Himachal Pradesh High Court
C.K. Baljee vs Susheela Joshi & Another on 24 September, 2025
Author: Vivek Singh Thakur
Bench: Vivek Singh Thakur
( 2025:HHC:33224 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Civil Revision No. 60 of 2022 .
Reserved on: 29.5.2025
Date of decision: 24.9.2025
C.K. Baljee. ....Petitioner.
Versus
Susheela Joshi & Another. ....Respondents.
Coram
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Vivek Singh Thakur, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting?1
For the Petitioner : Mr.Sumit Sood, Advocate.
For the Respondents : Ms.Seema Guleria, Advocate.
Vivek Singh Thakur, Judge
Petitioner/landlord has filed this Revision Petition under Section 24(5) of the Himachal Pradesh Urban Rent Control Act, 1987 against judgment dated 27.11.2021 passed by Appellate Authority (IV), Shimla in Rent Appeal No. 25-S/14 of 2020/18, titled as B.M. Joshi Vs. C.K. Baljees and Another, whereby order dated 21.4.2018 passed by Rent Controller (3), Shimla in case RBT No. 26-2 of 2017/11, titled as C.K. Baljees Vs. B.M. Joshi & Another, has been affirmed, however with modification that tenant has statutory right of re-entry after reconstruction and re-building of the premises in accordance with law.
1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes ::: Downloaded on - 24/09/2025 21:32:11 :::CIS 2 Civil Revision No. 60 of 2022
2. Landlord had filed Eviction Petition on 26.5.2011 against the tenants on the ground that premises in reference were let out to the tenants in the year 1974-75 on monthly rent of ₹532/- per month .
including M.C. Taxes and excluding electricity charges, on the ground that building is bonafide required by the landlord for the purpose of making substantial additions and alterations, which cannot be carried out without the premises being vacated as the landlord intends to convert two flats in each floor into a single modern type flat and also provide lift in the building by affecting material charges and for that purpose of existing walls are to be demolished to enable the landlord to make the construction up-to-date with better use for augmenting the income.
3. The petition was resisted by the tenants on various grounds by filing reply.
4. After completion of pleadings, issues were framed and thereafter parties lead evidence.
5. Appreciating the material on record Rent Controller vide order dated 21.4.2018 allowed the Rent Petition, directing the tenants to vacate the premises within a period of 3 months from passing of the order.
6. Respondents-tenants in the Rent Petition, B.M. Joshi and Sushila Joshi are husband and wife. Being aggrieved by the order dated 21.4.2018 tenant B.M. Joshi filed an appeal before the Appellate ::: Downloaded on - 24/09/2025 21:32:11 :::CIS 3 Civil Revision No. 60 of 2022 Authority on 29.5.2018 wherein Sushila Joshi was performa respondent.
After considering the material on record and contention of parties, Appellate Authority affirmed the findings of the Rent Controller on all .
issues, but with modification in Issue No. 2 to the extent that respondent has statutory right of re-entry after reconstruction and rebuilding in accordance with law.
7. Issue No. 2 framed by Rent Controller was that as to whether tenant was liable to be evicted on the ground of addition and alteration, which was decided in favour of landlord.
8. The landlord being aggrieved by the modification in the order passed by the Appellate Authority has preferred present Revision Petition. Whereas tenants have not assailed the said judgment.
Therefore, tenants have accepted the directions for eviction, directing them to handover the vacant possession to the landlord. Therefore, directions issued by the Rent Controller on the basis of findings returned in the matter have attained finality. However, modification ordered by the Appellate Authority is being agitated in present Revision Petition.
9. In the aforesaid facts, the issue involved in present case is whether in the given facts and circumstances, tenant is having absolute right of re-entry after reconstruction and rebuilding or not?
