VIMAL CHOPRA Vs. CHAUDHARY RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition is filed by the petitioners against an order passed by the Rent Controller (3), Shimla, on July 14, 1993, in case No.35/II of 92/89 and confirmed by the Appellate Authority, Shimla, on May 22, 1998, in C.M.A. No. 83 -S/14 of 1993. By the above orders, a petition for possession filed by the petitioners under Section 14 of the Himachal Pradesh Urban Rent Control Act, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) came to be dismissed by both the authorities.

(2.) Before dealing with the questions raised in the present petition, few relevant facts may be stated.

(3.) The petitioners filed an application under Section 14 of the Act against the respondent, inter alia, alleging that they are landlords of a building being Shop No. 1 at Tilaknagar, Boileauganj, and Shimla. Respondent was a tenant in the premises on a rent of Rs.19 -83 paise per month prior to April 28, 1984 when the premises were purchased by the petitioners. It was averred in the petition that the respondent - tenant failed to pay arrears of rent from May 1, 1984 to April 30, 1989 and hence he was liable to be evicted. Another ground, which was put forward by the petitioners, was that the premises were bona fide required by them for their use and occupation and also for use and occupation of their family members. According to the petitioners, their family considered of petitioner No. 1 herself, her husband, three married sons and three grandsons. Over and above those members, Smt. SarlaChawla, younger sister of petitioner No.l was also a family member of petitioner No. 1 after her widowhood in January, 1985 and as she was issueless and was turned out of matrimonial home by her in -laws, she was staying with petitioner No. 1. It was further stated that the petitioners were residing in a rented accommodation in Brahamn Sabha building, Pursharthi Basti, Shimla, which was inadequate and insufficient for the requirement of the petitioners. Precisely for that purpose, the suit property was purchased by the petitioners which consisted of two small shops in the ground floor and one residential set. Two rooms were with respondent, whereas one room and kitchen was with one K.C. Kapila. The petitioners, therefore, brought the petition for possession of the premises.