Sanjay Karol, J@mdashAgainst the concurrent findings of fact, petitioner Sham Lal (dead and now represented through LRs), hereinafter referred to as the tenant, against whom order of eviction stands passed, has filed the present statutory petition, under the provisions of Section 24(5) of the H.P. Urban Rent Control Act, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as the Act).
2. Power of revision, exercised by this Court, cannot be equated with appellate jurisdiction, unless there is perversity in the matter of appreciation of evidence or the authorities below have arrived at a conclusion, which no reasonable person will arrive at, this Court would not interfere and re-appreciate the evidence on the asking of tenant. In the instant case, no such perversity emerges from record.
3. The Courts/authorities below concurrently have ordered eviction of the tenant, on the statutory ground of (a) non-payment of rent, (b) bonafide requirement of the landlady (respondent herein) as also her family members, (c) impaired the value and utility of the premises, by unauthorizedly carrying out additions and alterations.
4. Regretfully, despite serious endeavour made by this Court, parties could not arrive at any settlement. Through their learned counsel, they were apprised of their statutory rights of resorting to ADR Mechanism, very much in place and operational in this Court.
5. Before this Court, tenant has moved an application, seeking appointment of a Local Commissioner, for getting whole of the building owned by the landlady, physically inspected. According to the tenant, landlady has sufficient accommodation to meet her family requirement. At the threshold, the application is dismissed, for the reason that tenant had sufficient opportunities of leading evidence before the authorities below, which he failed to do so. Even otherwise, this Court would not come to the aid of a party for collecting evidence.
6. Despite limited scope of enquiry, which this court can dwell upon, for adjudging perversity, if any, in the orders passed by the authorities below, additional factors, which the tenant wants the Court to believe, stand considered, in adjudicating the present petition.
7. On 31.7.2001, when the petition for ejectment was filed, under Sections 14(2)(i), 14(2)(iii) and 14(3)(a)(i) of the Act, landlady was just having two rooms, one kitchen, one bathroom, one latrine and one store, as total accommodation under her occupation. At that time, her family consisted of herself, her husband, two daughters (one of whom was unmarried-aged 19 years) and one unmarried son (aged 16 years).
8. Being owner of the building, wherein the tenanted premises are situate, simultaneously, she initiated proceedings for ejectment against all the tenants. In effect, her bonafide requirement would have met only with the ejectment of all the tenants occupying the building.
9. Relying upon the testimonies of the landlady Smt. Rama Sharma (PW-1), Shri Dalip Singh (PW-2), Ms. Seema Sharma (PW-3) and Shri Hem Raj (PW-6), the authorities below have come to the conclusion that the premises under occupation of the landlady is insufficient to meet her bonafide requirement.
10. Also, relying upon the testimonies of Smt. Rama Sharma and expert Shri Vivek Karol (PW-4), who has proved report (Ex. PW-4/A) and spot map (Ex. PW-4/B), the authorities have also found the tenant to have impaired the value and utility of the building by unauthorizedly fixing almirahs and shelves in the walls, after breaking open the bathroom and making holes in the walls. Also, two water tanks of the capacity of 1000 litres and 1500 litres stand installed, putting an extra load over the building. Report of an expert, so produced by the tenant, remains unproven on record and testimony of tenant (RW-1), refuting such allegations of the landlady, was found to be not worthy of credence on all counts.
11. That the building in question is situate within the municipal limits of Shimla, is an old structure, stand proved through the testimony of Smt. Rama Sharma and Shri Vivek Karol. It is not disputed before this Court that though in the year 2001, landlady was in occupation of only two rooms, but however, with the passage of time, tenants Shri Onkar Singh and Shri Kuldeep Singh having vacated the premises under their occupation, giving the landlady three additional rooms (two rooms vacated by Shri Onkar Singh and one room vacated by Shri Kuldeep Singh). Also, during the pendency of the present petition, tenant Shri Sodhi Ram has vacated two rooms, under his occupation. Present tenant is the only other tenant left in the building.
12. Perusal of the floor plan of the entire building, which is part of the record, reveals that the landlady is in occupation of three rooms, gallery, one kitchen, one bathroom, one latrine on the first floor; six rooms, three kitchens, one bathroom and one latrine on the ground floor and two rooms, one bathroom and one latrine on the basement.
