Holding

The condition of the building is only a factor when eviction is sought because the premises are unsafe or unfit for habitation; it is not required for a bona fide requirement for building or rebuilding, so the appeal is dismissed.

Summary

The landlord filed an eviction petition under Section 14(3)(c) of the Himachal Pradesh Urban Rent Control Act, 1987, claiming the tenant defaulted on rent and that the premises were needed bona fide for building or rebuilding. The Rent Controller dismissed the petition for lack of evidence about the building's condition. The Appellate Authority reversed that decision, allowing eviction, and the High Court affirmed the reversal. On appeal, the Supreme Court examined whether the condition of the building must be considered when eviction is sought on the ground of bona fide requirement for building/rebuilding. It held that the building's condition is relevant only when eviction is based on the premises being unsafe or unfit for habitation, not for the bona fide rebuilding ground. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed and the High Court's order upheld.

Issues considered

Whether the condition of the building must be examined when an eviction petition is filed under Section 14(3)(c) on the ground of bona fide requirement for building or rebuilding.
Whether Section 14(3)(c) of the Himachal Pradesh Urban Rent Control Act, 1987 applies to tenanted land with a shed.

Legislation cited

Himachal Pradesh Urban Rent Control Act, 1987s. 14(3)(c)

Subjects

rent controlevictionbona fide requirementbuilding conditionSection 14(3)(c)Himachal Pradeshlandlord-tenantleaseunsafe premises

Judgment

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.
VijaySingh & Ors. v. Vijayalakshmi Ammal, 11996[ 6 SCC 475, referred
to.

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 2514of1997.
D
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.] J45

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 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 B
the petition.

The respondent-landlord aggrieved by the dismissal of the eviction
petition preferred C.M. A. NO. 20-8/14of1990 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 C
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 Mela/ware
& Co. case rendered interpreting Section 14(1) (b) of the Tamil Nadu Rent
Control Act may not apply to the relevant provision in the Himachal Pradesh D
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, E
it is all the more reason that the Rent Controller was not right in applying the.
decision of this Court in Meta/ware & 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
F
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, G
reiterated that the ruling of this Court in Meta/ware & Co. case which has
been considered in a recent Constitution Bench judgment of this Court in
Vijay Singh & Ors. v. 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 Meta/ware & Co. case will not apply to the facts of this case. H
146 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1997] SUPP. 5 S.C.R.

A 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 I4(3) (c) of the Act there is no warrant
for contending that the condition of the building was s\ne qua non for
ordering eviction of the tenant from the building.

B 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
(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
D 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 purpose of building or re-building or making there to 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
E
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
F situations/circumstances can be set out as follows:-

"(i) 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
G
(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
H tenanted premises being vacated; or
•

PREM CHAND ALIAS PREM NA TH v. S. PRABHAKAR [K. VENKATASWAMI,J.] 147

- (iv) When the tenanted premises are required bona fide by the landlord
for purposes of building or rebuilding or making thereto any substantial
additions or alterations and that such building or re-building or addition
A

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 B
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 C
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.
D
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 E
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 jides of the landlord to do so.
F
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.

S.V.K.I. Appeal dismissed.