PETITIONER: PREM CHAND ALIAS PREM NATH Vs. RESPONDENT: SMT. SHANTA PRABHAKAR DATE OF JUDGMENT: 17/11/1997 BENCH: A.S. ANAND, K. VENKATASWAMI ACT: HEADNOTE: JUDGMENT:
J U D G M E N T
K. Venkataswami, J.
The respondent as a landlord of the suit premises filed
Case No. 70/2 of 1987 before the Rent Controller, Solan
(H.P.) for eviction of the appellant. The grounds for
eviction were (a) the appellant defaulted in payment of rent
from 1.1.87 up to the date of filing of the eviction
petition and (b) that the suit premises was bona fide
required by him for the purpose of building/re-building,
which cannot be carried out without the premises being
vacated. We may at once state that the ground of default in
payment of rent was found against the landlord by the Rent
Controller and the same was not pursued by the landlord
before the Appellant Authority and the High Court. We are,
therefore, concerned only with the ground of bona fide
requirement of the premises for building/re-building by the
landlord. This ground is covered by Section 14(3)(c) of the
Himachal Pradesh Urban Rent Control Act, 1987 (hereinafter
called the ‘Act’).
The Rent Controller on the basis of evidence oral and
documentary and placing reliance on a judgment of this Court
in Metalware And Co. Ltd. etc. Vs. Bansilal Sarma And Co.
etc. – (1979) 3 SCC 398, found that there was no evidence
regarding the condition of the building and consequent bona
fide requirement of the same for demolition and
reconstruction and that factor being a vital one for the
purpose of granting an order for eviction dismissed the
petition.
The respondent-landlord aggrieved by the dismissal of
the eviction petition preferred C.M.A. No.20-8/4 of 1990
before the Appellate Authority, Solan. The Appellate
Authority on an analysis of Section 14(3)(c) of the Act and
in view of the fact that the appellant-tenant had not
disputed the availability of the resources with the landlord
and compliance of other requirements except regarding the
dilapidated condition of the building, found that the Rent
Controller was not right in dismissing the eviction
petition. According to the Appellate Authority, the ruling
of this Court in Metalware & Co. case rendered interpreting
Section 14(1)(b) of the Tamil Nadu Rent Control Act may not
apply to the relevant provision in the Himachal Pradesh Act,
which did not contemplate the condition of the building as
one of the relevant factors for the purpose of ordering
eviction on the facts of the case. The appellate Authority
also found that what was let out to the tenant was not a
‘building’ as defined in Section 2(b) of the act, but an
open plot measuring 100 x 95 with a shed thereon. The
Appellate Authority found that Section 14(3)(c) of the Act
applies to the tenanted land as well and, therefore, it is
all the more reason that the Rent Controller was not right
in applying the decision of this Court in Metalware & Co.
case. On the basis of the above conclusions, the Appellate
Authority by reversing the decision of the Rent Controller
allowed the application for eviction.
The appellant aggrieved by the order of the Appellate
Authority preferred a Revision to the High Court of Himachal
Pradesh at Shimla. The learned Judge confirmed the view
taken by the Appellate Authority and dismissed the Revision.
Hence, the present appeal by special leave.
Mr. Sree Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the
appellant-tenant, reitereated that the ruling of this Court
in Metalware & Co. case. which has been considered in a
recent Constitution Bench judgment of this Court in Vijay
Singh & Ors. Vs. Vijayalakshmi Ammal – (1996) 6 SCC 475,
squarely applies to the facts of this case and, therefore,
the Appellate Authority and the High Court were not right in
coming to the conclusion that the ruling of this Court in
Metalware & Co. case will not apply to the facts of this
case.
Mr. Salman Khursheed, learned senior counsel for the
respondent, submitted that the Appellate Authority was right
in holding that on the basis of the language employed in
Section 14(3)(c) of the Act there is no warrant for
contending that the condition of the building was since qua
non for ordering eviction of the tenant from the building.
It is obvious from the rival submissions that we have
to set out Section itself before proceeding further.
Section 14(3)(c) of the Act reads as follows:
“14(3) – A landlord may apply to
the Controller for an order
directing the tenant to put the
landlord in possession:-
……………………………..
…………………
(c) in the case of any building or
rented land, if he requires it to
carry out any building work at the
instance of the Government or local
authority or any Improvement Trust
under some improvement or
development scheme or if it has
become unsafe or unfit for human
habitation or is required bonafide
by him for carrying out repairs
which cannot be carried out without
the building or rented land being
vacated or that the building or
rented land is required bonafide by
him for the purpose of building or
re-building or making thereto any
substantial additions or
alterations and that such building
or re-building or addition or
alteration cannot be carried out
without the building or rented land
being vacated.
A careful reading of the above Section will show that
the Section contemplates different independent
situations/circumstances enabling the landlord to apply for
eviction of a tenant. Those different and independent
situations/circumstances can be set out as follows:-
“(1) When the tenanted premises are
required by the landlord to carry
out any building work at the
instance of the Government or local
authority or any Improvement Trust
under some improvement or
development scheme; or
(ii) When the tenanted premises
have become unsafe or unfit for
human habitation; or
(iii) When the tenanted premises
are required bona fide by the
landlord for carrying out
repairs which cannot be carried out
without such tenanted premises
being vacated; or
(iv) When the tenanted premises are
required bonafide by the landlord
for purposes of building or
rebuilding or making thereto any
substantial additions or
alterations and that sch building
or rebuilding or addition or
alteration cannot be carried out
without the building or rented land
being vacated.”
From the above analysis, it will be seen that the
condition of the building is required to be considered when
the application falls under the above mentioned Category
(ii). Admittedly, the application for eviction in the
present case falls under Category (iv) and there is no
requirement in such cases to go into the condition of the
building. It is true that this Court has held that the
requirement of the condition of the building is a vital
factor whether such requirement is specifically stated in
the Section or not It must be remembered that the decision
of this Court was rendered while interpreting Section
14(1)(b) of the Tamil Nadu Act which is not in pari materia
with the Himachal Pradesh Act. In other words, there are no
different categories as set out above in the Tamil Nadu Act
as in Himachal Pradesh Act.
In addition to the above, as found by the Appellate
Authority, the lease was with reference to land with a shed.
As a matter of fact, the appellant-tenant as RW-1 in his
chief examination has stated as follows:-
“The land in dispute was taken by
me on rent in 1973. This place was
100′ X 95′. The rent amount was
Rs. 250/- per month. This place
was given to me for workshop.”
As noted above, Section 14(3)(C) applies to tenanted
land as well and the tenant has not questioned the capacity
of the landlord to raise the construction or the bona fides
of the landlord to do so.
In the result, we do not find any ground to interfere
with the confirming order of the High Court. The appeal
fails and is dismissed with no order as to costs.
