SHANTA KAPILA Vs. SHARDA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition is directed against the judgment dated 16.6.2009 passed by Appellate Authority, Fast Track Court, Shimla in Rent Appeal No. 6-S/14 of 2008.

(2.) Material facts necessary for the adjudication of this petition are that the petitioner-landlady (hereinafter referred to ''landlady'' for convenience sake) filed a petition against the original tenant/predecessor-in-interest of the respondents (hereinafter referred to as ''respondent'' for convenience sake) on the following grounds:

(3.) Learned Rent Controller issued notice pursuant to which tenant Devi Ram appeared. He filed detailed reply to the petition. He has taken preliminary objection regarding maintainability of the petition in the present form, estoppel and that the petition has not been instituted according to the mandatory provisions of law and the same was not verified properly. On merits, the relationship of landlady and tenant stood admitted. However, it was denied that the rent was Rs. 1,000/- per month. According to the respondent, the rent payable was Rs. 400/- per month. The same was recently increased to Rs. 500/- per month. The petitioner has raised the demand to increase the rent to Rs. 1,000/- per month. When the tenant refused to increase the rent, present petition was filed. According to him, the rent upto 31.5.2002 had already been paid and he was not in arrears of rent. He was ready and willing to pay rent with effect from 1.6.2002. The issues were framed on 20.9.2002. Thereafter, the matter was listed for evidence of the petitioner. In the meantime, respondent Devi Ram expired on 12.7.2003. This fact was brought to the notice of the Court by the learned counsel for the respondent on 11.12.2003. Petitioner moved an application under order 22 Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure on 14.11.2003 to bring the legal representatives of deceased respondent on record. The application was opposed by the proposed legal representatives of the deceased respondent. According to them, the application was not maintainable since the same has been instituted beyond the period of limitation. The exact date of death of Devi Ram was not disclosed. The respondent has left behind the wife and two sons. All the three were legal heirs of the deceased respondent. According to them, second son has not been shown as his legal heir. Rent Controller framed the issues on 22.9.2005. He dismissed the application on 23.7.2007. According to him, the application has been filed beyond the period of limitation and the petitioner has failed to lead any evidence to corroborate her claim. Petitioner preferred an appeal before the learned Appellate Authority, Fast Track Court, Shimla. He also dismissed the same on 16.6.2009. Hence, the present petition.