BRIJ LAL Vs. SANATAN DHARAM SABHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision has been directed against the judgment dated 30.9.2009 passed by the learned Appellate Authority, Fast Track Court, Shimla in Rent Appeal No. 8-S/14 of 2007 affirming the order dated 28.2.2007 passed by the learned Rent Controller (II), Shimla in case No. 11/2 of 1994.

(2.) The facts, in brief, are that respondent had filed a petition under Section 14 of the Himachal Pradesh Urban Rent Control Act, 1987 (for short `Act') against the petitioners for ejectment on the grounds of arrears of rent, sub-letting, impairing of the value and utility of the premises and the premises has become unsafe and unfit for human habitation. The further case of the respondent is that originally the premises was rented out to Laturia Ram father of the petitioners at the rate of Rs.1,000/- per month and after the death of Laturia Ram petitioners became the tenants of the premises. There is no written agreement, the petitioners have not paid arrears of rent at the rate of Rs.1000/- per month w.e.f. 1.1.1975 to 30.11.1993 amounting to Rs. 1,25,000/- alongwith interest at the rate of 9% per annum Rs. 59,062/-. Thus, the total arrears of rent alongwith interest comes to Rs. 1,84,062/- which is due and payable by petitioners to respondent. It has also been alleged that after the commencement of the Act, the petitioners without the written consent of the respondent have sublet the premises to some other persons who are in possession and control of the premises. The petitioners have carried out major additions and alterations without the consent of the respondent and have thus materially impaired the value and utility of the premises. The premises has become unsafe and unfit for human habitation.

(3.) The petitioners have contested the petition by filing reply and have taken preliminary objections that there is no relationship of landlord and tenant between the respondent and the petitioners. The petition lacks mandatory information under the Act, no legal and valid notice has been served upon the petitioners. On merits, it has been alleged that petitioners are landlords of the premises in question and have let out the same to different persons. The father of the petitioners Laturia Ram was tenant of land and houses. The land was being used for agriculture purposes alongwith the houses. The petitioners have been conferred proprietary rights of the property in question under the H.P.Tenancy and Land Reforms Act, 1972. The petitioners are owners in possession of the premises after the death of Laturia Ram. They continued to occupy the premises openly, peacefully and hostile to the title of the respondent for the period of 12 years. The respondent never objected to such right of the petitioners. The petitioners are exercising their right being the landlords after the death of their father in the year 1966 and let out the rooms to different persons. Laturia Ram had also exercised the same rights of letting out to different persons. The respondent has no locus standi to file the petition. There is no parting of the possession of the premises nor the premises has been let out after the commencement of the Act. It has also been denied that petitioners have impaired the value and utility of the premises or the premises has become unsafe and unfit for human habitation. In rejoinder, the respondent has reiterated its stand taken in the petition.