( 2025:HHC:19856 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA Civil Revision No. 20 of 2023. Decided on : 25 th June, 2025. Sanjeev Kumar Saini & Ors. ...Petitioners. Versus Manjeet Singh & Anr. ....Respondents. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Satyen Vaidya, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioners: Mr. Sanjay Sharma, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Ashok Kumar, Advocate, vice Mr. Karan Singh Kanwar, Advocate. Satyen Vaidya, Judge (Oral). By way of instant petition, petitioners have assailed judgment dated 05.01.2023 passed by learned Appellate Authority-II, Sirmaur District at Nahan in Civil Misc. Appeal No. 2-N/14 of 2019, whereby the eviction order dated 06.04.2019 passed by the learned Rent Controller (2), Nahan in Rent Petition No. 5/2 of 2015 has been affirmed. 2. Respondents (hereinafter referred to as “the landlords”) filed a petition under Section 14 of the H.P. Urban Rent Control Act (for short “the Act) for eviction of petitioners (hereinafter referred to as “the tenants”) from a shop in the ground floor of the building standing constructed on land 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 ( 2025:HHC:19856 ) comprised in Khata Khatauni No. 257/364, Khasra No. 1852, measuring 25-16 square meters situated at Mohal Katcha Tank, Nahan (for short “the shop”). 3. Landlords had sought the eviction of tenants on following three grounds:- (i) Arrears of rent; (ii) Bonafide requirement for rebuilding and reconstruction; and (iii) bonafide requirement for use of son of the landlord. 4. It was averred that the tenants or their predecessors-in-interest had not paid the rent of the shop w.e.f. 1st January, 2002 till the date of filing of the petition. The petition was instituted on 04.09.2015. The rent was claimed @ Rs.400/- per month with statutory increase @ 10% after every five years from 1987 onwards. 5. It was also the case of the landlords that the building was constructed more that 80 years ago and it had outlived its life completely. The building was stated to be highly dilapidated and unfit for human habitation. As per the landlord, roof and walls of the building were in bad condition. The landlords required the building bonafide for the purpose of carrying out reconstruction after demolishing the old 3 ( 2025:HHC:19856 ) structure. It was also pleaded that the reconstruction could not be carried out without the shop being vacated. As per the landlords, the plan for reconstruction of building was sanctioned by Municipal Committee Nahan. 6. The landlords had further pleaded that after reconstruction of the building, the entire building would be required by the landlords for their bonafide use and occupation. It was specifically averred in the petition that after reconstruction, the shop will be occupied by landlord No.2 Karora Singh along with his sons Davinder Singh, Sandeep Singh and Gurpreet Singh, who are unemployed. 7. The landlords further submitted that they did not occupy or own any other residential or non residential building in the urban area of Nahan and they had not vacated such building within five years of the filing of the petition without reasonable cause. 8. The petition was contested by the tenants. The landlords were accused of suppressing material information. It was submitted that the landlords had been receiving the rent from the tenants as per their convenience. Petitioner Noi.1 had received a sum of Rs.10,000/- on 31.12.2013 and another sum of Rs.10,000/- was received by Shri Manjeet 4 ( 2025:HHC:19856 ) Singh on 07.11.2012. The rent was claimed to be Rs.75/- per month. The condition of the shop was stated to be good and habitable. The landlords were also alleged to be in possession of residential house at a distance about 200 yards from the shop. All other contents of the petition were denied in generality. 9. Landlords filed rejoinder denying the contents of the reply and reiterating the contents of the petition. 10. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed by the learned Rent Controller:- (1) Whether the respondents-tenants are in arrears of rent at the rate of Rs.300/- per month with statutory increase of 10$ from the year 1987 and they are liable to be evicted on this ground, as prayed for?OPP (2) Whether the demised premises have outlived its life completely and is in dilapidated condition and unfit for human habitation and the same is bona fidely required for carrying out reconstruction, which cannot be carried out without the disputed shop being vacated, as prayed?OPP. (3) Whether the demised premises are required by the petitioner No.2 for his bona fide use for running the business of diary, as prayed for? OPP (4) Whether the present petition has been filed deliberately concealing the true facts from the Court, as alleged?OPR 5 ( 2025:HHC:19856 ) (5) Whether the petitioner No.1 has been receiving the rent and received Rs.10,000/- on 31.12.2013 and a sum of Rs.10,000/- on 07.11.2012 from their predecessor Ram Swrup, as alleged?OPR. (6) Whether the demised premises was let out to the predecessor of respondents on monthly rent of Rs.75/- per month, as alleged?OPR (7) Whether the present petition has been motivated with greed and intention to compel the respondents to pay exorbitant rent, as alleged?OPR (8) Whether the site plan so called sanctioned by the M.C. has been prepared against the true facts, as alleged?OPR. 9. Relief. 