13. On the other hand, tenant is in occupation of two rooms, one latrine, one bathroom and one kitchen.
14. Even though the number of rooms under occupation of the landlady is more, but they are small in size. Out of ten rooms, there are only three rooms, which can be used as proper bedrooms and one out of them is totally damaged and unsuitable, on account of permanent seepage of water from the retaining wall. The other rooms are as small as 5''x9'', 8''x9'', 10''x7'', 9''x8'' and 8''x8''. The building in question is an old structure. Also, passage to some of these rooms is through the other rooms, in effect marginally reducing full utility and usage thereof. Noticeably, on the first floor, there are three rooms, but then the passage to the last room is through the first two rooms. So, in effect only one, out of three, can be used as a bed room. Thus, in effect, only leaving three, out of ten, to be used as bed rooms by the landlady and her family. One bed room is required by the landlady, one for her son and another one for the guests. Shimla is a Capital city, where inflow of guests all throughout the year is there. With the addition of two rooms under occupation of the tenant, bonafide requirement would be met.
15. It is a settled principle of law that bonafide requirement of the landlady of the demised premises, for own use and occupation, has to be seen and adjudged from her point of view and not that of the tenant, who cannot be allowed to dictate terms, with regard to suitability of the accommodation. However, sufficiency, adequacy and requirement of accommodation need to be proved by the landlady. (See:
16. It stands proven on record that out of two rooms, initially in her possession, one was totally unusable.
17. Primarily, family of the landlady consists of herself, her husband, one son of marriageable age, who cannot be married till and such time, additional accommodation, so occupied by the tenant, is vacated. During the subsistence of the petition, though the second daughter of the landlady has married, but however, like her elder sister, she is continuing to occupy the room in the house.
18. Submission made on behalf of the tenant that with the daughters having gone to their matrimonial house, they have no right, even to visit their mother or continue to occupy the rooms, which they were doing as maidens, only merits rejection. If the parents so desire, even with the marriage having been solemnized, a daughter would still have a right to visit and continue to use and occupy the premises. Attempt made by the tenant to establish that married daughters are happily residing in their matrimonial houses, stands repelled by the authorities below. Under these circumstances, can it be said that a daughter ceases to be member of the family for the purpose of bonafide requirement under the provisions of the Act? In my considered view, in the given fact situation, no, particularly when there is no evidence to establish that married daughters are residing in their own accommodation in the same town, which in any event is not the proven case on hand. It is the specific case of the landlady that her daughters have occupied part of the accommodation now available with her. In any event, regardless of such fact, assuming the daughters are not residing or occupying the accommodation, even then the tenanted premises are required by her. Even otherwise, entire usable accommodation available with the landlady would be just three bedrooms, which, in any event, would be required by her, for she has a growing family.
19. In view of the aforesaid discussion, it cannot be said that even with the other tenants having vacated the premises, bonafide requirement of the landlady ceases to exist.
20. On behalf of the tenant, it is further contended that the landlady concealed vital information from the Court, as such, ejectment petition ought to have been rejected on that ground. According to the tenant, landlady suppressed vital information of being possessed with another room. Specific attention is drawn to the pleadings and the admissions made by the witnesses with regard thereto.
21. It is true that in the ejectment petition, there is no reference of this additional room, but then it stands clarified by Smt. Rama Sharma and Ms. Seema Sharma, as also other witnesses that this accommodation, which is stated to be an additional room, is actually a shed (Dhara) and an outhouse. Mr. B.B. Vaid, learned counsel for the tenant, invites attention to that part of the statement of the witnesses, wherein it is admitted that the Dhara has concrete walls from inside. The question, which needs to be considered, is as to whether landlady can be asked to occupy the same, befitting her status and requirement, for (1) this Dhara is not authorized; (2) it is an outhouse and not part of the main building; (3) it has got no kitchen and latrine; (4) even with this Dhara requirement of the landlady cannot be met. It was not required to be pleaded by the landlady, for the same was not put to use for residential purposes by the family. Hence, contention only merits rejection.
22. On the question of impairment of the value and utility of the premises, it is contended on behalf of the tenant that in the testimony of the landlady and the expert, it has nowhere come that there is material impairment. The word "material" is missing, but then the witnesses have unambiguously and categorically explained as to how the value and utility stand impaired, which the Courts have found to be material. An old building burdened with weight only makes the roof sagging and seepage of water further damages the property, making part of it unsuable. Breaking of a bathroom and puncturing the walls of an old structure, cumulatively put, does impair the value and utility of the building and more particularly that of the tenanted premises. Before this Court, it is not the case of the tenant that such alterations were carried out with the authorization of the landlady.
23. Landlady is a Government servant. Her son-in-law is a doctor, her son is aged 36 years and is to be married. Status, style of living and habits are the factors which need to be considered while considering the bonafide requirement. The findings returned, cannot be said to be perverse or arbitrary, warranting interference, in any manner.
24. Learned counsel for the parties have referred to and relied upon the following judgments of the Hon''ble Supreme Court of India and various High Courts:
25. There is no challenge to the findings with regard to the arrears of rent.
Petition stands dismissed. Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.
