@JUDGMENTTAG-ORDER
Piar Singh Rana, J.@mdash1. Present revision petition is filed under Section 24(5) of HP Urban Rent Control Act 1987 against the order of learned Rent Controller Theog District Shimla HP dated 3.4.2012 announced in rent petition No. 19-2 of 2010 titled Smt. Uma Devi v. Sh Vijender Sharma and against the order of learned appellate authority announced in rent appeal No. 1-T-13b of 2013/12 titled Vijender Sharma v. Smt. Uma Devi.
BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE:
2. Smt. Uma Devi landlady filed a eviction petition against tenant under Section 14 of HP Urban Rent Control Act 1987 pleaded therein that demised premises is residential in nature and was given on rent @ 500/- per month in the year 2000. It is further pleaded that electric fittings, water and all other amenities provided in the premises. It is further pleaded that demised premises have become unsafe for human habitation. It is further pleaded that demised premises required repair from inner side and same could not be conducted without vacating the tenant. It is further pleaded that demised premises also required by landlady for her bonafide use as the accommodation of landlady is not sufficient because one son of landlady got married and second son of landlady also going to marry recently. Prayer for acceptance of revision petition sought.
3. Per contra response filed on behalf of tenant pleaded therein that landlady is harassing tenant and obstructing supply of water to tenant without any reasonable cause in demised premises. It is further pleaded that demised premises did not require any repair. It is further pleaded that demised premises is fit for human habitation. It is further admitted that during rainy season in the year 2010 some portion of existing retaining wall was collapsed. It is further pleaded that same was immediately re-constructed after 2/3 months. It is further pleaded that present eviction petition filed by landlady just to cause mental harassment to tenant. Prayer for dismissal of eviction petition sought.
4. As per pleadings of parties following issues framed by learned Rent Controller.
"1. Whether disputed premises are unfit for human habitation and required for repair by the applicant, as prayed for?.
....OPA.
2. Whether disputed premises are required by the applicant for her bonafide use as accommodation, as alleged?
....OPA.
3. Whether other tenants are also residing in the same premises, as alleged?.
....OPR.
4. Relief."
Learned Rent Controller decided issues No. 1 to 3 in affirmative and directed tenant to deliver vacant possession of the premises to landlady within a period of two months from the date of order.
5. Feeling aggrieved against the order of learned Rent Controller tenant filed rent appeal No. 1-T-13 B of 2013/12 before learned appellate authority titled Vijender Sharma v. Uma Devi. Learned appellate authority decided rent appeal on dated 31.7.2014 and dismissed the appeal filed by tenant.
6. Feeling aggrieved against the order dated 31.7.2014 passed by learned appellate authority revisionist filed present revision petition.
7. Court heard learned Advocate appearing on behalf of revisionist and learned Advocate appearing on behalf of non-revisionist and also perused entire record carefully.
8. Following points arise for determination in present revision petition:
"1. Whether revision petition filed by tenant is liable to be accepted as mentioned in memorandum of grounds of revision petition?.
2. Relief."
Finding on point No. 1 with reasons:
9. PW1 Uma Devi has stated that a demised premise was given upon rent @ 500/- per month in the year 2000. She has stated that electricity and water facilities have been provided in the demised premises by landlady. She has stated that demised premises were constructed thirty years ago. She has stated that other tenants are ready to vacate demised premises. She has stated that she has constructed a retaining wall which was damaged during rainy season. She has stated that vacant premises are essential for repair. She has stated that repair could not be conducted without vacation of tenants. She has stated that she has two sons and one son has got married and she would marry second son recently. She has stated that she has no accommodation for her family members. She has stated that she also issued notice to tenant Ext PW1/A. She has stated that entire building is comprised of five storeys. She has stated that building was constructed 30 to 35 years ago. She has stated that there are five other tenants in the same building. She has stated that other tenants are voluntarily ready to vacate the premises. She has denied suggestion that she has filed eviction petition just to harass the tenants. She has denied suggestion that she does not require the building for bonafide purpose.
10. RW1 Vijender Sharma has stated that he is tenant since 11.9.2000 on rent @ 500/- per month. He has stated that there are six other tenants in the same building. He has stated that landlady did not file any eviction petition against other tenants. He has stated that landlady is residing in fourth storey of the building. He has stated that landlady and her children used to block the supply of water and used to harass him. He has stated that one son of landlady is married and another son is un-married. He has stated that there are no cracks in demised premises. He has stated that building is in a proper condition. He has stated that present eviction petition filed just to harass the tenant in illegal manner. He has denied suggestion that cracks have developed in the demised premises due to fall of retaining wall.
11. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of revisionist that landlady did not plead that she is not occupying another residential building owned by her in urban area concerned and that she has not pleaded that she did not vacate any such building without any sufficient cause within five years of filing of present eviction petition and on this ground revision petition be accepted is rejected being devoid of any force for the reasons hereinafter mentioned. There is no evidence on record in order to prove that landlady has another residential building in urban area. There is no evidence on record that landlady has vacated residential building in urban area within five years from filing present eviction petition. Even tenant did not plead above stated facts in the response. In the absence of pleadings it is not expedient in the ends of justice to dismiss the eviction petition filed by landlady.
12. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of revisionist that there are other tenants in the building and landlady did not file any eviction petition against other tenants and also did not place on record any agreement relating to eviction of demised premises against other co-tenants and on this ground revision petition be accepted is also rejected being devoid of any force for the reasons hereinafter mentioned. Landlady has specifically stated when she appeared in witness box that other co-tenants have agreed to vacate the premises when demanded by landlady. Above stated statement of landlady remains un-rebutted on record. Revisionist did not examine any other co-tenants in order to prove that other tenants have not voluntarily agreed to vacate the premises as per demand of landlady.
13. Submission of learned Advocate appearing of behalf of revisionist that there is no evidence of expert on record that cracks have developed in the inner side of the building and same could not be repaired without eviction of tenants and on this ground revision petition be accepted is also rejected being devoid of any force for the reasons hereinafter mentioned. Landlady has specifically stated when she appeared in witness box that retaining wall was fallen and thereafter cracks developed in the demised premises from inner side of building. Even revisionist has admitted that retaining wall was collapsed. Court is of the opinion that repair of inner wall of demised premises is essential in present case for the safety of inhabitants. It is mandatory duty of landlady to keep demised premises in proper condition and to ensure the safety of inhabitants of the demised premises.
14. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of revisionist that site plan is not filed by landlady and on this ground revision petition be accepted is also rejected being devoid of any force for the reasons hereinafter mentioned. In the present case there is no dispute inter se the parties qua tenancy and there is no dispute inter se the parties qua location of building. Court is of the opinion that site plan is essential when there is dispute inter se the parties qua demised premises and when there is dispute inter se the parties qua location of building. In the present case landlady has specifically mentioned in eviction petition in positive manner that demised premises is situated in ward No. 2 Theog near Janog post office and Tehsil Theog District Solan H.P. Even photographs of the building are placed on record and court is of the opinion that present eviction petition cannot be dismissed on the ground that site plan was not filed along with eviction petition by landlady.
15. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of revisionist that premises is not bonafide required by landlady for her own use and occupation is also rejected being devoid of any force for the reasons hereinafter mentioned. It is proved on record that landlady has two sons. It is proved on record that one son of landlady is married. It is also proved on record that landlady has another unmarried son. It is proved on record that landlady is in possession of two rooms set only. Court is of the opinion that two rooms set is not sufficient for landlady and other family members because landlady proposes to marry her younger son and each married sons required separate accommodation in order to enjoys matrimonial life in harmonious and peaceful manner.
16. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of revisionist that there is no evidence on record in order to prove that demised premises is required by landlady for the purpose of re-construction and on this ground revision petition be accepted is also rejected being devoid of any force for the reasons hereinafter mentioned. It is proved on record that learned Rent Controller has framed issue No. 1 to the effect that whether demised premises requires by landlady for repair purpose and learned Rent Controller has given finding that demised premises requires by landlady for repair purpose. It is well settled law that landlady can repair her premises at any time in accordance with law for the safety of inhabitants of the premises. See. Mangan Lal v. Nana 2009(1) Civil Court Case 102 (Apex Court). See Deep Chand v. Lajwanti , 2008 (8) SCC 497. See A.K. Jain v. Prem Kapoor , 2008 (8) SCC 593. See Som Dutt v. Sham Lal , 2010 (1) Himachal law reports 442.
17. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of revisionist that learned Rent Controller and learned appellate authority did not properly appreciate oral as well as documentary evidence placed on record and have caused miscarriage of justice to revisionist is also rejected being of any force for the reasons hereinafter mentioned. Court has carefully perused the orders passed by learned Rent Controller and learned first appellate authority. It is held that learned Rent Controller and learned first appellate authority have properly appreciated oral as well as documentary evidence placed on record. It is held that no mis-carriage of justice is caused to the revisionist. In view of above stated facts point No. 1 is answered in negative.
Point No. 2 (Relief).
18. In view of finding on point No. 1 revision petition is dismissed. Orders of learned Rent Controller and learned first appellate authority are affirmed. No order as to costs. Revision petition is disposed of. Pending application if any also disposed of.
