M.L.SHARMA Vs. DURGA DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Smt Durga Devi (hereinafter referred to as the landlady) is the owner of the premises. She initiated eviction proceedings under section 14 of the Himachal! Pradesh Urban Rent Control Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) against Shri M. L Sharma (hereinafter referred to as the tenant) from the premises known as "Suman Vihar", Annandale, Shimla, on three grounds, namely, that the tenant had ceased to occupy the premises for a continuous period of more than 12 months without any reasonable cause and he had been allotted Government accommodation and, that he had failed to pay the rent from 1 -3 -1979 to 28 -2 -1983, amounting to Rs. 600 alongwith interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum and that the condition of the premises had been deteriorated to such an extent that the same had become permanent source of nuisance to the occupiers of the building as the premiss were lying locked for the past more than five years and had developed large number of cracks for want of annual repairs.

(2.) The claim was contested by the tenant, inter alia, on the grounds that he had retired from Government service and was no longer in occupation of Government accommodation Since he had large family, he had been occupying the premises, therefore, he had not ceased to occupy the same, as alleged. Rent was offered to the landlady several times personally, through money orders and bank drafts, but it was not accepted. It was also denied that the premises had become a source of nuisance on account of continuous locking. It is also alleged that an amount of Rs I0, 000 was spent for carrying out the repairs since the landlady had failed to undertake the same. 3 In the replication, it has been stated that the tenant did not ask her to spend Rs. 10,000 for repairs which was not even otherwise carried out by the tenant. 4 On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed:

(3.) The tenant took the matter to the appellate Court in CM.A. No. 34 -S/!4of 1986/88, 70 -S/14 of 1987, 63 -S/i4 of 3986 unsuccessfully. Before the appellate Court, he assailed the findings recorded by the Rent Controller (3), Shimla, being against evidence on record and law applicable in this case concerning issues Nos. 1 and 2 only. After examining the matter quite elaborately and meticulously, the appellate Court repelled all the contentions and confirmed the findings recorded by Rent Controller (3), Shimla The appeal was dismissed on 31 -3 -1989.