RULI RAM Vs. AMAR SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Since common question of law and facts arises for determination in both the civil revisions, this judgment is meant to dispose of both of them by a common judgment, which otherwise have arisen out of separate proceedings initiated by landlord- respondent against deceased Ruli Ram, tenant-petitioner, who is now represented by has legal representatives.

(2.) The respondent-landlord on 26/05/1984, filed a petition seeking eviction of tenant Ruli Ram from a residential flat located above shops Nos. 80/81. The Mall, Shimla, on the ground that the tenant had got building 'Oak Over Villa', Jakhu in his own right wherein he has acquired vacant possession of a residential set, which has more accommodation than the accommodation in question on the Mall and that the said tenant has rendered himself liable for eviction. The petition was contested by the tenant, who set up a plea that the tenancy was a composite one with that of shop No. 81, The Mall, Shimla. While passing a final decree in Civil Suit No. 48 of 1948 on 22/10/1951, a composite tenancy of a shop on the Mall with residential flat above it came into being and ever since the tenant has been in occupation of the premises treating the same to be a composite tenancy. Since, business was being carried on in the shop and the tenant was residing in the residential set, the tenancy was with respect to non-residential premises from which eviction cannot be sought, on the grounds stated in the petition. The tenant denied that he had acquired any vacant possession of a residential set in the property owned by him at Jakhu.

(3.) The Rent Controller in its order passed on 31/03/1987, held that the tenancy with respect to shop and residential flat 80/81, The Mall, Shimla, was composite one and accordingly the petition seeking eviction from residential portion was not competent and maintainable. The Rent Controller also found that the landlord has not led any cogent evidence, nor proved that the tenant had acquired vacant possession of any residential set in the property owned by him at Jakhu. Feeling aggrieved, the landlord carried the matter in appeal. The appellate authority through its judgment dated 11/03/1988, held that the tenancy with respect to shop and residential flat was not composite one but there were two separate tenancies and eviction petition seeking tenant's eviction from the residential premises was competent and maintainable. It was also found that the tenant had acquired vacant possession of three residential sets each consisting of two rooms in the building known as 'Oakover Villa', Jakhu, Shimla, which was more spacious than the premises in dispute. In view of these findings, the landlord's appeal was allowed. The order of the Rent Controller was set aside and the tenant was ordered to be evicted from the premises in question.