Himachal Pradesh High Court
Lalita Sharma (Since Deceased) Through ... vs Lt. Col. Kawal Bir Makin on 11 November, 2019
Author: Sureshwar Thakur
Bench: Sureshwar Thakur
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Civil Revision No. 88 of 2015.
Reserved on : 5th November, 2019.
.
Date of Decision: 11th November, 2019.
Lalita Sharma (since deceased) through her legal heirs ......Petitioners/tenants.
Versus Lt. Col. Kawal Bir Makin ...Respondent/landlord.
Coram The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sureshwar Thakur, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting? Yes.
For the Petitioners: Mr. Mahesh Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondent: Mr. Y.P. Sood, Advocate.
Sureshwar Thakur, Judge.
The tenant(s), in, the demised premises, known, as 10/100, Green Cottage Pursharthi Basi, Shimla, was/were, under, concurrent verdicts recorded, respectively, upon, eviction petition No. 8/2 of 2009, and, upon, Rent Appeal No. 10-S/13(b) of 2014, hence, respectively by the learned Rent Controller, Court No. II, Shimla, and, the latter, by, the learned Appellate Authority (II), Shimla, hence ordered to be evicted, from, the demised premises.
::: Downloaded on - 15/11/2019 20:23:59 :::HCHP 22. The tenant becoming aggrieved therefrom, hence, cast a challenge thereon, through, constituting the extant civil revision petition before this Court.
.
3. Both the learned courts below, upon, cogent evidence becoming adduced, vis-a-vis, the pleaded statutory grounds, and, obviously, upon, the consonant therewith hence formulated rather apposite issues, (a) and, respectively appertaining, to, the bonafide requirement, of, the landlord, to, validly seek valid eviction, of, the tenant, from the demised premises, and, sparked from, his, (b) dire necessity of maintaining, an, attendant, for, the latter tending, to, his personal needs; (c) arising from his retiring, as, a colonel, from, the Indian Army, whereat he was also accustomed, to, the services, of, a batman, (d) and, hence, the afore requisite attendance(s), vis-a-vis, all his personal needs, now also becoming imperatively, for, beingattended, upon, by, a servant, hence stood espoused to leverage, in him, a befitting bonafide statutory ground, to seek eviction, of, the tenant from the demised premises (e) besides, he also strived, for, the eviction, of, the tenant, upon, the further ground, vis-a-vis, the tenant, rather, in, the vicinity of the demised premises, acquiring or taking on rent, a, rented premises, hence both commodious, ::: Downloaded on - 15/11/2019 20:23:59 :::HCHP 3 and, suitable for the relevant purposes, hence, rendered findings thereon, vis-a-vis, the, landlord.
4. The learned counsel appearing, for, the aggrieved .
tenant(s), makes a vociferous address before this Court, vis-a-
vis, the afore findings becoming stained, with, an aura of invalidities, as, (a) the afore initial ground reared, in, the eviction petition, and, appertaining to, the afore bonafide personal need, of, the landlord, rather becoming stained with, an, aura of malafides, (b) given, the landlord, in, the vicinity, to, the demised premises, letting out, hence, premises, to, a hosiery store, and, his also intending, to, upon, eviction of the tenant, from, the demised premises, make alike therewith lettings; (c) the accommodation, as, occupied by the landlord being sufficient, for, even keeping therewithin, an attendant, for, the latter attending, vis-a-vis, all the personal needs, and, cares, of, the landlord; (d) the landlord, holding premises, hence, alternative to the demised premises, rather in Kaithu, and, the latter premises, being sufficient, and, commodious or suitable, for, the occupation, of, the landlord, and, also for his maintaining, in, the servant quarters attached thereto, all the requisite staff, for, the latter taking care, of, his personal needs.
::: Downloaded on - 15/11/2019 20:23:59 :::HCHP 45. However, the afore espousal reared, before this Court, by the tenant, are, extremely frail, (a) as, the landlord has adduced befitting cogent evidence, vis-a-vis, his afore .
bonafide requirements, vis-a-vis, the demised premises, (b) and, with this Court, making a verdict, upon, Civil Revision No. 127 of 2008, titled as Prabhdeep Singh vs. Kanta and others, has, upon making an interpretation, of, the apt statutory provisions, borne, in, Section 14(3)(a)(i) of the H.P. Urban Rent Control Act, (c) more particularly, vis-a-vis, the connotation carried by the phrase "he requires it for his own occupation" as, occurring therewithin, (d) hence has ascribed qua therewith a signification, qua, it, also enveloping therewithin, the hereat strived, for, hence, bonafide requirement also, of, the landlord, and, conspicuously appertaining, vis-a-vis, the demised premises, becoming required, to hence, house therein, his staff or servants, (e) given his, afore requirement becoming evidently imperative, it spurring, from, his status. Consequently, the staff or servants, upon, whose services, the landlord, is, dependent, reiteratedly do fall within the ambit, of, the statutory phrase "he requires it for his occupation", (f) and, hence also render the landlord hence empowered, to, within the domains, and, ambits thereof, ::: Downloaded on - 15/11/2019 20:23:59 :::HCHP 5 plead and prove, the afore bonafide requirements, vis-a-vis, the demised premises emphatically, when, his dependence, upon, them also enables him to make provisions, for, theirs becoming .
