Himachal Pradesh Urban Rent Control Act, 1987 – Section 14(4) – Eviction – Bonafide requirement – Revision against eviction order – Held: There is no dispute with the proposition that the landlord is the best judge of his requirement, which in facts of a particular case may including the suitability also. It is evident from the record that though the landlord had received the possession of residential premises in the same building from Sh. Onkar Shad before the passing of eviction order by the learned Rent Controller, the said fact was not brought to the notice of learned Rent Controller and for such reason, the factum of landlord having received possession of another residential premises in the same building was not made the subject matter of consideration either to adjudge the bonafides of landlord or the suitability of the premises. The similar situation remained before the learned Appellate Authority.
It cannot be said that on suitability of a premises for personal bonafide requirement, the landlord has the last word. The question of suitability has to be decided by the Court on objective parameters when it is disputed. In the given facts and circumstances, when the learned Rent Controller had not been provided with the material to make a comparative assessment as to the alleged suitability of landlord, an important aspect of the matter has remained un-addressed and in absence of any adjudication on the issue, the right of tenant is likely to be prejudiced in all probabilities. The document placed on record along with said application and rejoinder filed with the application are taken on record as additional evidence.
The matter is remanded back to the learned Rent Controller to decide the petition afresh by considering the additional evidence, as taken on record. (Para 10 to 13)
HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH
2023 STPL(Web) 136 HP
Neelam Singha Vs. J.B.S. Bawa
Civil Revision No. 54 of 2021-Decided on 4-9-2023
https://stpllaw.in/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/2023-STPLWeb-136-HP.pdf