10. Learned counsel for the landlord has submitted that Rent Petition was preferred on 26.5.2011, whereas provision for re-entry of ::: Downloaded on - 24/09/2025 21:32:11 :::CIS 4 Civil Revision No. 60 of 2022 tenant was incorporated in the Rent Act through H.P. Urban Rent Control (Amendment) Act 2009 (Act No. 8 of 2012), which came into operation only from 16.3.2012 and, therefore, it has been contended that these .
provisions cannot be made applicable retrospectively prior to date of its introduction in the Act and thus, the modification by the Appellate Authority is contrary to law and illegal and thus not sustainable.
11. In alternative, it has been submitted that even if, for the sake of arguments, it is treated that amendment is applicable to all pending proceedings under the Rent Control Act or by applying the amendment retrospectively, then also the tenant has no absolute right of re-entry in all eventualities.
12. To substantiate the plea, learned counsel for the landlord has relied upon judgment dated 21.7.2023 passed in Civil Revision Nos.
69 and 70 of 2009, titled as Raj Singh Vs. Ram Shakti (deceased) through LRs. and connected matter, passed by Single Bench of the Hon'ble Chief Justice, wherein it has been held as under:-
"26) As regards the contention of the Counsel for the tenants that they are entitled to be re-inducted into the premises in view of the first proviso to Section 14(3)(c) of the Act is concerned, the said proviso, having been introduced by the Himachal Pradesh Urban Rent Control (Amendment) Act, 2009 (Act No.8 of 2012), it came into operation only from 16.03.2012. Since this provision introduces an amendment to the substantive law governing the rights of enants, it can only have prospective operation and cannot be made applicable to the instant case where eviction proceedings have started way-back in 2003.::: Downloaded on - 24/09/2025 21:32:11 :::CIS 5 Civil Revision No. 60 of 2022
27) Similar view has been expressed by this Court in Shri Jasvinder Singh & Another versus Shri Kedar Nath (2012) SCC Online HP 7470.
28) The decision in Chaman Lal Bali versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Another, AIR 2016 HP 168 cited by the counsel for the tenants, does .
not deal with this aspect at all, i.e. whether the amendment is prospective or retrospective. Therefore, the said decision is not applicable and the tenants cannot claim any right of re-entry on the basis of the said amendment."
13. Learned counsel for the landlord has also placed reliance on the judgment passed in Prem Lal Vs. Soma Devi, reported in 2020 r to (1) RCR (Rent) 371, wherein it has been observed as under:-
"31. Appellate Authority in terms of proviso to Section 14(3)(c) of the Act has granted right to re-entry to tenant, however, appellate Authority has failed to take notice that substantial additions and alterations proposed to be carried out in the premises will change the user of the premises, sought to be vacated by the landlord and it will be no more available for using by the family of tenant for residence or his business, as after alterations it shall be a parking space of the landlord. Therefore, I find that right to re-entry granted to the tenant is not possible after substantial additions proposed to be made in the building. It is also relevant to notice that under clause (c) of Section 14(3) of the Act, a landlord has been provided a right for eviction for 'building' or 'rebuilding' or making thereto 'any substantial additions' or 'alterations'. These are four different situations. An act of 'building' generally will be on vacant land, rebuilding will be after demolishing the building already in existence and substantive additions and alterations can certainly never be said to be 'rebuilding' but it will be change(s) in existing building or addition thereto according to necessity and suitability. In proviso right to re-entry has been conferred upon tenant to the premises in rebuilt building. This right will be available in case of re-building only but not in case of 'building' 'additions' or 'alterations' which changes the entire scenario on the spot. 'Building' activity will be ::: Downloaded on - 24/09/2025 21:32:11 :::CIS 6 Civil Revision No. 60 of 2022 upon vacant land vacated by tenant and after raising building thereon there is no question of providing area to tenant in it equivalent to area of land in his possession prior to building as there will be no such land available for re-entry and in fact it would not be re-entry but entry in .
newly constructed building. Similarly 'substantial additions and/or alterations' will also change the premises according to bonafide requirement for which eviction is ordered and in such eventuality it may not be possible to allow re-entry as this clause provide eviction for substantive addition or alteration but not for addition and alteration simplicitor and that is why legislature has provided re-entry only in case of rebuilt building. The proviso granting right to re-entry will not be applicable in present case, rather it is applicable in those cases where re-building is carried out in such a manner that user of the premises after re-building remains the same and it can be used for the same purpose. However, in present case, the premises is required bonafide altogether for a different purposes and after substantiate additions/alterations in the same for the said purpose, it would not be available for the purpose for which it was being used earlier. Therefore, right to re-entry granted by Appellate Authority is patently wrong, illegal and contrary to statutory provisions and thus is not sustainable and accordingly, it is quashed and set aside."
