Shri F.C. Chauhan vs Shri Pankaj Sharma
2023 Latest Caselaw 11869 HP

    IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

                                                    Civil Revision No.: 80 of 2009
                                                    Decided on                 : 19.08.2023




                                                                               .

    Shri F.C. Chauhan                                                          ....Petitioner.

                  Versus





    Shri Pankaj Sharma                                                         ...Respondent.
    Coram
    The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge.





    Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes
    For the petitioner             :        M/s Vivek Sharma and Anubhav
                          r                 Chopra, Advocates.

    For the respondent :                    Ms. Heena Chauhan, Advocate vice
                                            Mr. B.S. Thakur, Advocate.

    Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral)

By way of this civil revision petition, the petitioner-

tenant has challenged the judgment passed by learned Appellate

Authority in Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 25-S/14 of 2008,

titled as Sh. F.C. Chauhan vs. Sh. Pankaj Sharma, dated

28.02.2009, in terms whereof, the appeal preferred by the

petitioner under Section 24 of the Himachal Pradesh Urban Rent

Control Act, 1987 against the order passed by learned Rent

Controller, Court No. 1, Shimla, in Rent Petition No. 38/2 of

2003, dated 08.04.2008, has been dismissed.

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

2. Brief facts necessary for the adjudication of this

petition are that the respondent herein initiated eviction

.

proceedings against the petitioner in terms of Rent Petition No.

38/2 of 2003, titled as Pankaj Sharma vs. F.C. Chauhan, on the

grounds of arrears of rent, the building being unsafe and unfit

for human habitation, the premises being bonafidely required by

the applicant for re-construction and rebuilding etc.

3. The Rent Petition was resisted by the tenant inter alia

on the ground that the building was fit and safe for human

habitation, the landlord was not the owner of the demised

premises and the rent petition, as filed was not maintainable.

4. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, learned

Rent Controller framed the following issues:-

"i) Whether the respondent is in arrears of rent with

effect from Ist April, 2001 as alleged, if so to what

effect? OPP

ii) Whether the demised premises is bonafidely

required by the petitioner for the construction and

rebuilding, as alleged? OPP

iii) Whether the demises premises has become

unsafe and unfit for human habitation, as alleged?

OPP

iv) Whether the respondent has acquired sufficient

accommodation within the Municipal Limits of

.

Municipal Corporation, Shimla, as alleged, if so to

what effect? OPP

v) Whether the application is not maintainable in the

present form? OPR

vi) Whether there is no relationship of landlord and

tenant inter se the parties? OPR

vii) Whether the petitioner is bad for want of

material particulars as alleged, if so, to what effect?

OPR

viii) Relief.

5. On the strength of the evidence led by the parties in

support of their respective contentions, the issues so framed

were decided as under:-

Issue No. 1 :- Yes, arrears of rent at the rate of 125/- per month w.e.f. 1.4.2004 till

8.4.2008 with interest at the rate of 9% per annum.

              Issue No. 2:-      Yes.

              Issue No. 3:-      Yes.

              Issue No. 4:-      No.

              Issue No. 5:-      No.

              Issue No. 6:-      No.









                  Issue No. 7:-      No.

                  Issue No. 8:-      Application allowed per operative
                                     part of the Order.




                                                                   .

6. Accordingly, the rent petition was allowed by the

learned Rent Controller in the following terms:-"

"27. In view of my findings on the aforesaid issues, application succeeds and allowed. Eviction of the respondent is ordered on the ground that the

respondent is in arrears of rent at the rate of Rs. 125/- per month from 1.4.2004 till date, which comes to Rs. 6,034/- along with interest at the rate

of 9% per annum thereon. Eviction of the respondent

is also ordered on the ground that the suit premises is bonafide required by the applicant for carrying out

the re-building and re-construction as the suit premises has become unsafe ad unfit for human habitation and the re-building and the re-construction

cannot be carried out without the building being

vacated. Accordingly, the respondent is directed to hand over the vacant possession of the suit premises

to the applicant within a period of 30 days from today. However, if the respondent deposits the aforesaid arrears of Rs. 6,034/- alongwith interest at the rate of 9% per annum within a period of 30 days from today, he will not be evicted on said ground."

7. In appeal, these findings have been affirmed,

resulting in the dismissal of the appeal filed by the present

petitioner.

8. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has argued that

the findings returned by the learned Appellate Authority as well

.

as learned Rent Controller are not sustainable in the eyes of law

as both the authorities have erred in not appreciating that the

landlord admittedly was not the owner of the demised premises

and further it is not as if the entire demised premises were not

in the sole possession of the present petitioner and the rent

petitions filed against the tenants similarly situated as the

present petitioner stood dismissed by the learned Rent

Controller. Accordingly, he prayed that the present petition be

allowed by setting aside the order passed by learned Rent

Controller as well as the judgment passed by learned Appellate

Authority. In the alternative, he submitted that in case this

Court is of the view that there was no merit in the present

petition, then, upon the respondent having obtained all the

necessary permissions for the purpose of re-construction of the

premises in issue, he be directed to at least give one month's

notice to the petitioner to vacate the demised premises with

liberty to the petitioner-tenant to occupy the same after its re-

construction.

9. Learned Counsel for the respondent submitted that

there was no infirmity either in the order passed by learned Rent

Controller or the judgment passed by learned Appellate

Authority. She stated that while deciding Issue No. 6, there was

a clear finding returned by the learned Rent Controller, as

.

affirmed by learned Appellate Authority that it was the own

admission of the tenant that he was paying rent of the demised

premises to the predecessor-in-interest of the respondent, i.e.

grandfather of the present respondent. Learned Counsel also

submitted that learned Rent Controller ,on the basis of definition

of "landlord" in Himachal Pradesh Urban Rent Control Act, held

that necessarily the landlord need not to be the owner of the

premises and as there is no perversity in the findings that have

been so returned by the learned Rent Controller, as affirmed by

learned Appellate Authority, the present petition being devoid of

merit, is liable to be dismissed. On the second argument of the

learned Counsel for the petitioner, she submitted that the

respondent has initiated eviction proceedings against all the

tenants and in majority of cases, he has been successful.

Accordingly, she prayed that the present civil revision being

devoid of merit be dismissed.

10. Having heard learned Counsel for the parties and

having gone through the order passed by the learned Rent

Controller, as affirmed by learned Appellate Authority, this Court

does not find that the order or the judgment under challenge

calls for any interference.

11. The grounds on which the relief was sought by the

landlord have been mentioned by me hereinabove. The defence

.

of the tenants also has been referred to in the above part of the

judgment. The Issues which were framed on the basis of

respective stand of the parties by the learned Rent Controller

also stand quoted in the above part of the judgment. There are

concurrent findings returned by the learned Rent Controller as

well as learned Appellate Authority to the effect that (a) the

petitioner herein was in arrears of rent; (b) the demised premises

have become unsafe and unfit for human habitation; (c) the

demised premises are bonafidely required for re-construction

and re-building; and (d) there was a relationship of landlord and

tenant inter se the parties. This Court in exercise of its revisional

jurisdiction is not to act as an Appellate Court and interference

is called for only, if there exists some perversity either in the

order passed by learned Rent Controller or in the judgment

passed by learned Appellate Authority. However, a perusal of the

record of the learned Courts below demonstrates that the

findings which have been returned by learned Rent Controller,

as affirmed by learned Appellate Authority are borne out from

the record of the case and the same are not result of misreading

or mis-appreciation of material on record. Therefore, as

apparently there is no perversity in the findings, as have been

returned by the Authorities below, there is no merit in the

contention of learned Counsel for the petitioner that the order

.

passed by learned Rent Controller as well the judgment passed

by learned Appellate Authority call for any interference. Learned

Rent Controller on the basis of evidence and by relying upon the

statement of the petitioner herein returned the finding that there

existed the relationship of landlord and tenant between the

parties. During the course of arguments, learned Counsel for the

petitioner could not demonstrate that this finding was perverse

or contrary to the record. Similarly the contention raised on

behalf of the petitioner that rent petitions filed against other

tenants have been rejected, could not be substantiated by

placing any material on record. Otherwise also, this Court in

exercise of its revisional power has to scrutinize the order and

judgment under challenge before it on the basis of material

which was available before the Authorities below and material

foreign to the one, which was before the Authorities below,

cannot be gone into to adjudge the correctness of the findings

arrived at by the Authorities below. Accordingly, as this Court

does not find any merit in the present petition, the same is

dismissed.

At this stage, learned Counsel for the petitioner has

again submitted that the respondent be directed to at least give

a reasonable notice to the petitioner to vacate the premises in

issue after he has all the necessary permissions for the purpose

.

of re-construction of the building. It is ordered that after all the

necessary statutory permissions are obtained by the respondent,

he will give at least 30 days notice to the petitioner to vacate the

premises and after re-construction of the premises, offer will be

given to the petitioner to re-enter the premises to the extent the

same is in his possession presently, on the payment of such

market rent, as may be prevailing at the relevant time. Pending

miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand disposed of

accordingly. No orders as to cost.

(Ajay Mohan Goel)

Judge August 19, 2023 (narender)