2002 5 SCC 229 directed that only on the valid revised renewed building plan being sanctioned by the companypetent authority, the order of eviction shall be available for execution.
Aggrieved, the appellant has filed these appeals.
The appellant examined an official of the Municipal Corporation, Shimla, in support of his case that a plan for rebuilding reconstruction had been sanctioned and also a Civil Engineer in support of his case that the building was in dilapidated companydition and required to be reconstructed.
Thereafter, the respondents filed the Civil Revisions before the High Court challenging the orders of the Controller and the orders of the Appellate Authority, and the High Court has in the impugned companymon order maintained the orders passed by the Controller and the Appellate Authority subject to the modifications mentioned in para 27 of its order.
The High Court further directed in the impugned order that the valid revised renewed sanctioned or approved building plan shall be produced before the executing companyrt whereupon the executing companyrt shall allow a reasonable time to the tenants for vacating the property and delivering possession to the landlord and till then the tenant shall remain liable to pay charges for use and occupation of the premises at the rate at which they were being paid earlier.
The appellant filed applications under Section 14 of the P. Urban Rent Control Act, 1987 for short the Act before the Rent Controller, Shimla, for eviction of the respondents from the building on grounds inter alia that he bona fide required the building for purposes of addition and alteration of the building or rebuilding.
The respondents filed appeals before the Appellate Authority, Shimla against the order of eviction but the Appellate Authority dismissed the appeals.
The respondents then filed the Civil Revisions before the High Court and by the impugned companymon order maintained the orders of eviction but relying on the decision of this Court in Harrington House School v. M. Ispahani Anr.
The Rent Controller after companysidering the oral and documentary evidence on record held that though the sanction plan of the building was number a requirement of the Act, it is a circumstance to establish the bonafide of the appellant to seek eviction for the purpose of rebuilding or reconstruction and also held that the building was old and the appellant was in the occupation of second floor of the building and for rebuilding or reconstruction, the respondents have to vacate the building and accordingly allowed the applications of the appellant for eviction of the respondents from the building.
The respondents filed their replies before the Rent Controller denying that the appellant required the building for additions and alterations or rebuilding.
The Rent Controller framed an issue as to whether the building was required bona fide by the appellant for rebuilding or reconstruction.
K. PATNAIK, J. Leave granted.
These are appeals against the companymon order dated 02.09.2011 of the High Court of Himachal Pradesh in Civil Revision Nos.179, 180 and 181 of 2008.
The facts very briefly are that the appellant let out shops in premises No.5 Cart Road, Shimla for short the building to the respondents.
This order of the Controller was challenged by the respondents in appeal but the Appellate Authority has dismissed the appeal.
The Controller has accordingly arrived at a satisfaction that the appellant bonafide requires the building for the purpose of building or rebuilding and has accordingly issued the direction in terms of sub section 4 read with clause c of sub section 3 of Section 14 of the Act to the respondents to put the appellant in possession of the building.
