GURCHARAN KAUR AND OTHERS Vs. ANIL KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition is directed against the judgment passed by the learned appellate authority, Shimla in Civil Misc. Appeal No.37-S/14 of 2003 dated 8.6.2005.

(2.) Material facts necessary for adjudication of this petition are that the respondent/landlord (hereinafter referred to as "the landlord " for convenience sake) filed a petition under Sec. 14 of the H.P. Urban Rent Control Act, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act " for brevity sake) for eviction of the petitioners/tenants (hereinafter referred to as "the tenants " for convenience sake) from shop No.29, Padam Cottage, Sanjauli, Shimla. The case of the landlord was that the demised premises were non-residential and let out at the rate of Rs. 250.00 per month to Shri Gurdit Singh, husband of Smt. Gurcharan Kaur and father of respondents No.2 and 3, namely, Davinder Singh and Amarjeet Singh. Gurdit Singh died in 1989-90 and tenancy was inherited by his widow. According to the landlord, respondent Gurcharan Kaur has changed the user of shop from shop to shop-cum-residence and handed over the control and possession of the shop to Shri Amarjeet Singh as sub-tenant. The tenanted premises were illegally partitioned by respondent Gurcharan Kaur and converted the major portion into residence. Thus, eviction of the respondents was sought on the grounds of subletting, impairing the value and utility of the demised premises and converting the shop into residence. According to the landlord, the tenants were also causing nuisance by cooking in the shop-cum-residence by discharging the filthy water in front of the shop and due to smoke arising on account of cooking by the sub-tenant, Amarjeet Singh. Thus nuisance was caused to the other occupiers of the building and in the neighbourhood. Initially, the petition was filed against the widow of Gurdit Singh, namely, Gurcharan Kaur. However, subsequently, his sons Shri Davinder Singh and Amarjeet Singh were impleaded as respondents by the landlord.

(3.) The petition was contested by the tenants. It was denied that substantial portion of the demised premises was converted into residence. The case of the tenants was that the shop was temporarily partitioned into two portions. The front portion consists of the shop, whereas, the inner portion consists of a small room where a settee is placed for taking rest during day time only. It was denied that the demised premises were converted into residence effecting the value and utility of the premises or impairing the same. The allegation of nuisance was also denied. The learned Rent Controller framed the issues on 18.2.2002. The learned Rent Controller dismissed the petition on 6.6.2003.