11. Issue No.1 was answered partly in affirmative, whereas issues No.2 and 3 were answered in favour of the landlords. Remaining issues were answered in negative. Petition was accordingly allowed on all three grounds. 12. The tenant assailed the order of eviction passed by the learned Rent Controller by filing appeal under Section 24 of the Act which came to be registered as Civil Misc. Appeal No. 2-N/14 of 2019 before the learned Appellate Authority-II, Sirmaur District at Nahan. The learned Appellate Authority has concurred with the findings recorded by the learned Rent Controller and has dismissed the appeal vide impugned judgment. 6 ( 2025:HHC:19856 ) 13. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the entire record carefully. 14. The revisional jurisdiction of this Court under Section 24(5) of the Act is limited only to rectify the palpable illegality or perversity besides errors of jurisdiction in the judgment/order passed under the Act. The revisional jurisdiction definitely cannot be extended by sitting as Court on appeal to re-appreciate the evidence unless the findings recorded by the Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority are found to be based on no evidence or so perverse that no prudent person will conclude in the manner as has been done in the facts of the case. Reference can be made to following extract from the judgment passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Kewal Krishan Sehgal & others vs. Rajeshwar Kumar & another, 2019 (1) Shimla Law Cases, 323:- “8. At the outset, the scope of revisional jurisdiction which Court can exercise must borne in mind, as the Constitution Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited vs. Dilbahar Singh (2014) 9 SCC 78 laid down certain broad principles for exercise of revisional jurisdiction which can be summarized as under: (i) The term ‘propriety’ would imply something which is legal and proper. (ii) The power of the High Court even though wider than the one provided under Section 115 7 ( 2025:HHC:19856 ) of the Code of Civil Procedure is not wide enough to that of the appellate Authority. (iii) Such power cannot be exercised as the cloak of an appeal in disguise. (iv) Issues raised in the original proceedings cannot be permitted to be reheard as a appellate Authority. (v) The expression “revision” is meant to convey the idea of much narrower expression than the one expressed by the expression “appeal”. The revisional power under the Rent Control Act may not be as narrow as the revisional power under Section 115 of the CPC but certainly it is not wide enough to make the High Court a second court of first appeal. While holding so the Court reiterated the view taken in Dattonpant Gopalvarao Devakate vs. Vithalrao Maruthirao Janagawal, (1975) 2 SCC 246. (vi) The meaning of the expression “legality and propriety” so explained in Ram Dass vs. Ishwar Chander, (1988) 3 SCC 131 was only to the extent that exercise of the power is not confined to jurisdictional error alone and has to be “according to law”. (vii) Whether or not the finding of fact is according to law or not is required to be seen on the touch stone, as to whether such finding of fact is based on some legal evidence or it suffers from any illegality like misreading of the evidence; overlooking; ignoring the material evidence all together; suffers from perversity; illegality; or such finding has resulted into gross miscarriage of justice. Court clarified that the ratio of Ram Dass (supra) 8 ( 2025:HHC:19856 ) does not exposit that the revisional power conferred upon the High Court is as wide as an appellate power to reappraise or reassess the evidence for coming to a finding -8- contrary to the findings returned by the authority below. (vii) In exercise of its revisional jurisdiction High Court shall not reverse findings of fact merely because on reappreciation of the evidence it may have a different view thereupon. (viii) The exercise of such power to examine record and facts must be understood in the context of the purpose that such findings are based on firm legal basis and not on a wrong premise of law. (ix) Pure findings of fact are not to be interfered with. Reconsideration of all questions of fact is impermissible as Court cannot function as a Court of appeal. (x) Even while considering the propriety and legality, high Court cannot reappreciate the evidence only for the purposes of arriving at a different conclusion. Consideration of the evidence is confined only to adjudge the legality, regularity and propriety of the order. (xi) Incorrect finding of fact must be understood in the context of such findings being perverse, based on no evidence; and misreading of evidence.” 