Himachal Pradesh Urban Rent Control Act, 1987 – Section 24(5) – Eviction – Bonafide – The petitioner-tenant contests the eviction based on suppression of facts by the landlord and asserts that the landlord’s claim of bonafide requirement is unsubstantiated. The petitioner argues that the original tenant’s legal heirs were not joined as parties and challenges the jurisdiction of the Appellate Authority to thoroughly examine the evidence.
The tenant contends that the landlord’s claim of needing the premises for personal use is not valid, as the landlord possesses ample accommodation elsewhere. Additionally, it is argued that the Appellate Authority failed to exercise its jurisdiction by not thoroughly reviewing the evidence. The tenant relies on the Supreme Court’s ruling in “Manjula and others vs. Shyamsunder” to support the contention that the appellate court must provide reasoning for its decision.
In response, the landlord argues that the availability of funds is irrelevant to the case, as the eviction is sought for personal use, not for reconstruction or repair of the premises. It is further contended that both the Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority correctly assessed the evidence, and their findings are based on proper appreciation of facts.
The court examines the scope of revisional jurisdiction, referencing the Supreme Court’s decision in “Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited vs. Dilbahar Singh,” emphasizing that revisional jurisdiction is not tantamount to appellate jurisdiction. The court underscores that revisional courts can only interfere if the lower court’s decision suffers from procedural illegality, irregularity, or perversity, but not to re-assess facts.
In evaluating the case, the court finds that the non-joinder of necessary parties was not adequately proven by the tenant. Additionally, the court determines that the landlord’s need for the premises for personal use is valid, considering the lack of evidence of alternate accommodation for the tenant. The court upholds the eviction order, stating that the lower courts properly considered the evidence and correctly applied the law.(Para 24)
HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH
2023 STPL(Web) 290 HP
[Latest HLJ 2023 (HP)(2) 1454 = 2023 HHC 12954]
Shah Mohammad Vs. Puran Chand Dogra
Civil Revision No. 57 of 2021-Decided on 4-11-2023
https://stpllaw.in/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/2023-STPLWeb-290-HP.pdf
