PRAMOD KUMAR Vs. ISHWARI DEVI JUSTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) MATERIAL facts necessary for the adjudication of this Civil Revision Petition are that the respondent-landlady (hereinafter referred to as "the landlady" for the sake of convenience) had filed an eviction petition against the petitioner- tenant (hereinafter referred to as "the tenant" for the sake of brevity) on 07.01.2003. It was assigned registration No. 7-2 of 2003. The petition was filed on the ground that the suit premises were urgently and bonafide required by the petitioner for her married son Sh. Rajiv Jasta, as the accommodation in the use and occupation of the petitioner at the ground floor of the building in question was not sufficient and the set occupied by the tenant is Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. most convenient and suitable for the residence of her married son. It was also pleaded that Shri Rajiv Jasta was not occupying any accommodation in urban area of Shimla nor he vacated any accommodation in the said area.

(2.) THE petition was contested by the tenant on the ground of maintainability, cause of action, suppression of facts, non identification of premises in dispute and for want of verification and identification of the petition. The tenant has denied the relationship of landlady and tenant between the parties. The tenant has also denied that the accommodation in question was required by her for bonafide requirement of her son. It was also denied that the accommodation in occupation of the landlady was insufficient and inadequate. During the pendency of the eviction petition, an application under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure for amending the reply was filed by the tenant. The same was allowed by the learned Rent Controller on 21.08.2006. According to the averments made in the amended reply, during the pendency of the petition, one of the tenants of the landlady, Sh. Jeet Ram has vacated the premises in the month of March, 2005 and handed over the vacant possession to the landlady. It was alleged that the said accommodation was suitable for the landlady.

(3.) MR . Bhupender Gupta, learned Senior Advocate for the tenant has strenuously argued that both the Courts below have mis-construed and mis-read the oral as well as documentary evidence. According to him, the landlady has failed to prove that the premises in question were required for her own occupation. He then argued that since one of the tenants, Shri Jeet Ram has vacated the premises in the month of March, 2005, the requirement of the landlady for additional accommodation was satisfied. He also argued that the application under Order 41 Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure and under Section 24(2) of the H.P. Urban Rent Control Act could not be rejected by the learned Appellate Authority.