1 ( 2025:HHC:18534 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Civil Revision No.1 of 2020 Date of Decision : 16.06.2025 Ashok Sharma …… Petitioner Versus Kanta Bhagat ……Respondent Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Bipin Chander Negi, Judge Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner : Mr. Suneet Goel, Senior Advocate with Mr. Vivek Negi, Advocate. For the respondent : Mr. Vaibhav Tanwar, Advocate. Bipin Chander Negi, Judge (oral) The present petition has been preferred against impugned order dated 05.10.2019, passed by the Appellate Authority, Shimla, in Rent Appeal No.36-S/14 of 2019, whereby the order passed by the Rent Controller, Shimla in Rent Case No.153-2 of 2012 on 12.06.2019 has been affirmed. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 3. The revisional jurisdiction to be exercised by this Court is definitely wider than that provided under Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code. However, it is a much narrower jurisdiction than that conveyed by the expression, “appeal”. In order to see the regularity, correctness, legality or proprietary of the impugned decision, this Court does not exercise powers as an appellate Court to re-appreciate or re-assess the evidence for coming to a 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 ( 2025:HHC:18534 ) different finding of fact. In this respect, it would be appropriate to refer to the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited vs. Dilbahar Singh, 2014(9) SCC 78. Relevant paragraph of the same is being reproduced here-in-below:- “43… … ... The consideration or examination of the evidence by the High Court in revisional jurisdiction under these Acts is confined to find out that finding of facts recorded by the Court/Authority below is according to law and does not suffer from any error of law. A finding of fact recorded by Court/Authority below, if perverse or has been arrived at without consideration of the material evidence or such finding is based on no evidence or misreading of the evidence or is grossly erroneous that, if allowed to stand, it would result in gross miscarriage of justice, is open to correction because it is not treated as a finding according to law.” 4. In the case at hand, respondent/landlord had filed a petition for eviction of the present petitioner in terms of provisions of Section 14(3)(d) of the Rent Act. The eviction was being sought on the ground of bonafide requirement of the son of the present respondent/landlord, who is stated to be an Engineer by profession. The eviction petition, in the case at hand, was filed on 08.10.2012. The son of the landlord/respondent had appeared as PW-3. He has categorically deposited in his deposition that after obtaining the requisite qualification, he had started working in Dubai. He has further deposed that he is well acquainted with typing, printing and graphics on Computer. At the time of his deposition, he was working with HPCL Electrica16.6.l Power Corporation at Jabli and earning a salary of Rs.15,000/- per month. 5. Uncertainty, in the job market/ present job, the fact that his parents are old aged, suffering from ailment (relevant treatment record produced) and the 3 ( 2025:HHC:18534 ) fact that he wants to start a practice relating to Computers, undoubtedly, postulates the element of need as opposed to a mere desire or wish. Moreover, the location of the demised premises in the case at hand is ideal, as it is located near Himachal Pradesh University, Government Offices and other Institutes, thereby creating a good potential for business. Based on the aforesaid & on appropriate appreciation of the evidence of the power of attorney holder of the respondent, i.e. Sh. K.L. Bhagat- PW-5, both the Courts below found the need of the respondent/landlord to be bona fide. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has made two fold submissions. The first submission is based on an admitted correspondence inter se the parties, i.e., Ex.R-13. The same is dated 27.06.2016. Based on the contents of the aforesaid correspondence written by the husband of the respondent (Sh. K.L. Bhagat, i.e. power of attorney holder of the respondent), it has been contended that the sole aim and intention of the respondent/landlord was to seek an enhancement in the rent and nothing more. In this respect, attention is further invited to the cross-examination of PW-5, i.e., Shri K.L. Bhagat (husband of the respondent/power of attorney holder of the respondent). 7. The second contention advanced on behalf of the petitioner/tenant being the lack of bonafide of the son of the respondent/landlord with respect to starting a proposed business in the tenanted premises as according to the petitioner, the son of the landlord in his deposition has stated that he would forgo his job only once when the premises are vacated. In this respect, attention of this Court has been drawn to the deposition of the respondent/landlord’s son Shri Rajesh Bhagat, PW-3. 4 ( 2025:HHC:18534 ) 8. The first contention raised by the petitioner is without merit in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in Surinder Singh Dhillon and Others vs. Vimal Jindal, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 713, wherein it has been held that the demand of increase of rent is wholly irrelevant to determine the bona fide requirement of the premises. Besides the aforesaid, neither re-appreciation nor re-assessment of evidence is permissible under a revisional jurisdiction. 9. Insofar as the second contention raised is concerned, the same also lacks merits in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in Raghunath G. Panhale (dead) by LRs. vs. Chaganlal Sundarji and Co., 1999 (8) SCC 1. Relevant extract whereof is being reproduced herein below:- “6. The word “reasonable”, in our view, connotes that the requirement or need is not fanciful or unreasonable. It cannot be a mere desire. The Word `requirement' coupled with the word reasonable means that it must be something more than a mere desire but need not certainly be a compelling or absolute or dire necessity. Aitken v. Shaw, (1933) S.L.T, 21; Novile v. Hordy, 90 L.J. Ch, 158. A reasonable and bona fide requirement is something in between a mere desire or wish on one hand and a compelling or dire or absolute necessity at the other end. It may be a need in presenti or within reasonable proximity in the future. The use of the word `bonafide' is an additional requirement under Section 13(l)(g) and it means that the requirement must also be honest and not be tainted with any oblique motive.” “11. It will be seen that the trial Court and the appellate Court had clearly erred in law. They practically equated the test of "need or requirement" to be equivalent to "dire or absolute or compelling necessity". According to them, if the plaintiff had not permanently lost his job on account of the lock-out or if he had not resigned his job, he could not be treated as a person without any means of livelihood, as contended by him and hence not entitled lo an order for possession of the shop. This lest, in our view, is not the proper test. A landlord need not lose his existing job nor resign it nor reach a level of starvation to contemplate 5 ( 2025:HHC:18534 ) that he must get possession of his premises for establishing a business. The manner in which the courts have gone into the meaning of "lock-out" in the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 appears to us to be nothing but a perverse approach to the problem. One cannot imagine that a landlord who is in service should first resign his job and wait for the unknown and uncertain result of a long drawn litigation. If he resigned his job, he might indeed end up in utter proverty. Joblessness is not a condition precedent for seeking to get back one's premises. For that matter assuming the landlord was in a job and had not resigned it or assuming that pending the long drawn litigation he started some other temporary water business to sustain himself, that would not be an indication that the need for establishing a grocery shop was not a bona fide or a reasonable requirement or that it was motivated or was a mere design to evict the tenant. It is not necessary for the landlord to adduce evidence that he had money in deposit in a Bank nor produce proof of funds to prove his readiness and willingness as in a suit for specific performance of an agreement of sale of immovable property. So far as experience is concerned, one would not think that a grocery business was one which required extraordinary expertise. It is, therefore, clear that the entire approach of both the Courts was absolutely wrong in law, and perverse on fact. Unfortunately the High Court simply dismissed the writ petition filed under Article 227 stating that the findings were one of fact. That is why we think that this is an exceptional case calling for interference under Article 136 of the Constitution of India.” 10. No other contention has been raised. In view of the above terms, the present petition is dismissed, so also, the pending application(s), if any. (Bipin Chander Negi) June 16, 2025 (KS) Judge