ASHWANI KUMAR Vs. GOPI CHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition has been preferred by the petitioner under section 24 (5) of the Himachal Pradesh Urban Rent Control Act, 1987 against the order dated 19.8.2009 passed by the Appellate Authority (2), Kangra at Dharamshala in Rent Appeal No. 1-K/2009.

(2.) Material facts necessary for the adjudication of this petition are that the petitioner instituted petition under section 11 of the Himachal Pradesh Urban Rent Control Act, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’ for convenience sake) before the Rent Controller No. 1, Kangra for restoration of electricity supply and construction of back wall measuring 9’x4’ of shop owned by respondent-landlord. Respondent filed reply to the same. Petitioner has also moved an application under section 11 (3) of the Act for interim orders to restore electricity and for the construction of back wall of shop in his possession, as tenant. Landlord filed reply to the same. Learned Rent Controller vide order dated 16.1.2009 directed the respondent-landlord to restore/provide the electricity connection in the demised premises to the petitioner. Respondent-landlord preferred an appeal before the Appellate Authority under section 24 of the Act. Petitioner also filed cross-objections. The Appellate Authority allowed the appeal preferred by the landlord on 19.8.2009 and also held that the cross-objections preferred by the tenant were not maintainable for the construction of wall. Hence, this petition by the petitioner.

(3.) Mr. Ajay Kumar has strenuously argued that the order passed by the Appellate Authority is not in accordance with law. According to him, tenant has made out a case for interim relief under section 11 (3) of the Act and the Rent Controller has wrongly denied the relief of construction of wall. He has supported order dated 16.1.2009 whereby the landlord has been directed to restore the electricity. He further contended that the cross-objections preferred by the tenant were maintainable before the Appellate Authority.