14. To substantiate the plea that after parting away with the possession of the premises in favour of landlord, tenant forfeits his right of re-entry, reliance has been placed on judgment dated 18.9.2017 passed in Civil Revision No. 79 of 2017, titled as Diwakar Dutt Kukreti Vs. EIH Associated Hotels Ltd. & Another, 2017 SCC OnLine HP 1435.
::: Downloaded on - 24/09/2025 21:32:11 :::CIS 7 Civil Revision No. 60 of 202215. Reliance has also placed on behalf of landlord on judgment dated 29.9.2023, Civil Revision No. 27 of 2023, titled as Prakash Kaur Vs. Rajwant Singh Manta, wherein this Court has observed as under:-
.
"14. So far right of re-induction or re-entry is concerned that shall be subject to and adherence to all provisions of law applicable and prevailing at relevant point of time for such reentry including determination of fair rent or rent mutually agreed between the parties as well as proposed user and utilization of the property by the landlord.
15. Right to re-entry of the tenant has been granted in the Act itself.
However, such right shall definitely is not to be an absolute right, as the Courts have to determine the same keeping in view the given facts and circumstances of the case including the purpose for which reconstruction/rebuilding of the premises has been proposed and permitted, and also keeping in view the bonafide requirement of the landlord. In case premises after rebuilding/reconstruction is to be rented, then definitely tenants shall have right to re-entry/re-induction in the premises, in accordance with law, as recorded hereinabove. For example, if premises is ordered to be vacated for banafide requirement of the owner to utilize the premises in better way by converting the residential building into a commercial complex, in such eventuality tenant living in residential premises may not claim re-entry or re-
induction in the newly constructed commercial complex for residential accommodation. Similarly, there may be a case where landlord intends to expand his business and shall have requirement of more space for commercial activity by rebuilding/reconstructing the premises. In such eventuality also, it may not be justified to impose a tenant upon him causing curtailment of his plan of extension of his business. In a given case, a building may be proposed to be reconstructed or rebuilt for own residential purpose with no proposal to let it out. In such eventuality, a tenant cannot be thrusted upon the owner of the premises by way of re-induction or re-entry in a house particularly designed and constructed in a manner that there is no scope for letting out portion ::: Downloaded on - 24/09/2025 21:32:11 :::CIS 8 Civil Revision No. 60 of 2022 thereof as existence of any other family in such premises may cause interference in privacy. Such re-entry/re-induction shall amount to depriving a person from his right of full enjoyment of his property for no fault on his part, but for the only reason that he or his predecessor had .
provided rented accommodation to someone in the past, as per circumstances prevailing at that time."
16. Similar observation have been made by this Court in Civil Revision No. 155 of 2019, titled as Rattan Chand Vs. Madhu Bharat Chadha & Another, decided on 21.3.2023.
17. Learned counsel for the landlord has also referred judgment dated 20.9.2024 passed by the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 3593- 3594 of 2024, titled as Rajesh Mitra @ Rajesh Kumar Mitra & Another Vs. Karnani Properties Ltd., wherein in para 21, it has been held that statutory laws operate from the date of their enforcement i.e., prospectively.
18. Learned counsel for the landlord by referring judgment of the Supreme Court in Kusum Devi Vs. Mohan Lal (dead) By. LRs.
