RAMESH KUMAR Vs. LEELA DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Instant Revision Petition, under Sec. 24(5) of the H.P. Urban Rent Control Act, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as "Rent Act"), has been preferred against judgment dtd. 9/9/2019, passed by Appellate Authority-II, Shimla, Himachal Pradesh, in Rent Appeal No.1-S/13(b) of 2017, titled as Ramesh Kumar v. Leela Devi, whereby order dtd. 25/11/2016, passed by Rent Controller, Court No.2, Shimla, District Shimla, Himachal Pradesh, in Case No.39/2 of 2015/2014, titled as Leela Devi v. Ramesh, has been upheld, and also against order dtd. 9/9/2019, passed by the Appellate Authority in CMP No.53-S/6 of 2018, filed under Order XLI Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) for production/leading additional evidence, whereby the application has been dismissed.

(2.) It has been contended on behalf of tenant-petitioner that there is neither written agreement nor rent receipt or any other document to substantiate the oral claim of the landlord-respondent that the petitioner was her tenant, whereas it has been admitted by the respondent that the petitioner has constructed his own house and shop in Khasra No.135 and, thus, Rent Petition was not maintainable for want of material/ documentary evidence. It has been submitted that oral statement of respondent has been rebutted by the petitioner by oral statement and, therefore, oral claim of the respondent is not sufficient to establish her claim as landlord. Further that the landlord-respondent has placed on record copy of Jamabandi for the year 1964-65 (Ex. PW-1/B), wherein Khasra number of the premises, in reference, has been mentioned as 347 min, which is not sufficient to prove relation of landlord and tenant and, thus, both the Courts below have committed a material irregularity and illegality by considering the respondent as landlord. To substantiate this plea, reliance has been placed on Rajendra Tiwary versus Basudeo Prasad and another, (2002) 1 SCC 90; and Madan Mohan Singh v. Ved Prakash Arya, (2021) 5 SCC 456.

(3.) By referring Jamabandi of year 2010-22, it has been contended on behalf of tenant that respondent has not been shown in possession of the premises in reference and, therefore, her claim as landlord, on the basis of old record is not tenable for presumption of truth attached with the revenue record.