DEVINDER THAKUR Vs. DEVINDER THAKUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) What is under challenge in this petition filed under Section 24 of the Himachal Pradesh Urban Rent Control Act, 1987 (Act for short) read with Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure is an order passed on 13th March, 2003 by the Rent Controller (11), Shimla, whereby the objections filed by the petitioner against the execution proceedings taken out for the eviction of the petitioner from the premises in question have been disallowed.

(2.) In terms of Section 17 of the Act a limited tenancy was created between the parties, the petitioner as a tenant and the respondent as a landlord whereby, w.e.f. 1st September, 1998 uptil 31st march, 2001 the petitioner was to remain in occupation of Flat No.4, Block C, Regent House Apartment, Shimla. He was to vacate and hand -over the vacant possession of this flat to the respondent on or before 31st August, 2001. This arrangement was brought about through the medium of an order passed under section 17 (supra) on 19th September 1998 by the Rent Controller. After the period granted by the aforesaid limited tenancy stood expired and at a stage when the respondent had filed an execution application or the execution for the aforesaid order dated 19th September, 1998 and for delivery of possession, the petitioner filed the aforesaid objection petition before the Rent Controller. The petitioners contention before the Rent Controller was that the aforesaid order dated 19th September, 1998 was not properly obtained and that the limited tenancy under Section 17 (supra) was not at all created inasmuch as the petitioner actually was inducted as a tenant in the aforesaid flat No. 4, Block C, Regent House Apartment, Shimla as a sequel to an amicable settlement arrived at between the parties whereby the petitioner in his capacity as a tenant in the other properties being Flat No. 90 -A, Cecil Annexe, Shimla -4 was to shift from Cecil Annexe by vacating the same. Dealing with the petitioners case that he was a co -tenant or a joint tenant laongwith his brother in the aforesaid Cecil Annexe, the Rent Controller found this issue against the petitioner as a pure question of fact and very very rightly so because what was brought in evidence was the fact that even though the petitioners brother was a tenant in Cecil Annexe, the petitioner was not and that there was no joint tenancy agreement or a co -tenancy between the petitioner on the one hand and the respondent on the other. I fully agree with the aforesaid finding of fact recorded by the Rent Controller and by endorsing the same affirm the finding.

(3.) Mr. Kuldip Singh, learned Senior Advocate, appearing for the petitioner then submitted that contrary to prescription contained in Section 17 (supra) the tenancy had already been created before the order was passed by the Rent Controller on 19th September, 1998. Shorn of all unnecessary details and irrespective of the form, what is of substance before me is that the statement of the petitioner recorded by the Rent Controller on 19th September, 1998 in Section 17 proceedings wherein the petitioner himself has unequivocally admitted that he was to take the premises on rent for a period of three years. The exact English translation of the sentence in the statement recorded in Hindi is as follows: - "I want to take the building for three years on rent."