2025:HHC:27050 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Civil Revision No. 202 of 2024 Date of Decision: 11.08.2025 Dalip Singh .....Petitioner. Versus Charanji Lal and Ors. …..Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Bipin Chander Negi, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Devender K. Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Praneet Gupta, Advocate, for respondents No.1 to 4. Mr. Inderjeet Singh Narwal, Advocate, for respondent No.5. Bipin Chander Negi, Judge The present petition has been filed against the judgement dated 03.09.2024 passed by the learned Appellate Authority (Mandi, H.P.) in Rent Appeal No.2 of 2024, whereby the learned Appellate Authority below has confirmed the eviction order dated 16.12.2023, passed by the learned Rent Controller (3) Mandi, District Mandi, HP in Rent Petition No.159 of 2013, titled Charanji Lal & Ors. Vs. Dalip Singh and others. 2. The present petitioner before this Court was the respondent before the Rent Controller. The facts, landlords had filed a rent petition under Section 14 of the H.P. Urban Rent Control Act, 1987 before the learned Rent Controller 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2 2025:HHC:27050 (3), Mandi, District Mandi, Himachal Pradesh seeking eviction from the tenanted premises- a shop situated on ground floor of the building located at 104/8, Darmyana Mohalla, Mandi Town, District Mandi, HP, was let out to respondent Dalip Singh, who allegedly sublet a portion of it to respondent No. 2, Chaman, without the petitioner- landlord’s consent, for a monthly rent of Rs.220/-. 3. The premises, claimed to be over 100 years old, is described as a dilapidated wooden and stone masonry structure without proper foundation, unfit for habitation due to cracks and structural instability. The landlord sought eviction on multiple grounds: (i) arrears of rent from May 2013 to October 2013 amounting to ₹1,320, along with a statutory 10% increase every three years, interest, and costs; (ii) illegal subletting to respondent No. 2; (iii) bona fide requirement for reconstruction of a multi-storey RCC building to enhance commercial utility, given its prime location in Mandi Town; and (iv) personal necessity for occupation. The tenant contested the petition, denying subletting and asserting that respondent No. 2 was merely an assistant, refuting claims of structural unsafety, and disputing the property’s location as being in the heart of the city. 3 2025:HHC:27050 4. The Rent Controller framed the following issues on 16.01.2016:- 1. Whether the respondent is in arrears of rent from May 2013 to October 2013? OPP 2. Whether the petitioners are entitled for 10% increase after every 3 years? OPP 3. Whether respondent No. 1 has subletted the premises to respondent No. 2 without the written consent and permission of petitioners? OPP 4. Whether the premises are bona-fidely required by the petitioners for the purposes of reconstruction/rebuilding, which cannot be carried out without the premises being vacated and demolished? OPP 5. Whether the premises are bona-fidely required by the petitioners for their own occupation? OPP 6. Whether the premises has outlived its life and has become unsafe for human habitation? OPP 7. Whether the petition is not maintainable, as alleged? OPR 8. Whether the petition is bad for misjoinder and non-joinder of necessary parties, as alleged? OPR 9. Whether the petition is not in accordance with the rules as framed under H.P. Urban Rent Control Act, as alleged? OPR 10.Relief. 5. After evaluating evidence, the Rent Controller partly allowed the petition on 16.12.2023, accepting the landlord’s plea for reconstruction and imposing use/occupation charges of ₹50,000/month. Aggrieved, tenant Dalip Singh appealed under Section 24 of the H.P. 4 2025:HHC:27050 Urban Rent Control Act, 1987, contending that the order was legally flawed, issues were improperly framed, evidence was mis-appreciated, and the occupation charges were unjustified. The appellate court concurred with the trial court’s decision which has now prompted the tenants to file the present revision. 6. Heard counsels for the parties and perused the impugned judgements. 7. The Rent Controller, after meticulously evaluating the oral and documentary evidence on record, held that the landlord had satisfactorily established the bona fide requirement for reconstruction under Section 14(3)(c) of the H.P. Urban Rent Control Act, 1987. The Controller noted that the premises, being over a century old, exhibited significant structural deficiencies, including visible cracks in the walls and roof, as substantiated by photographic evidence (Exhibits PW-1/F and PW-1/G) and the testimony of PW-3, Shri Tejinder Kaushal, an Architect and Structural Engineer registered with the Town and Country Planning Department. Shri Kaushal's expert testimony was particularly crucial, as he confirmed that the building, approximately 65-70 years old, was constructed with stone and wood and was no longer in a proper 5 2025:HHC:27050 condition. He unequivocally stated that the existing structure would need to be vacated and demolished entirely to facilitate the proposed reconstruction. The landlord also produced the sanctioned building plan (Exhibit PW-2/A) and the sanction letter issued by the Nagar Parishad (Exhibit PW-2/B), which further corroborated the feasibility and necessity of the reconstruction project. The building's prime location in the heart of Mandi town, currently yielding a meager rent of ₹242 per month despite its significant commercial potential, underscored the landlord's legitimate interest in redeveloping the property to maximize its utility and value. 