CR/109/2014 of THAKUR DASS Vs SUNITA KUMARI on 31 December 2019

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA

Civil Revision No. 109 of 2014

Reserved on : 17.12.2019

Decided on : 31.12.2019

The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sureshwar Thakur, Judge.

Whether approved for reporting?[1 Yes. ]

For the Petitioner:Mr. Y.P Sood, Advocate.

For the Respondents:Mr. N.K Gupta, Advocate.

Sureshwar Thakur, Judge

The landlord/petitioner herein (for short “thelandlord”) instituted an eviction petition bearing No. 6-2 of2009 before the learned Rent Controller, Court No. (7),Shimla, H.P, wherethrough he seeks eviction, of, the tenant/respondent herein (for short “tenant”), from the demisedpremises (described in detail in Rent Petition), on, two 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

statutory grounds (a) in as much, as, hers falling into arrearsof rent, and, (b) the demised premises becoming bonafidelyrequired by the landlord for (i) ensuring, the, residing therein,of, his grandson, who provenly as unraveled, by, Ex. PW-3/A,being paraplegic, and, hence requiring his being carried in awheelchair, and, (ii) the demised premises rather holding allthe requisite facilities, for, his grandson becoming housedtherein. However, the learned Rent Controller ordered theeviction, of, the tenant, from, the demised premises, only onthe ground, of hers, falling into arrears of rent, yet it declinedto order, for, eviction of the tenant, from, the demisedpremises, on the afore latter ground, vis-a-vis, the landlordrequiring the premises, for, the use, of his afore paraplegicgrandson.

2. The aggrieved landlord hence constituted againstthe afore dis-affirmative order, as, made by the learned trialCourt, an appeal bearing No. 34-S/14 of 2013/12, before thelearned District Judge, Shimla, and, the latter Court, declined to make any interference, vis-a-vis, the verdict hence recordedby the learned trial Court, and, obviously hence recorded, a,verdict in affirmation thereto.

3. The landlord feeling aggrieved, from, the aforeorder(s), has constituted thereagainst, the, instant CivilRevision Petition, before this Court.

4. The learned counsel for the landlord, does notpress, for the initial ground, set forth, in the apposite evictionpetition, hence for seeking, the, eviction of the tenant, and,appertaining to hers falling, into, arrears of rent, becomingmeted any adjudication, as, he fairly submits before thisCourt, that, the entire quantum of arrears of rent, as becamedetermined, under, the impugned award, has becomedeposited, within, the statutorily ordained period of time.Consequently, the only surviving controversy, henceappertains, to, the validity of the declining(s), to, the landlord,the relief appertaining, to his striving to seek eviction, of, the tenant, from, the demised premises, on anvil, of his bonafidelyrequiring them.

5. A perusal of Ex. PW-3/A, makes palpable disclosures vis-a-vis the grandson of the landlord, becomingafflicted, with critical paraplegic, and, hence becoming driven,to, become wheelchaired.

6. However, both the Courts below declined reliefupon the afore referred ground, hence to the landlord, on theground, that, the premises adjoining, to the demised premises,becoming uncontrovertedly hence vacated within five yearsfrom the date of filing of the eviction petition, and, yetthereafter the afore vacated premises hence adjoining thedemised premises, rather becoming leased, by the landlord, toone Mr. G.S Adhikari, and, thereupon a conclusion becameformed, by both, the Courts below, vis-a-vis, the afore pleadedstatutory ground, becoming ingrained, with, malafides.

7. For the reasons to be ascribed hereinafter, the,declining of the afore relief to the landlord, does not suffer,

from any vice of any critical or any grave legal frailty, (i) asthough, it, became pleaded, in, the petition, vis-a-vis, thebonafide necessities, of, the paraplegic grandson, of, thepetitioner becoming housed in the demised premises, whereinrather apart from the facilities of toilet, kitchen and bathroom,being borne, it also hence holding, flush facility, imperatively,for facilitating, the, paraplegic grandson, of the petitioner,becoming housed therein, yet, (ii) it remained unpleadedtherein vis-a-vis, the afore facilities rather not existing, in, thepremises vacated within five years, from, the date, of, filing,of, the the eviction petition, and, whereafter, the aforevacated premises became leased, to, one Mr. G.S Adhikari,hence, by the landlord, (iii) thereupon the omission of rearings,of, the imperative apposite statutory ingredients, in, theapposite eviction petition, does obviously, tantamount, to,suppression of vital statutory facts, rendering hence, ingrainedthe petition concerned, with, a pervasive vice of malafide(s),(iv) conspicuously, when the afore cogent and unbelied evidence, hence unveiling qua breach becoming visited, upon,the apposite peremptory statutory ingredients, makes its,imminent unblemished upsurgings, whereupon, the landlordbecame disentitled, to, on the afore ground, hence seekeviction, of, the tenant.

8. Moreover, the landlord, has, not ensured, thehousing of his grandson, in the premises rather vacated withinfive years, from, the date of the eviction petition hencebecoming instituted, and, premises whereof became leased, to,one Mr. G.S Adhikari, by, the landlord, (a) thereupon, itappears qua his intending to vacate, the, demised premises,merely to coerce the tenant to enhance rent. In addition, thenormal principle hence governing, the, availment, of, the aforestatutory ground, as embodied, in, the landlord concerned,rather being, the solitary repository, of, his bonafiderequirement, vis-a-vis, the apposite demised premises, rathergetting both diluted, and, blunted.

9. In view of the above, the present petition standsdismissed, and, the impugned judgment rather not suffers,from, any gross mis-appreciation, of, evidence on record,hence, it stands affirmed. All pending applications standdisposed of accordingly.

31st December, 2019 ( Sureshwar Thakur ),(priti)Judge.