housed, in the demised premises, (g) thereupon, concomitantly, the eviction of the tenant from the demised premises, on, the afore bonafide personal need, of, the demised premises, of, the landlord, hence, becomes obviously validly pleaded, and, also hence validly proven. Since, the revisionists/tenants, though, attempted, to, scuttle the vigour, of, the requisite evidence, as, adduced, vis-a-vis, the afore pleaded ground, through, his counsel rather meteing suggestion to the landlord, during, the course of the latter's cross-examination, (h) nonetheless, the entire suggestions, as, surface(s) therewithin, hence only unfold qua the landlord, not requiring, the, services, of, an attendant, besides when no evidence stands adduced, by the tenant, qua, during, the course, of, the landlord being employed, as, a Colonel in the Indian Army, his, not standing provided, with, the services of a batman, (i) and, hence after his superannuation, from, the Indian Army, his being fully capacitated, to, attend, to, his all personal needs, and, cares, dehors, hence his deploying, a, servant, (j) thereupon, the pleaded, and, proven espousal, of, the landlord, vis-a-vis, his ::: Downloaded on - 15/11/2019 20:23:59 :::HCHP 6 afore bonafide requirement, qua, the demised premises, becomes reinforcingly proven.
6. Be that as it may, the learned counsel, appearing .
for the revisionists/tenant(s) has yet continued, to make, a contention before this Court (a) that the afore pleaded ground, despite, becoming proven by evidence concurrent therewith becoming adduced, becomes rather colourable, and, also a malafide ground, given (b) the required servant being amenable for being housed, within, the accommodation, as, extantly held by the landlord, (c) and, also, upon, a further ground qua the landlord holding an alternative accommodation, wheretowhich servant quarters are attached, and, wherein the servants deployed, by the landlord, can hence become housed. However, the afore pleaded vitiatory ground, hence, for staining, the, proven requirement, of, the demised premises, hence, by the landlord, rather becomes both unbefitting besides illegal, (d) given the paramount legal expostulation enshrined, in, a plethora, of, judgments, rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court, rather carrying vivid echoings, vis-a-vis, the landlord being, the, statutorily rather sole repository, of, making determination(s), vis-a-vis, his bonafide needs, (e) and, rather the tenant becoming de-
::: Downloaded on - 15/11/2019 20:23:59 :::HCHP 7facilitated to determine, the, needs, and, requirements, of, the demised premises, rather for his bonafide needs, hence, by the landlord. Consequently, the, afore purported vitiatory grounds, .
hence, purportedly staining, the, afore pleaded, and, proven ground, are, rudderless, and, are amenable, for, rejection.
7. Further thereonwards, the learned counsel appearing for the aggrieved tenant, has also, proceeded, to, contend (a) that the pleaded secondary statutory ground(s), and, appertaining, to, the tenant acquiring premises alternative, to, the demised premises, and, in close vicinity, vis-a-vis, the latter, and, also hence alternative, to, the demised premises, hence, tenanted premises, being sufficient, for, the relevant purpose, (b) and, obviously whereon findings, vis-a-vis, the landlord become concurrently rendered, (c) rather being amenable for interference, (d) as, the acquisition, of, premises alternative to the demised premises, hence, by the tenant rather occurred much prior, to, the institution, of, the eviction petition, and, obviously, hence, with an immense procrastinated period of time, besides, with, a, prolonged period, of, time, hence, evidently surging forth, rather to elapse, since the afore acquisition, becoming, made by the tenant, and, upto the filing of the eviction petition, (e) hence, the landlord ::: Downloaded on - 15/11/2019 20:23:59 :::HCHP 8 becoming estopped to plead the afore ground, given, his thereupon acquiescing, vis-a-vis, the acquisition of accommodation alternative, to, the demised premises, hence, .
by the tenant, being unsuitable, and, incommodious, for, all the relevant purpose(s).
8. However, even the afore made submission, before this Court, is, straight way rejected, (a) as, the bonafide requirement of the demised premises, by the landlord, is, a, continuing, and, a recurring cause of action, and, remains enlivened, (b) unless pleadings, and, the cogent evidence, in concurrence therewith, becomes adduced, and, makes displays, qua, the landlord not immediately subsequent, to his superannuation, from Indian Army, instituting, the, eviction petition, upon, the afore ground, before the Rent Controller concerned. However, the afore evidence is amiss, and, consequences therewith, (c) are, qua, even if, during the life time, of, the father of the landlord, the, apposite alternative accommodation, became acquired by the tenant, (d) and, also assumingly, the predecessor-in-interest of the landlord, omitted, to, during his life time, on the afore ground, hence, seek eviction of the tenant, from the extant demised premises,
(e) and, rather hence no valid legal estoppal nor any valid ::: Downloaded on - 15/11/2019 20:23:59 :::HCHP 9 barring acquiescence, becoming visited, upon, the landlord, as, upon, his superannuation, his rather, for, the aforesaid reasons, hence, proving his aforestated bonafide requirement, .
vis-a-vis, the demised premises.
