SHAKUNTALA KHANNA Vs. ANIL BAKSHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of instant Revision petition filed under Sec. 24(5) of the Himachal Pradesh Rent Control Act 1987, challenge has been laid to judgment dtd. 8/6/2018, passed by Appellate Authority-II, Shimla, H.P., in Rent Appeal No.3-S/13(b) of 2018, reversing order dtd. 22/12/2017, passed by learned Rent Controller, Court No.1, Shimla, District Shimla, H.P., in Rent Petition No.17-2 of 2013, titled as Smt. Shakuntala Khanna vs. Sh. Anil Bakshi, whereby learned Rent Controller while allowing the petition, having been filed by the petitioner-landlady, ordered for eviction of the respondent/tenant from the demised premises on the ground of arrears of rent w.e.f. April 2011, amounting to Rs.4, 47, 743.00 alongwith interest calculated till 30/12/2017.

(2.) Precisely, the facts of the case, as emerge from the record are that the petitioner-landlady filed petition under Sec. 14 of the H.P. Urban Rent Controller Act, 1987 (for short 'Act'), seeking eviction of the respondent-tenant from the demised premises in the Court of learned Rent Controller, Court No.1, Shimla, H.P., alleging therein that she being owner of the premises known as the Nest, near Kamla Nehru Hospital, Shimla had inducted respondent as tenant in one residential set consisting of two rooms, one kitchen, one bath cum toilet in the first floor of the building(hereinafter referred to as the 'demised premises') on monthly rent of Rs.5000.00. Petitionerlandlady alleged that the premises were let out to the brother of the respondent about ten years back and after the death of his brother, the respondent started residing in the demised premises. Petitioner landlady alleged that the respondent is in arrears of rent w.e.f. April, 2011 and as such, she is entitled to recover this amount from the respondent with interest. Besides above, respondent is also creating nuisance in premises due to which other neighbourer and occupier of the building are facing hardship.

(3.) Aforesaid prayer made on behalf of the petitioner-landlady came to be resisted on behalf of the respondent-tenant on the ground that the petitioner is neither landlord nor owner of the premises in occupation. He submitted that Sh. Suresh Bakshi was tenant in the demised premises and after his death, his family has been residing in the demised premises. He denied that the respondent-tenant is in arrears of rent w.e.f. April, 2011. He also denied that rent of the demised premises is Rs.5000.00per month. He submitted that rent of the demised premises including house tax is Rs.1716.00 per month. He also denied the allegation that respondent has carried out any damage to the premises in occupation. He also submitted that he has paid rent of the demised premises till May, 2013.