JAGAT PAL DHAWAN versus KAHAN SINGH (DEAD) BY LRS. AND ORS.

Citation: [2002] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 301 · Decided: 21-11-2002 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R.C. LAHOTI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

JAGAT PAL DHAWAN 
A 
V. 
KAHAN SINGH (DEAD) IJY LRS. AND ORS. 
NOVEMBER 21, 2002 
[R.C. LAHOTI AND BRIJESH KUMAR, JJ.] 
B 
Rent Control and Eviction: 
Himachal Pradesh Urban Rent Control Act, 1987-Section 14(3)(c) and 
(5)-Eviction on ground of bonafide requirement for reconstruction of C 
building-Plea that the building in view of its age and nature of construction 
has outlived its utility-Denial of eviction by courts below--On appeal-Held, 
section 14(5) protects the interest of the tenant by guarding malafide evictions-
However, in the facts of the case, landlord has made out a case for eviction. 
Appellant-landlord filed suit under Section 14(3)(c) of Himachal D 
Pradesh Urban Ren( Control Act, 1987 on the ground of bonafide 
requirement for reconstruction of the tenanted building and thereafter 
shifting his residence therein. The building was more than 100 years old, 
constructed in mud mortar and slate roofing. Tenant-respondent 
questioned the bona fide of the landlord. 
E 
Trial Court dismissed the suit holding that requirement of the 
landlord could not be said to be bona fide as the building did not need 
reconstruction. First Appellate Court upheld the judgment of Trial Court. 
High Court, in revision denied eviction on the grounds that (i) once 
building is in good condition, the burden to prove need of reconstruction p 
is on the landlord (ii) the building plans were not approved by Municipal 
Committee, (iii) there js no evidence to show that neighbours having 
common walls with the building had consented to demolish and reconstruct 
the walls, and (iv) availability of funds for reconstruction was not proved. 
In appeal to this Court, appellant brought to the notice of the Court G 
the permission of Municipal Council sanctioning building plan, and filed 
documents showing availability of funds. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: I. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the landlord 
301 
H 
302 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2002] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 
A has clearly made out a case for eviction under Section 14(3)(c) of Himachal 
Pradesh Urban Rent Control Act, 1987 and denial of eviction of the 
respondent has occasioned failure of justice to the appellant. Relief of 
eviction as sought for could not have been denied to the appellant. There 
is no material available to hold that the landlord has something else in 
B his mind such as getting rid of the tenant without raising construction. 
Sub-section (5) of Section 14 of the Act protects the interest of the tenant 
by guarding against ma/a fide eviction. The tenant-respondent is directed 
to vacate the tenancy premises as the same are required bona fide by the 
landlord-appellant for carrying out building or rebuilding under Section 
14(l)(c) of the Act which cannot be carried out without the building being 
C vacated. (305-B, C; 307-E, F, G; 308-A) 
2. Section 14(3)(c) provides inter alia that a landlord may apply to 
the Controller for an order directing the tenant to put the landlord in 
possession of tenancy premises in case of any building or rented land being 
required bona fide by him for the purpose of building or rebuilding which 
D cannot be carried out without the building or rented land being vacated. 
E 
F 
G 
The provision does not have as an essential ingredient thereof and as a 
relevant factor the age and condition of the building. The provision also 
does not lay down that the availability of requisite funds and availability 
of building plans duly sanctioned by the local authority must be proved 
by the landlord as an ingredient of the provision or as a condition 
precedent to his entitlement to eviction of tenant. However, depending on 
the facts and circumstances of a given case, the Court may look into such 
facts as relevant, though not specifically mentioned as ingredient of the 
ground for eviction, for the purpose of determining the bona fides of the 
landlord. (305-C-E) 
P. Orr. and Sons (P) v. Associated Publishers (Madras) ltd., IJ 991 J 1 
SCC 301; Vijay Singh and Ors. v. Vijayalakshmi Ammal, 11996) 6 SCC 475; 
R. V.E. Venkatachala Gounder v. Venkatesha Gupta and Ors., 12002) 4 SCC 
437 and Harrington House School v. S.M lspahani and Anr., 12002) 5 SCC 
229; referred to. 
3. The locality where the premises are situated has, with the lapse 
of time, become a busy commercial locality. The structure of the building 
is more than 100 years old. It is in mud mortar and with slates' roofing. 
Instead of outdated two floor space, 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.