LAWS(HPH)-1990-4-1

DEWAN CHAND BHALLA Vs. ASHOK KUMAR BHOIL

Decided On April 05, 1990
DEWAN CHAND BHALLA Appellant
V/S
Ashok Kumar Bhoil Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition by the tenant is against the order for his eviction passed by the Rent Controller and affirmed by the Appellate Authority under the Himachal Pradesh Urban Rent Control Act, 1971. Eviction was ordered on proof of the bona-fide need of the landlord for his own occupation and also on the ground that the tenant had been allotted a residence for his occupation by the Government. The Himachal Pradesh Urban Rent Control Act, 1987 (the Act for short) came into force during the pendency of the revision before this Court with retrospective effect from 17th day of November, 1971. The landlord does not press his claim for eviction on the ground of bona-fide need for the reason of the embargo contained in sub-section (6) of Section 14 of the Act. The landlord, however, seeks to sustain the order passed by the courts below on the ground mentioned in Section 14(3)(a)(iv) of the Act extracted below :

(2.) THE building involved in these proceedings belonged to one Meghnath and another and was in occupation of the revision petitioner as a tenant under them. The tenant was the Welfare Officer in the Accountant General's office in Himachal Pradesh. He was allotted a government accommodation in Shimla on 3.10.1979 and the occupied the allotted premises on 11.10.1979. The present landlord purchased the premises by a registered sale deed Ex.P-1 dated 23.9.1982 from Meghnath and another and issued Ex.P-3 notice to the tenant on 20.10.1982, to vacate the premises. The tenant had in the meanwhile by Ex. P-10 letter dated 11.10.1982 informed the Government that he intends to surrender the accommodation allotted to him on 30.10.1982. The accommodation allotted by the Government was accordingly surrendered by the tenant on 30.12.1982 and he reverted back to the building involved in these proceedings on the same day. The present petition for eviction was filed by the landlord on 2nd December, 1982. There is no dispute that the tenant was in occupation of the accommodation allotted by the government during the period 11th October, 1979 to 30th October, 1982. This court after the new Act came into force by order dated 28th April, 1989 called for a finding from the Rent Controller as to whether the accommodation allotted by the Government was reasonably sufficient for the requirements of the tenant. The Rent Controller after recording fresh evidence adduced by the parties has submitted a finding to this Court that the accommodation allotted by the Government was reasonably sufficient for the requirements of the tenant. Even though the tenant has filed objections no serious attempt is made to challenge the correctness of the finding. The very fact that the tenant was in occupation of the allotted premises for a period over three years for the residence of himself and his family is itself indicative of the fact that the accommodation allotted by the Government was reasonably sufficient for the requirements of the tenant.

(3.) IN a later decision of the Delhi High Court in Ganpat Ram v. Smt. Gayatri Devi, 1980(2) RCR 707, also the question raised related to the interpretation of Section 14(1)(h) of the Delhi Rent Control Act. In that case the landlord claimed eviction of the tenant Ganpat Ram on the ground that he had been allotted a residential quarter in Shahdara, Delhi. This fact was denied by the tenant. On the evidence, however, it was found that the tenant had obtained such an allotment and possession was also delivered to him. The mere fact he had later parted with possession, was held to be not sufficient to restore the protection of Rent Control Act to him. This decision of the Delhi High Court was upheld by the Supreme Court in Ganpat Ram Sharma v. Smt Gayatri Devi. Referring to this aspect of the matter, the Supreme Court stated as follows :