PREM KAUR Vs. MAHAVIR WALIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition is directed against the judgment passed by the learned appellate authority (District Judge), Shimla in Civil Misc. Appeal No.72 -S/14 of 2008 dated 18.9.2009.

(2.) Material facts necessary for the adjudication of this petition are that the respondent/landlord (hereinafter referred to as the landlord - for convenience sake) filed application under Section 14 of the H.P. Urban Rent Control Act, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as the Act - for brevity sake) before the learned Rent Controller (II), Shimla on 18.1.2003 to the effect that he was tenant in the suit premises. The suit premises were originally owned by Smt. Ravinder Walia. She died on 26.11.1999. He has become owner of the suit premises and is competent to maintain the application for eviction of the petitioners/tenants (hereinafter referred to as the tenants - for convenience sake). The suit premises were let out earlier to late Shri Surjan Singh and after his death, tenant Prem Kaur being his daughter inherited the tenancy rights and she is occupying the suit premises alongwith her married daughter and son -in -law. The eviction of the tenants has been sought on the ground that the suit premises are bonafide required by him for his own use and occupation. He is N.R.I. and remained employed with British Airways and retired in the month of June, 1998. He owns ancestral house in village Sanaur, District Patiala, Punjab and the same is occupied by his real uncle and aunt after the death of his father. He has a bonafide wish to spend retired and old age in India. In these circumstances, he bonafide requires vacant possession of the suit premises, which is the only property owned by him in the urban area of Shimla. It is further alleged that his close relations are permanently living in Shimla and he has been frequently visiting them with his wife. His wife died on 26.11.1999 in U.K. He has one married daughter, three married sons and seven grand children.

(3.) The eviction petition has been contested by the tenants. According to the averments contained in the reply, the application was bad for non -joinder of necessary parties, it was barred under Section 18 of the Act as well as the principles of res -judicata. On merits, it was denied that the petitioner was owner of the suit premises. It was also denied that the premises is bonafide required by the landlord for his own use, the landlord has permanently settled in U.K. and has also acquired the citizenship of U.K. The learned Rent Controller framed the issues on 4.8.2005. He dismissed the eviction petition on 14.7.2008. The landlord preferred an appeal before theappellate authority. The appellate authority allowed the appeal on 18.9.2009 and the tenants were ordered to be evicted from the tenanted premises on the ground of bonafide requirement under Section 14(3) of the Act. Hence, this petition against the judgment dated 18.9.2009 passed by the appellate authority, Shimla.