8. While the tenant, Dalip Singh (RW-1), contested these claims by asserting that the building was structurally sound and only 60 years old, his testimony lacked supporting documentary evidence and was contradicted by the landlord's expert witness. The Controller further observed that the tenant failed to provide credible proof of regular rent payments, leading to the conclusion that he was in arrears, though this finding was secondary to the primary ground of bona fide reconstruction. The Appellate Authority further affirmed the Rent Controller's findings on the unsafe condition of the building, emphasizing that a 6 2025:HHC:27050 landlord need not wait for the structure to collapse before seeking eviction. 9. The landlord's evidence, including his sworn testimony, the architect's report, and the sanctioned building plans, adequately demonstrated the bona fide intention and practical steps taken toward reconstruction. In view of the aforesaid Both the Courts have concurrently and correctly held after assessment of the pleadings, evidence on record that the need of the landlord, in the case at hand, is bona fide for the purpose of rebuilding and reconstruction. It is well-settled that when an eviction is sought on the ground of rebuilding and reconstruction, condition of the building is not required to be gone into. For the aforesaid reasons, the findings returned by both the courts below in this respect call for no interference. 10. Moreover, the concurrent findings of both the Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority on the structural unsafety of the building are firmly grounded in evidence and consistent with settled law. The tenant's attempt to trivialize the building's condition by claiming it was "only" 60 years old ignores the objective evidence of deterioration and the landlord's statutory right to modernize the 7 2025:HHC:27050 property. I see no reason to differ with the view taken by both the Courts below. 11. Other than the aforesaid, in order to seek an eviction on the ground that the building in question has become unsafe or unfit for human habitation, a landlord does not have to wait for the building to collapse/crumble before seeking eviction of the tenant from the premises. Moreover, it is well settled that in case a substantial part of the demised building has become unsafe or unfit for human habitation, a tenant can be ejected from the demised premises forming part thereof, despite the fact that a particular portion in his possession or in the possession of the landlord may not be so. In this regard, a reference can gainfully be made to a Division Bench Judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Sardarni Sampuran Kaur vs. Sant Singh reported as AIR 1982 (Punjab and Haryana) 245, wherein the aforesaid had been laid down while considering pari- materia provisions under the concerned corresponding Rent Act. 12. Other than the aforesaid, the ground for eviction is that the building has become “unsafe or unfit” for human habitation and not “unsafe and unfit”. In this regard a 8 2025:HHC:27050 reference can also be made to case reported as 2014(1) SLC 47, titled as Deepak Boot House and another vs. Dr. Piyare Lal Sood (para 37 to 40). 13. In the present revision, the tenant's counsel reiterated the argument regarding the landlord's unproven financial capacity, but this Court finds no merit in the submission. The reliance on Civil Revision No. 122 of 2004, titled Shri SwaranRam Vand Anr. Vs. Shri Ram Dass Sharma (Deceased) through LRs and Ors., further negates the tenant's contention, as it explicitly recognizes the ease of securing financing in contemporary times. 14. Although the trial court’s order granting use and occupation charges at the rate of Rs. 5,000 per month at the time of passing the eviction order was impermissible under law, since only the Appellate Authority is empowered to do so under the H.P. Urban Rent Control Act—this Court, possessing the requisite jurisdiction, issued an order dated 21.06.2025. The Court directed the petitioner/tenant to deposit arrears of use and occupation charges at the rate of Rs. 5,000 per month, calculated from the date the eviction order was passed by the Rent Controller until the present. This order with the consent of the parties is confirmed and the tenant is hereby directed to continue paying the use and occupation charges at the specified 9 2025:HHC:27050 rate until he vacates the property in question. The use and occupation charges be regularly paid on or before the 7th of each month. 15. Accordingly, this Court concurs with the well- reasoned judgments of the Courts below. Therefore, present revision petition is dismissed. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, stand disposed of. (Bipin Chander Negi) Judge 11th August, 2025 (Gaurav Rawat)