Safiya Malik

The High Court of Himachal Pradesh Single Bench of Justice Vivek Singh Thakur upheld the directive requiring demolition of two additional storeys constructed on a tenanted structure without the owners’ consent or municipal sanction. The case concerned unauthorized construction raised by successors of the original tenant and the landlords’ claim for its removal. The Court reaffirmed that, under the Himachal Pradesh Urban Rent Control Act, 1987, succession to a tenant’s rights passes solely to the surviving spouse and does not extend to other heirs, rendering the continued occupation by others unauthorized. Concluding that the landlords were entitled to seek a mandatory injunction, the Court dismissed the appeal and sustained the order directing demolition of the unauthorized floors.

The appeal arose from a dispute concerning a tenanted premises in Ayercliff Estate, Shimla. The plaintiffs asserted that the predecessor-in-interest of the defendants had originally taken on lease a single-storey garage structure containing an atta chakki. After the death of the original tenant, his spouse continued in possession. The plaintiffs alleged that, after 1990, the occupants raised two additional storeys on the tenanted portion without permission from the owners or sanction from the Municipal Corporation. They relied on documents including the demolition order issued by the Municipal Corporation, technical reports, a partition deed, sale deed, jamabandi entries, and a prior judgment dismissing a challenge to the demolition order.

Also Read: Supreme Court Strikes Down Tribunal Reforms Act, Directs Union Government To Establish National Tribunals Commission Within 4 Months

The defendants contested the suit, raising objections regarding locus standi, asserting that acquisition of the land by the State had disturbed the plaintiffs’ title, and arguing that the building was already multi-storeyed. They also contended that all legal heirs of the original tenant had inherited tenancy rights, that plaintiffs had alternative remedies, and that no unauthorized construction had been raised. Separate written statements were filed by different groups of defendants. Evidence consisted of six witnesses for the plaintiffs and three for the defendants. The pleadings involved provisions of the H.P. Municipal Corporation Act and the H.P. Urban Rent Control Act, 1987.

The Court recorded that the demolition order “clearly depicts that there was a single storeyed structure… whereupon two unauthorised floors were constructed by the occupants.” It stated that sale deed and valuation reports “depict that there was a garage having atta chakki and the same was leased/rented to Dalip Chand Aggarwal… and from all these documents it is apparent that there was only a single storey structure rented.” It referred to jamabandi entries showing “one storey kachi shop on the suit premises,” and recorded that “construction was raised by the occupants after 1990.”

The Court observed that the tenants continued to pay rent during the acquisition period, noting that “therefore, there is acquiescence to the status of the landlords,” and concluded that the plea denying the landlord-tenant relationship “is not sustainable,” adding that after de-acquisition “the status of parties… was to be maintained status quo ante.”

On unauthorized construction, the Court recorded: “it has been established on record that defendants have raised unauthorised construction… dangerous for existing single storey structure.” On co-ownership, it quoted that “any co-owner or co-landlord can file a suit for eviction against the tenant.”

Regarding additional-evidence applications, the Court stated that the documents “are neither relevant nor necessary for complete and final adjudication of the lis.” It recorded that the rights of parties “must be judged to exist as on date a suitor institutes the legal proceeding,” quoting Supreme Court precedent.

Addressing the definition of “tenant,” the Court observed that Jawala Devi, being the surviving spouse, was “only entitled for succession of tenancy and others… were not entitled,” citing Explanation-I and II of Section 2(j). It added that upon her death, the remaining occupants “have no justifiable claim for continuing in possession.”

Also Read: Vehicles Do Not Usually Leave The Road And Fall Into A Gorge : Himachal Pradesh High Court Applies Res Ipsa Loquitur, Modifies Sentence In Fatal Truck Accident Caused Due To Negligence

The Court stated that selling of a portion of the property “does not disentitle the original owner… from continuing legal proceedings,” and held that the defendants had not connected the sale deeds “with the suit property whereupon construction has been unauthorisedly raised.” Finally, it recorded that after de-notification, “the ownership right of original owners revived,” concluding that defendants could not justify the construction based on the temporary acquisition.

The Court concluded: “There is no illegality, irregularity or perversity in the impugned judgments passed by the first Appellate Court. The appeal is dismissed and disposed of, so also pending application, if any.” It held that all substantial questions of law “are answered in aforesaid terms” and left the order of the first appellate court undisturbed, thereby affirming the decree directing demolition of the two storeys.

Advocates Representing the Parties

For the Appellants: Mr. Bhupinder Gupta, Senior Advocate, with Ms. Rinki Kashmiri and Mr. Harshit Sharma, Advocates

For the Respondents: Mr. Sumit Sood, Advocate for Respondents 1 to 3; Ms. Meera Devi and Mr. Rahul Sharma, Advocates, vice Mr. Deepak Gupta for Respondents 4 to 8

Case Title: Smt. Jwala Devi & Others v. Smt. Prabha Bhagra & Others
Neutral Citation: 2025:HHC:37873
Case Number: RSA No. 89 of 2006
Bench: Justice Vivek Singh Thakur