MOHINDER LAL GUPTA Vs. KAUSHALYA DEVI VOHRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Petitioner is tenant whereas, the Respondent is landlady of the demised premises comprising two rooms, kitchen, bath room and toilet in the top floor of the building known as 7 Oaks, Sanjauli within the jurisdiction of Municipal Corporation, Shimla. The tenant is aggrieved by the judgment dated 19.8.1996 passed by the Appellate Authority (II), Shimla whereby his appeal was rejected and the eviction order dated 19.10.1994 of the Rent Controller (2), Shimla was affirmed. The Rent Controller had passed the eviction order against the tenant on the ground that the landlady bona fide requires the demised premises for her married son. Now, the tenant has filed the present revision petition under Section 24(5) of the H.P. Urban Rent Control Act, 1987 (hereinafter called 'the Act').

(2.) This revision petition was earlier allowed by judgment dated July 8, 1999 passed by learned Single Judge of this Court and the eviction order dated 19.8.1996 was set aside and the appeal of the tenant was remanded to the appellate authority for deciding it afresh on the basis of the amended pleadings after affording an opportunity to the parties to lead such evidence as they might wish to produce. The appellate authority was also directed to frame such other and further issues, as might arise from the amended pleadings before calling upon the parties to lead evidence. This judgment was passed by the learned Single Judge after allowing the application for amendment of reply of the tenant, which was rejected by the appellate authority. Against the judgment of the learned Single Judge the landlady had filed SLP (Civil) No. 19373 of 1999 in the Supreme Court of India, which was granted, appeal was allowed and the judgment of the learned Single Judge of this Court was set aside holding that the amendment of the reply should not have been allowed and the decision of the lower appellate Court dismissing the amendment application was correct. By its order dated April 24, 2000 the Supreme Court has directed that the revision petition be decided afresh.

(3.) The scope of the present revision petition is to examine the records of this case in order to satisfy whether the eviction order passed by the Rent Controller and affirmed by the appellate authority is legal or proper. In T. Sivasubramaniam and Ors. v. Kasinath Pujari and Ors., 1999 7 SCC 275, the learned Judges of the Supreme Court while interpreting almost similar provisions of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 have observed in para 5: