PREM CHAND ALIAS PREM NATH versus SMT. SHANTA PRABHAKAR

Citation: [1997] SUPP. 5 S.C.R. 143 · Decided: 17-11-1997 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.S. ANAND · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

PREM CHAND ALIAS PREM NATH 
A 
v. 
SMT. SHANTA PRABHAKAR 
NOVEMBER 17, 1997 
[DR. A.S. ANAND, CJ., AND K. VENKATASWAMI, J.] 
B 
Rent Control & Eviction. 
Himachal Pradesh Rent Control Act. 1987 : Section 14(3)-Eviction 
petition-Bonafide requirem_ent of premises for building/rebuilding- C 
Dismissed by Rent Controller on the ground that there was no evidence 
regarding condition of building-Appellate Authority allowed the eviction 
petition-Confirmed by High Court-On appeal, held, condition of building 
is to be considered only when the eviction is on the ground that the premises 
has become unsafe or unfit for human habitation. 
D 
The respondent-landlord filed a suit for eviction of the appellant-tenant 
before the Rent Controller on the grounds that the appellant defaulted in 
payment of rent and the suit premises was bonafide required by him for the 
purpose of building/rebuilding. The Rent Controller relying upon the decision 
of this Court in Metal Ware and Co. Ltd etc.* dismissed the eviction petition E 
on the ground that there was no evidence regarding the condition of the 
building and consequent requirement of the premises for building/rebuilding. 
On appeal, the Appellate Authority by reversing the decision of the Rent 
Controller allowed the application for eviction. The appellant tenant filed a 
review petition before the High Court. The High Court while dismissing the 
review petition, confirmed the view taken by the Appellate Authority. Hence F 
the present appeal. 
Dismissing the appeal, this Court 
HELD : I.I. Section 14(3)(c) of the Himachal Pradesh Urban Rent G 
.I 
Control Act, 1987 contemplates four different situations/circumstances 
enabling the landlord to apply for eviction of a tenant, one such circumstance 
being that the tenanted premises had become unsafe or unfit for human 
habitation. The condition of building is required to be considered when the 
a~plication for eviction falls under the above category. In the instant case, . 
~e application for eviction was on another ground viz. that the tenanted H 
' 
143 
144 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1997] SUPP. 5 S.C.R. 
A premises was bona fide required by the landl_ord for the purpose of building/ 
rebuilding. Hence in this case there is no requirement to go into the condition 
of the building. j146-F-H; 147-A-CI 
1.2. Section 14(3)(c) applies to tenanted land as well. The appellate 
authority had found that the lease was with reference to land with shed. The 
B appellant-tenant has also admitted in his chief examination that the place was 
given to him for the workshop. Moreover, the tenant has not questioned the 
capacity of the landlord to rise the construction or the bonafidcs of the 
landlord to do so. 1145-E; 147-FI 
*Meta/ware and Co. Ltd etc. v. Bansi/al Sharma & Co. etc., 119791 3 
c sec 398, distinguished. 
D 
VijaySingh & Ors. v. Vijayalakshmi Ammal, 11996[ 6 SCC 475, referred 
to. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 2514of1997. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 5.11.96 of the Himachal Pradesh 
High Court in C.R. No. I of 1991. 
C.N. Sree Kumar for the Appellant. 
E 
Salman Khursheed, Rakesh Khanna, Ajay Garg and Surya Kanta for the 
Respondent. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
,, 
K. VENKAT ASWAMI, J. The respondent as a landlord of the suit 
F premisediled Case No.70/2of1987 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 
G 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 Appellate 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 ~overed by Section 14(3) (c) of the Himachal Pradesh Urban Rent 
H Control Act. 1987 (hereinafter called the Act.) 
PREM CHAND ALIAS PREM NA TH v. S. PRABHAKAR [K. VENKATASWAMI, J.] J 45 
The Rent Controller on the basis of evidence oral and documentary and A 
placing reliance on a judgment of this Court in Meta/ware and Co. Ltd., etc. 
V. Bansilal Sharma and Co. etc., [1979] 3 sec 398, found 

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