NITYA NAND SHARMA Vs. PURAN CHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition is filed by the petitioner -landlord against the respondent -tenant being aggrieved by the order passed by the Rent Controller, Una, on September 30, 1995 in R.R. No. 15 of 1992 and confirmed by the Appellate Authority, Una, on February 6,1998, in Civil Misc. Appeal No. 60 of 1995.

(2.) The petitioner -landlord filed a petition under Section 14 of the Himachal Pradesh Urban Rent Control Act, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), for eviction of respondent -tenant from a shop situated in Ward No. 1, Main Bazar Una. It was his case that the respondent was his tenant at the monthly rent of Rs.120/ - plus municipal taxes and electricity charges. As averred by the landlord, the tenant had not paid rent, municipal taxes, house tax and electricity charges and he was in arrears of rent from June 20, 1990 to August 19, 1992 plus interest to the extent of Rs.283/ -. It was also asserted by him that formerly, house tax was Rs.135/ -, which was revised to Rs.207/ - from 1981. The second ground of eviction, pressed in service by the landlord, was that the shop was let out to the tenant for running business of radio mechanism and electircal goods, but since last two years prior to the institution of the petition, the respondet had started sale of sewing machines and thus there was change of user on his part. The third ground, according to the landlord, was that he was District Ayurvedic Officer, posted at Bilaspur. He, however, intended to start medical practice at Una. Moreover, his son Ashwani Kumar, had also obtained Diploma in Pharmachy who also intended to start his profession at Una. On all these grounds, a prayer was made before the Rent Controller to pass an order of eviction against the tenant.

(3.) The respondent -tenant filed a reply and admitted that rent of the shop was Rs.l2 (V - per month. But he was not liable to pay other charges, like municipal taxes, electricity charges, etc. He also denied that there was change of user of the premises by him. It was also stated that the landlord had ample accommodation within the limits of Una Municipal Committee just behind the shop in question and his requirement was not bona fide.