BHARAT SINGH RATHAUR Vs. R.N. SHARMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition, under Section 24(5) of the Himachal Pradesh Urban Rent Control Act, is directed against the order of Appellate Authority (I), Shimla, dated 4-8-1988, whereby the appeal preferred by the landlord has been accepted and the decision of the Rent Controller (I), Shimla, has been ser aside.

(2.) Briefly stated, the facts are that the landlord filed a petition for the eviction of the tenant from the residential premises-one room, kitchen and bathroom-cum-latrine-located on the ground floor of the building known as 'Rince Dell', Upper Kaithu Bazar, Shimla. It has been stated that the tenant is in arrears of rent from 1-8-1984 to March, 1985 amounting to Rs. 1,373-75 and that the tenant has ceased to occupy the premises in question continuously for a period of more tban 12 months from the date of the filing of the petition on account of his transfer from Shimla to Dharamshala in the first week of January, 1984 and the premises have since been kept locked and the tenant does not want to keep the premises.

(3.) The claim of the landlord has been seriously contested by the tenant. It has been pleaded, Inter alia, that there had not been any intention or failure to pay the rent. As a matter of fact, the landlord had refused to accept the same when tendered and he is not entitled to interest on the arrears of rent. It has been denied that the tenant has ceased to occupy the premises as alleged though it has been admitted that the tenant has been transferred from Shimla to Dharamshala. The further case of the tenant is that his wife and mother-in-law have been staying in Shimla and occupying the premises in question since the mother-in-law of the tenant was not in good health and was under the treatment of doctors at Shimla. The claim of the landlord that the premises have been locked has been denied and it has also been averred that the tenant himself visits Shimla twice or thrice a month and has been staying in these premises. The landlord has reiterated his stand in the rejoinder and it has been asserted that neither the tenant nor his family members had been residing in the premises though sometimes some unknown persons stay there.