CORRECTED

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO(S).9213-9214/2019 (Arising out of SLP (C)No(s). 32060-32061/2015)

ASHOK KUMAR GOEL APPELLANT(S)

Signature Not Verified

VERSUS

LIN KUEI TSAN (D) THR. LRS. RESPONDENT(S)

O R D E R

Leave granted.

The High Court has confirmed the order of eviction with clarification that the eviction order shall not be executed unless the landlord produces before the Executing Court the building plan duly sanctioned/approved by the competent authority. It is open for the tenant to apply for re-entry into the building in accordance with the proviso to Clause(c) of Section 14(3) of the Himachal Pradesh Urban Rent Control Act, 1987.

During the course of arguments, it is brought to the notice of the Court by the learned counsel for the tenant that permission is not being granted in Shimla for Digitally signed by ASHWANI KUMAR Date: 2020.02.29 13:05:05 IST Reason:

reconstruction of the building and, therefore, the tenant will not be reinducted at all by the landlord.

Per contra, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the landlord that the appellant/landlord does not wish to demolish the building and reconstruct the building but he would strengthen the old/existing structure of the building itself so as to make it available for users effectively in future. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the landlord that the landlord would undertake to reinduct the tenant within 1½ years from the date of the tenant vacating the premises. He has filed an undertaking to that effect, the relevant portion of which reads as under:

"That as stated before this Hon'ble Court during the course of hearing on 22.10.2019, the answering deponent undertakes that he would rebuild the entire building including the suit premises consisting of Basement (510 square feet approximately) and Ground Floor (613 square feet approximately) within a period of 1½ years (eighteen months) from the date of handing over of the possession by the respondent)."

The undertaking as well as submissions made on behalf of the landlord/appellant are recorded.

Having regard to the above the following order is

2

made:

The order of eviction passed against the tenant/ respondent stands confirmed. The landlord/appellant is permitted to renovate his building to strengthen it, if he so chooses. He shall reinduct the respondent/tenant in basement and ground floor within 1½ years from the date of tenant vacating the premises for the purpose of getting the building renovated as per proviso to Clause (c) of Section 14(3) of the Himachal Pradesh Urban Rent Control Act, 1987. The tenant/respondent would handover the possession of his portion to the landlord within two months from today.

The appeals stand disposed of accordingly.

......................J. [MOHAN M. SHANTANAGOUDAR]

......................J. [R. SUBHASH REDDY]

NEW DELHI; DECEMBER 03, 2019

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO(S).7925/2019 (Arising out of SLP (C)No(s). 32060-32061/2015)

ASHOK KUMAR GOEL APPELLANT(S)

VERSUS

LIN KUEI TSAN (D) THR. LRS. RESPONDENT(S)

O R D E R

Leave granted.

The High Court has confirmed the order of eviction with clarification that the eviction order shall not be executed unless the landlord produces before the Executing Court the building plan duly sanctioned/approved by the competent authority. It is open for the tenant to apply for re-entry into the building in accordance with the proviso to Clause(c) of Section 14(3) of the Himachal Pradesh Urban Rent Control Act, 1987.

During the course of arguments, it is brought to the notice of the Court by the learned counsel for the tenant that permission is not being granted in Shimla for reconstruction of the building and, therefore, the tenant will not be reinducted at all by the landlord.

Per contra, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the landlord that the appellant/landlord does not wish to demolish the building and reconstruct the building but he would strengthen the old/existing structure of the building itself so as to make it available for users effectively in future. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the landlord that the landlord would undertake to reinduct the tenant within 1½ years from the date of the tenant vacating the premises. He has filed an undertaking to that effect, the relevant portion of which reads as under:

"That as stated before this Hon'ble Court during the course of hearing on 22.10.2019, the answering deponent undertakes that he would rebuild the entire building including the suit premises consisting of Basement (510 square feet approximately) and Ground Floor (613 square feet approximately) within a period of 1½ years (eighteen months) from the date of handing over of the possession by the respondent)."

The undertaking as well as submissions made on behalf of the landlord/appellant are recorded.

Having regard to the above the following order is made:

5

The order of eviction passed against the tenant/ respondent stands confirmed. The landlord/appellant is permitted to renovate his building to strengthen it, if he so chooses. He shall reinduct the respondent/tenant in basement and ground floor within 1½ years from the date of tenant vacating the premises for the purpose of getting the building renovated as per proviso to Clause (c) of Section 14(3) of the Himachal Pradesh Urban Rent Control Act, 1987. The tenant/respondent would handover the possession of his portion to the landlord within two months from today.

The appeals stand disposed of accordingly.

......................J. [MOHAN M. SHANTANAGOUDAR]

......................J. [R. SUBHASH REDDY]

NEW DELHI; DECEMBER 03, 2019

ITEM NO.18 COURT NO.12 SECTION XIV

S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 32060- 32061/2015

(Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 14-07-2015 in CR No. 178/2007 14-07-2015 in CR No. 44/2014 passed by the High Court Of Himachal Pradesh At Shimla)

ASHOK KUMAR GOEL Petitioner(s)

VERSUS

LIN KUEI TSAN (D) THR. LRS. Respondent(s)

Date : 03-12-2019 These petitions were called on for hearing today.

• CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAN M. SHANTANAGOUDAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY
• For Petitioner(s) Mr. Rishi Malhotra, AOR Mr. Utkarsh Singh, Adv. Mr. Rajat Roshan Sharma, Adv.
• For Respondent(s) Ms. Akanksha Mehra, Adv. Ms. Shreyasi Kunwar, Adv. Ms. Sweena Nair, Adv. M/S. Lawyer S Knit & Co, AOR

UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R

Leave granted.

The appeals stand disposed of in terms of the signed order.

Pending application(s), if any, stands disposed of

accordingly.

(ASHWANI THAKUR) (R.S. NARAYANAN) COURT MASTER (SH) COURT MASTER (NSH) (Signed order is placed on the file)