9. In the aforesaid decision, the Hon’ble Supreme Court was dealing with the provisions of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965, T. N. Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 and Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973. The incongruity in the decisions rendered by 9 ( 2025:HHC:19856 ) the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rukmini Amma Saradamma vs. Kallyani Sulochana, (1993) 1 SCC 499 and Ram Dass (supra) was the backdrop in which the Constitution Bench was called upon to decide the scope of the revisional jurisdiction and the expression “legality and propriety” provided in the relevant statues. The essential question being as to whether in exercise of such powers, the revisional authority could reappreciate the evidence or not. Finally the Hon’ble Supreme Court answered the reference by making the following observations:- “43. We hold, as we must, that none of the above Rent Control Acts entitles the High Court to interfere with the findings of fact recorded by the first appellate court/first appellate authority because on reappreciation of the evidence, its view is different from the court/authority below. 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. In that event, the High Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction under the above Rent Control Acts shall be entitled to set aside the impugned 10 ( 2025:HHC:19856 ) order as being not legal or proper. The High Court is entitled to satisfy itself as to the correctness or legality or propriety of any decision or order impugned before it as indicated above. However, to satisfy itself to the regularity, correctness, legality or propriety of the impugned decision or the order, the High Court shall not exercise its power as an appellate power to reappreciate or reassess the evidence for coming to a different finding on facts. Revisional power is not and cannot be equated with the power of reconsideration of all questions of fact as a court of first appeal. Where the High Court is required to be satisfied that the decision is according to law, it may examine whether the order impugned before it suffers.” 15. Having gone through records, I do not find any illegality or perversity much less errors of jurisdiction in the impugned judgment. The findings of facts recorded by the learned Rent Controller are duly borne from the record. On such findings, the learned Rent Controller had shown his satisfaction as to the existence of bonafides of the landlords. 16. Record reveals that the bonafides of landlords were adjudged on the basis of Ex.PW1/A, which was the sanctioned plan of the building approved by the Municipal Committee Nahan. Landlord Manjeet Singh had examined himself as a witness. He was put to lengthy cross-examination 11 ( 2025:HHC:19856 ) but nothing material could be elicited by the tenants, which can be used in their favour. The site map, Ex.PW3/A was duly proved by PW-3 Amit Gautam. 17. On the other hand, tenant Sanjeev Kumar Saini examined himself as RW-1. In addition one Kamlender Singh (RW-2) was examined by the tenants and this witness had deposed that he was draftsman and had inspected the site of the shop. On the basis of site visit he had prepared the site visit report of 30.08.2017. According to this witness, the building was safe and habitable. Another witness Mohd. Aslam Sayed was examined as RW-3. He had identified signatures on receipts Exts. R-43 and R-44. In addition, three more witnesses, namely, S/Sh. Gaurav Pandit, Phool Singh and Pankaj Bhola were examined by the tenants to support their case. Taking into consideration the statements of RWs 4 to 6, the learned Rent Controller had observed that their statements were not sufficient to disbelieve the case of the landlords. 18. Learned Appellate Court has also affirmed the findings on facts recorded by the learned Rent Controller by re-appreciation of evidence. 12 ( 2025:HHC:19856 ) 19. Since, no illegality or perversity much less error of jurisdiction has been pointed out in the impugned judgment, no interference is required in exercise of revisional jurisdiction of this Court. 20. Lastly, learned counsel for the tenants has vehemently stressed that as per the amended provisions of the Act, tenants are entitled for right of re-entry after reconstruction of the premises. The contention of so raised also deserves to be rejected for the reason that in addition to the eviction having been ordered on the ground of bonafide requirement of reconstruction of shop, both the Courts have also simultaneously upheld the bonafide requirement of the landlords of the shop for their personal use after reconstruction. In such view of the matter, the tenants cannot avail the right of re-entry. 21. In result, there is no merit in the instant petition and the same is accordingly dismissed. (Satyen Vaidya) Judge 25th June, 2025. (jai)