RAJKUMARI SONI Vs. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition had been referred to the Division Bench by Hardayal Hardy Judge. Delhi High Court, in August 1970 when that High Court had its jurisdiction over Himachal Pradesh. The point referred to is whether the said respondents (Union of India and Himachal Pradesh Administration), now substituted by the State of Himachal Pradesh vide order, dated 8-4-1971 are tenants within the meaning of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act. 1949?

(2.) Smt. Rai Kumari Soni is the owner of a building known as "Onkar Lodge" at Simla. On 9-4-1965. Dr. D. D. Arora. Deputy Director of Health Services and Dr. D. K. Bhattacharya. Assistant Director of Health Services, with the approval of the Director of Health Services. Himachal Pradesh took from the petitioner the lower flat of the aforesaid building on a monthlv rental of Rs. 150/-. On 13-1-1966 Smt. Raj Kumari Soni filed an application before the Rent Controller for eviction of Dr. D. D. Arora and Dr. D. K. Bhattacharya from the premises on the ground of nonpayment of rent. The respondents paid Rs. 567-10 Paise as rent upto 28-1-1966 at the rate of Rs. 53/- per month and the petitioner accepted the same under protest. The respondents had also pleaded that the Rent Controller had no jurisdiction to entertain the petition as the tenant was the Union of India and not the respondents impleaded in the application. It was on that basis that the application was withdrawn by her on 2-5-1967.

(3.) On 22-7-1967 the landlady filed a fresh application, out of which this reference on a revision petition has arisen. The petitioner alleged that a sum of Rs. 3,482-90 Paise was due from the respondents on account of rent from 11-4-1965 to 10-71967. The respondents in their reply dated 21-12-1967 admitted that certain offices were located in the premises in question but that the contract was not made as envisaged by Article 299 of the Constitution of India and there being no valid regular lease the petition was not maintainable. It was also pleaded that they had not agreed to pay the rent as calculated by the Punjab Provincial Division (Sic).