9. Lastly, the learned counsel appearing, for, the tenant contended, that, even otherwise, the, extant petition, as, constituted, before this Court, by the successors-in-interest, of, the original tenant, one D.D. Sharma, and, whose demise occurred, during the pendency, of, Rent Appeal No. 10-S/13 of 2014, and, whereat he become substituted, by the petitioner herein, and, the proforma respondent herein, who, respectively are his widow, and, his son, (i) as their substitution is limited, only for, a continuation, of, the lis, (ii) as, upon, the demise of their predecessor-in-interest, the, original tenant, one D.D. Sharma, both afore not inheriting the apt tenancy(ies), rendering hence, the extant petition being mis-constituted. In his making the afore submission, he, has rested, it, upon, a decision, rendered by this Court, in, C.R. No. 147 of 2007, titled, as, Gurdev Singh vs. Khuswant Mallick & another ,
(iii) however, therein this Court, had, while meteing, a, interpretation to the statutory phrase "tenant", occurring in ::: Downloaded on - 15/11/2019 20:23:59 :::HCHP 10 Section 2(j) of the H.P. Urban Rent Control Act, provisions whereof stand extracted hereinafter:-
(j) "tenant" means any person by whom or on whose account rent is payable for a building or rented land and .
includes a tenant continuing in possession after termination of the tenancy and in the event of the death of such person such of his heirs as are mentioned in Schedule-I to this Act and who were ordinarily residing with him at the time of his death, subject to the order of succession and conditions specified, respectively in Explanation-I and Explanation-II to this clause, but does not include a person placed in occupation of a building or rented land by its tenant, except with the written consent of the landlord, or a person to whom the collection of rent or fees in a public market, cart- stand or slaughter house or of rents for shops has been farmed out or leased by a municipal corporation or a municipal committee or a notified area committee or a cantonment board. Explanation-I.- The order of succession in the event of the death of the person continuing in possession after the termination of his tenancy shall be as follows:-
(a) firstly, his surviving spouse;
(b) secondly, his son or daughter, or both, if there is no surviving spouse, or if the surviving spouse did not ordinarily live with the deceased persons as a member of his family upto the date of his death;
(c) thirdly, his parent(s), if there is no surviving spouse, son or daughter of the deceased person, or if such surviving spouse, son, daughter or any of them, did not ordinarily live in the premises as a member of the family of the deceased person upto the date of his death ; and
(d) fourthly, his daughter-in-law, being the widow of his pre-deceased son, if there is no surviving spouse, son, daughter or parent(s) of the deceased person or if such surviving spouse, son, daughter or parent (s), or any of them, did not ordinarily live in the premises as a member ::: Downloaded on - 15/11/2019 20:23:59 :::HCHP 11 of the family of the deceased person upto the date of his death;
Explanation-II.-The right of every successor, referred to in Explanation-I, to continue in possession after the termination of the tenancy, shall be personal to him and .
shall not, on the death of such successor, devolve on any of his heirs; and
(k)"urban area" means any area administered by a municipal corporation, a municipal committee, a cantonment board, or a notified area committee or any area declared by the State Government, by notification, to be an urban area for the purposes of this Act.
Has concluded, vis-a-vis, the devolution, of, the statutorily contemplated, statutory tenancy(ies), being cumulative, vis-a-
vis, the statutorily enshrined legal heirs, and, obviously, the devolution, of, the statutory tenancy, vis-a-vis, all the enshrined statutory heirs, being not successive, (iv) and, thereupon, it concluded, qua, vis-a-vis, the grand son of the deceased, hence, original tenant, the apt statutory devolution, of, tenancy, not, becoming aptly bestowed. Contrarily, hereat, both the substituted legal heirs, of, the deceased original tenant, and, whose substitution occurred, during, the pendency of the Rent Appeal No. 10-S/13 (b) of 2014, rather obviously inherit, from, the predecessor-in-interest, the statutory apt bestowments, of, tenancy, and, only upon, their respective demises, their legal heirs, would become, statutorily, hence, forestalled, to, claim statutory tenancy(ies), vis-a-vis, the demised premises.
::: Downloaded on - 15/11/2019 20:23:59 :::HCHP 1210. For the foregoing reasons, there is no merit in the instant Civil Revision Petition, and, it is dismissed accordingly.
Consequently, the orders impugned before this Court are .
affirmed, and, maintained. All pending applications also stand disposed of. Records be sent back forthwith.
(Sureshwar Thakur) th 11 November, 2019. Judge.
(jai)
r to
::: Downloaded on - 15/11/2019 20:23:59 :::HCHP