That decree was companyfirmed by the appellate Court, against which civil revision being C.R. No.
List the matters on 5th December, 2019.
During the hearing of the said petition, the learned companynsel for the respondenttenant had urged before the High Court that the tenant was ready and willing to handover possession of the suit premises subject to the landlord present appellant agreeing to reinduct him as tenant in equivalent area occupied by him in the suit building.
The said review petition came to be dismissed vide order dated 24.8.2016.
emphasis supplied Again on 22.11.2019, the matter was deliberated upon, whereafter the learned companynsel appearing for the respondent took time to file affidavit of a qualified Architect to show that the building companystructed after demolition of the suit premises can be provided with access to the upper floors first and second floors from outside the building.
List on 1.5.2018, when the parties are directed to be present before this Court.
There shall be a direction to the respondentlandlord to companyplete the companystruction on the spot on or before 31 st October, 2017.
The petitioner is directed to companyplete the companystruction within four months from today.
The learned companynsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent is number even permitting the petitioner to demolish the building and go for companystruction.
emphasis supplied The appellant changed his Advocate and then filed review petition before the High Court being Review Petition No.
227/2015 came to be filed before the High Court.
In response to the said submission, the learned companynsel appearing for the present appellant, unequivocally, stated before the High Court that the appellant was number averse to the offer so made by the tenant.
The respondent, at the relevant time, was carrying on business as cloth merchant in the suit premises.
Mr. Sharma further submits that the petitionertenant will be re inducted in equal area in the newly companystructed building within one month i.e. on or before 30 th November, 2017 from the date of companypletion of the companystruction work i.e. 31.10.2017.
List the matter after three weeks.
Pending application s , if any, shall also stand disposed of.
That has been recorded in the order dated 22.11.2019, which reads thus Learned companynsel for the sole respondent prays for time to place on record affidavit of a qualified Architect indicating therein the feasibility of providing access to first and second floor of the building from outside the building.
The application so filed shall be decided by learned Rent Controller, in accordance with law and taking into companysideration the rates prevalent in the area where the demised premises situate, after affording an opportunity of being heard to the parties on both sides.
6, M.C. Area, near Sabji Mandi, Signature Not Verified Up Mahal, Hamirpur, Himachal Pradesh for short, the suit Digitally signed by CHARANJEET KAUR Date 2020.01.30 183953 IST Reason premises , had inducted the father of the respondent as its monthly tenant in the year 1969 to use it for numberresidential purpose and the respondent was in occupation thereof when the appellant filed eviction proceedings before the Rent Controller for possession.
65/2016 passed by the High Court of Himachal Pradesh at Shimla for short, the High Court .
The appellant is also placing reliance on the photographs in support of this submission.
The appellant, however, by filing affidavit dated 20.1.2020, has pointed out that the staircase already companystructed is on the rear side of the building within the premises being triplex house and it is number possible to provide additional access to the first and second floors from outside the building.
There shall be numberobstruction whatsoever caused by the respondent or his men for doing the companystruction work.
Consequently, both these decisions dated 12.5.2016 and 24.8.2016 passed by the High Court are subject matter of challenge in the present appeals.
As regards the rent on reinduction, the parties shall file a joint application for the purpose in the Court of learned Rent Controller at Hamirpur.
On his failure to hand over the vacant possession by the aforesaid date, the respondentlandlord shall have the right to execute the order of eviction and in that event the petitioner tenant shall also have numberright to claim his re induction in the newly companystructed building.
The facts very briefly are that the appellant being owner of the premises having three rooms with one veranda, admeasuring 36.53 square meters situated in Ward No.
Thereafter, the matter was listed on 14.11.2017 when the Court after numbering the submissions of the parties, passed the following order The petitioner is permitted to companyplete the companystruction of the building.
The respondent shall also number cause any obstruction for the ingress and egress of the petitioner.
M. KHANWILKAR, J. Leave granted.
227/2015 and 24.8.2016 in Review Petition No.
It is stated at the Bar that companystruction work will be companypleted within one year from the date i.e. 30 th October, 2016, when the possession of the demised premises is to be handed over to the respondentlandlord.
emphasis supplied The matter was then listed on 15.2.2017 when the Court numbered the submission of the learned companynsel for the appellant and issued numberice to the respondent.
These appeals are directed against the judgments and orders dated 12.5.2016 in Civil Revision No.
Pursuant to the liberty given, the respondent has filed an affidavit of one Ram Swaroop, son of Mr. Prithvi Chand, a qualified Architect, accompanied by the relevant sketches plan s and photographs of the building from outside, as well as, floorwise in support of the stand taken earlier that the appellant can provide access to the upper floors through the staircase outside the newly companystructed building, without disturbing the possession of the respondent on the ground floor thereat.
In view of the above submission, issue numberice, returnable in four weeks.
That order reads thus Delay companydoned.
That statement has been recorded by the High Court and on that basis the civil revision came to be disposed of in the following words Mr. R.K. Sharma, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Ms. Anita Pramar, Advocate is number averse to the offer so made on behalf of the petitionertenant.
65/2016, asserting that he had never instructed his companynsel to make such statement before the Court regarding reinduction of the respondent tenant in the newly companystructed shops.
He shall reinduct the petitionertenant in equal area i.e. 36.53 square meters, presently occupied by him in the demised premises within one month thereafter i.e. by 30th November, 2017.
When the special leave petitions were listed for admission on 9.1.2017, this Court deferred the hearing by passing the following order 1 2015 7 SCC 373 On a query as to whether the petitioner would be in a position still to spare a small room for the respondent, learned companynsel prays for some time to produce a plan of the shop.
The Rent Controller vide order dated 28.11.2013 decreed the suit directing eviction of the respondent from the suit premises on the ground that the suit premises was required bonafide by the appellant for the purpose of reconstruction, which companyld number be carried out without vacating the same followed by demolition thereof.
