¶51

14. The result of above discussion, the revision fails and is

¶52

accordingly dismissed.

¶53

July 2, 2010. ( Hem )

¶54

( Kuldip Singh ), Judge.

S C Bhatia v. Karandeep

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S C Bhatia v. Karandeep

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Anju Bala Vs J.R.Gupta

Balraj Vs Lal Chand

Parma Nand Vs State

Surjan Singh Vs Sandeep Sahni

Manohar Lal Sharma Vs Srikant Baldi

Darshan Singh Vs Karam Chand