(2009) 11 SCC 594, has submitted that once bonafide requirement of the landlord for own occupation stands established and a decree for eviction is granted under the relevant provision, it is well within the right of landlord to either move to the building without or after carrying out repairs and, therefore, it has been contended that keeping in view the ground on which eviction has been ordered in present case, tenant has no right of re-entry.
::: Downloaded on - 24/09/2025 21:32:11 :::CIS 9 Civil Revision No. 60 of 202219. Learned counsel for the tenant has submitted that tenant has a statutory right as provided under proviso to Section 14(3)(c) of the Rent Act after completion of re-construction or re-building of the building.
.
Reliance has been placed on judgment of learned Single Judge of this High Court in Sukh Dev Vs. Jai Gopal Sharma and others reported in Latest Himachal Law Judgment, 2014, supplement (3) 514, judgment dated 5.12.2012 passed in Civil Revision No. 77 of 2007 alongwith connected mattes, titled as Jasvinder Singh and another Vs. Kedar Nath & others and judgment dated 29.3.2013 passed in Civil Appeal No. 4127 of 2013, titled as Hari Dass Sharma Vs. Vikas Sood & others.
20. In Sukh Dev's case, it was held that tenant shall have a right in consonance with the provisions of Section 14(3)(c) of the Rent Act in demised premises after its re-building. It has been contended that in that case also right of re-entry of tenant was recognized by the Court even in the proceedings initiated prior to amendment introducing right of re-entry. Referring Jasvinder Singh's case, it has been submitted that benefit of re-entry is available to a tenant against whom eviction proceedings were pending at the time of introduction of right to re-entry in the Rent Act and thus it has been claimed that in present case also through Eviction Petition was filed in the year 2011, but the same has been decided after introduction of right to re-entry in the Rent Act.
::: Downloaded on - 24/09/2025 21:32:11 :::CIS 10 Civil Revision No. 60 of 202221. In Hari Dass Sharma's case, right of re-entry had been recognized by clarifying that it will be open to the tenant to apply for re-
entry into the premises in accordance with provisions of Rent Act.
.
22. Though, right to reentry has been recognized in aforesaid cases referred on behalf of tenant, but at the same time, with due respect to the judgments, it has nowhere declared or held that right of reentry of tenant is an absolute right, and in all eventuality he has to be allowed to reentry by the landlord. As already observed by this Court in Rattan Chand and Parkash Kaur's cases, the right of reentry shall be subject to certain restrictions and shall be subject to mutual agreement, if any, arrived at between the parties in terms of Rent Act.
23. In Rajesh Mitra's case the Apex Court has clearly held that introduction of amendment is applicable prospectively. Reading this pronouncement with judgment passed in Civil Revision No. 69 of 2009, it is apparent that right of re-entry cannot be claimed by the tenant for introduction of amendment in this regard in the year 2012 in a proceedings initiated prior to the amendment in reference.
24. In present case, it is not a case that landlord has proposed to reconstruct the building on the ground that it is dilapidated and unfit for human habitation and is required for re-construction on that count, but in present case landlord has proposed complete changes in the nature of construction by converting two flats into one set in the building and by ::: Downloaded on - 24/09/2025 21:32:11 :::CIS 11 Civil Revision No. 60 of 2022 providing lift. Therefore, it would not be possible to give right to re-entry to the tenant for occupying the same area, which he was occupying prior to reconstruction. No doubt in case landlord proposes to let out the newly .
constructed building or portion thereof on rent, then tenant shall have right of re-entry, but subject to provisions of Section 14(3)(c) of the Rent Act, which provides that such re-entry shall be subject to mutual agreement arrived at between the parties. In case landlord does not intend to rent out the premises or any portion thereof, the tenant shall not have any right of re-entry as a tenant.
25. In view of above discussion, modification by the Appellate Authority stands further modified and clarified in aforesaid terms.
26. The Revision Petition is allowed in aforesaid terms with direction to the tenant to handover vacant possession of the premises to the landlord within two months from today.
(Vivek Singh Thakur), th 24 September, 2025 Judge.
(Keshav) ::: Downloaded on - 24/09/2025 21:32:11 :::CIS