ASHA GUPTA Vs. YAS PAUL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present revision raises an interesting of law relating to interpretation of sub-section (2) of Section 14 of the Himachal Pradesh Urban Rent Control Act, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').

(2.) BEFORE adverting to the actual question posed before this Court, few relevant facts may be stated. The petitioner is a landlady and the respondent is the tenant and they will be referred to as such in the course of the judgment. The landlady filed Rent Petition No. 1/2 of 1990 in the Court of the Rent Controller (II), Sirmaur District at Nahan, on April 9, 1990, for eviction of the tenant. Her case was that she was the owner of a Pan Shop approximately 6-1/2' x 8-1/2' in Ward No. 13 ('Suit premises' for short). It was let to the tenant in 1986 on a monthly rent of Rs. 550/- excluding electricity charges. On two grounds eviction was sought, firstly, the tenant was in arrears of rent since February, 1988, and as rent was not paid as required under the Act, the tenant was liable to be evicted. Another ground was that the landlady required the suit premises as she had been medically advised not to climb stairs and she required rented premises for use as passage-cum-parking space for scooter.

(3.) ON the basis of the pleadings of the parties, issues were framed. After appearing the evidence on record, the Rent Controller held that the landlady was entitled to rent for two months. He further held that it was proved by the landlady that she had been advised by the Doctor not to climb stairs but it was not suffice to order eviction of the tenant from the suit premises.