http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 4  

PETITIONER: PREM CHAND ALIAS PREM NATH

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: SMT. SHANTA PRABHAKAR

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       17/11/1997

BENCH: A.S. ANAND, K. VENKATASWAMI

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                       J U D G M E N T 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 in Metalware  And Co.  Ltd. etc.  Vs. Bansilal Sarma And Co. 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

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 4  

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 Singh &  Ors. Vs.  Vijayalakshmi Ammal  - (1996)  6 SCC 475, 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

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 4  

    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.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 4