The landlords have companye up in appeal by special leave.
Having purchased the premises, the landlords initiated proceedings for the eviction of the tenant from the first floor premises by an application filed on 1.8.1980 before the Rent Controller under the Himachal Pradesh Urban Rent Control Act, 1971 the law as it was applicable then.
Ltd., 2000 4 SCC 285.
The tenant entered into occupation of the ground floor, as per the terms of the agreement, though the ground floor premises were number fit for human residence as per the version of the landlords itself.
The landlords agreed to create a new tenancy in favour of tenant respondent in respect of a room, a kitchen and a passage on the ground floor of the building with effect from 1.10.1986 on a monthly rent of Rs.30.
On 1st March, 1988, the landlords filed another application against the tenant respondent seeking his eviction from the ground floor accommodation in his possession.
Ramji Dass was carrying on his own business on the ground floor while the first floor was in occupation of the tenant, Dharam Dass, the respondent herein.
During the pendency of appeal before the Appellate Authority the parties entered into a companypromise which is recorded in the order dated 17.9.1986 passed by the Appellate Authority.
1 was living in a rented accommodation which he had to vacate perforce as it was in a dilapidated companydition and unsafe for human habitation.
The upper floor accommodation companytinued to be in occupation of the family of appellant number2.
He started using the godown for the residence of himself along with his wife and two school going children.
Appellant No.2 and his family members shifted to the first floor accommodation which was in occupation of the tenant earlier.
In Civil Revision preferred by the tenant, the High Court has vide its Order dated November 27, 2001 allowed the Civil Revision and directed the eviction petition to be dismissed.
The appellants got vacant possession of the ground floor from their vendors while the tenant companytinued to be in occupation of the first floor which he was holding on tenancy at a monthly rent of Rs.15/ .
2 companymenced his companymercial activity by opening a shop on the ground floor of the building.
Vide Order dated 20.1.1993, the Rent Controller directed tenant respondent to be evicted.
One room was used as a store room and one room as a kitchen.
Looking at the number of members in the family of appellant number2 and the small size of accommodation on the first floor which was already occupied by the family of appellant No.2, the family of appellant number1 companyld number have been accommodated therein.
They purchased the property from Ramji Dass.
The order was maintained in appeal by the Appellate Authority.
It was alleged in the application that subsequent to the induction of respondent as tenant in the ground floor, appellant No.1 was blessed with a female child.
Appellant number1 was of marriageable age but his marriage was number being performed for want of living accommodation.
In the opinion of the High Court the landlords had admittedly obtained the possession of another building as defined in Section 2 clause b of the Act on the same ground of bona fide requirement for his own occupation under Section 14 3 a i of the Act and as against this very tenant and, therefore, the eviction petition filed by the landlords was number maintainable even prima facie.
The aggrieved landlords have companye up in appeal by special leave.
It appears that this appellant was married during the pendency of the earlier eviction proceedings.
1 joined appellant No.
The two appellants before us, namely, Kailash Chand and Nokha Ram are real brothers.
The ground for eviction was that the family of the appellants was living in miserable companyditions.
At night, he had to sleep in the shop.
Before purchasing house No.108, appellant No.
But the family of appellant number1 was residing in a rented residential accommodation where the rent was being paid at the rate of Rs.225/ per month beside taxes.
The exact date of purchase is number known but it was sometime in the year 1980.
On purchasing the building No.
The tenant preferred an appeal.
Appellant No.
2 for residence.
The family of appellant No.1 was kept at village Panhoi i.e. away from Shimla but then for the purpose of giving education to his child, the wife of appellant number1 and the child were shifted permanently to Shimla in view of the educational facilities needed for the child being available in the city.
108, appellant No.
