Prem Chand
Alias Prem Nath Vs. Smt. Shanta Prabhakar [1997] INSC 820 (17 November 1997)
A.S.
ANAND, K. VENKATASWAMI
ACT:
HEADNOTE:
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 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 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.
Back