SHAMBHOONATH SHARMA Vs. SH RANDIP SINGH PARMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of instant application, filed under S. 151 CPC, prayer has been made on behalf of applicant/respondent to issue directions to the non-applicant/petitioner No. 1 to pay the use and occupation charges qua the demised premises, which are being occupied by him despite there being eviction order passed by competent court of law.

(2.) For having bird's eye view of the matter, facts shorn of unnecessary details are that one late Smt. Chander Kanta, mother of the applicant/respondent Randeep Singh Parmar, filed a rent petition under S.14 of the Urban Rent Control Act, 1987 (hereinafter, 'Act'), seeking eviction of the non-applicants/petitioners from Shop No. 33 measuring 290 square feet, The Mall, Shimla, Himachal Pradesh (hereinafter, 'demised premises'). Since said Smt. Chander Kanta expired during the pendency of the eviction petition, applicant/respondent namely Shri Randeep Singh Parmar came to be brought on record as petitioner in the eviction proceedings. Respondent sought eviction of the non- applicants/petitioners from the demised premises on the ground that presently the demised premises is under the sub tenant and Shambhoo Nath is residing out of Shimla and has ceased to occupy the demised premises continuously for 12 months prior to filing petition. Petitioner claimed that the demised premises were let out to Shambhu Nath in 1955 on monthly rent of Rs.1800.00 inclusive of taxes but now he has sub let the demised premise to respondent No.2 Sunil Dutt, who has made extensive construction, alterations and additions to the demised premises. Besides above, applicant/respondent also claimed that petitioner No.1 after commencement of the Act has ceased to occupy the demised premises for continuous 12 months prior to filing of the eviction petition without there being any reasonable or sufficient cause and as such he is liable to be evicted.

(3.) While refuting the aforesaid contentions raised on behalf of applicant/respondent, non-applicants/petitioners claimed in the reply that the petition is actuated with malafide intention to oust them from the demised premises and to increase the rent. On merit, non- applicants/petitioners admitted that late Chander Kanta was the landlady of the demised premises and respondent No.1 Shambhu Nath was tenant over demised premises and the demised premises are non-residential i.e. shop. While specifically refuting that petitioner No.1 has sublet the demised premises to petitioner No.2, Sunil Dutt, they also denied that petitioner No.2 being sub tenant has made extensive construction, alterations and additions to the demised premises.