Dharam Chand Chaudhary, J. - (1.) CHALLENGE herein is to the order passed by learned Rent Controller (1), Shimla in an application under Section 65 of the Indian Evidence Act filed in Rent Application registered as case No. 48 -II/2010 -09. By way of producing secondary evidence, permission has been sought to prove the agreement dated 23.6.1992 allegedly executed by late Shri Amrik Singh, the previous owner of the demised premises.
(2.) THE landlord -applicant before learned Rent Controller is successor -in -interest of Shri Amrik Singh. The respondents, petitioners herein are the tenants being successors -in -interest of Shri Joginder Singh in whose favour the agreement in question was executed by late Shri Amrik Singh. The eviction of the petitioners -tenants has been sought on the ground that the building is required for the purpose of rebuilding and reconstruction. The agreement allegedly extends a right in favour of the petitioners -tenants qua their re -induction in the demised premises on its reconstruction on a fixed rate of rent. Learned Rent Controller below while dismissing the application has observed as follows: Otherwise also, this document is not very relevant. This application has been filed in the present eviction petition whereby eviction of the tenants has been sought on the two grounds i.e. premises in question is required by the landlord for her own bonafide use and occupation and that she intends to rebuild and reconstruct the same. I fail to understand that for deciding this controversy i.e. whether the eviction can be ordered on these grounds, how the contentions of this application as well as facts contained in the alleged agreement dated 23.06.1992 are relevant. The question whether applicants have any right to re -enter in the premises after it is rebuilt shall only arise after they are evicted from the premises on the ground that same is required by the petitioner for rebuilding and reconstruction purpose and further when premises would be rebuilt after such eviction. Applicants shall be at liberty to enforce their statutory right of re -entry in the newly constructed premises as per the frame work of law or on the basis of alleged agreement. I am of the considered view that this tribunal needs not enter in the controversial questions, whether late Sh. Amrik Singh had ever executed the alleged agreement during his life time or whether he was competent to do so or if such agreement was executed by him, whether same was binding upon the present petitioner, as all these questions are not relevant for deciding the real controversy between the parties. This Court is in agreement with the above observations more particularly that the question of re -induction of the petitioners -tenants in the demised premises on its reconstruction will only arise when their eviction is ordered and the building is reconstructed.
(3.) ABOVE -all learned Rent Controller has reserved liberty also in favour of the petitioners -tenants to enforce statutory rights of re -entry in the demised premises, if ultimately reconstructed after their eviction therefrom. Therefore, at this stage, they cannot be said to be aggrieved from the impugned order, in any manner, whatsoever. They can enforce their statutory right of re -entry at an appropriate stage, if need so arises by producing the evidence to prove the agreement in question. I, therefore, find no merit in this petition and the same is accordingly dismissed. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.;