PHENU RAM Vs. SANATAN DHARAM SABHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition is directed against the order dated 20.7.2012 rendered by learned District Judge (Appellate Authority) Shimla in Rent Appeal No. 58-S/14 of 2012.

(2.) Key facts necessary for the adjudication of this petition are that respondent No.1 filed an eviction petition against respondents No. 2 and 3/tenants (hereinafter referred to as respondents No. 2 and 3 for the sake of convenience) under section 14 of the Himachal Pradesh Urban Rent Control Act, 1987 (herein after referred to as Rent Act for the sake of convenience) before the learned Rent Controller-II, Shimla. According to respondent No.1, respondents No. 2 and 3 were chronic defaulters in making payment of due arrears of rent. It was averred in the petition that respondents No. 2 and 3 after the commencement of the Rent Act, without written consent of respondent No.1, transferred their rights under lease and sublet the entire building to some unknown persons, who were in exclusive possession and control of the premises in question. Respondents No. 2 and 3 committed such acts, which were likely to impair materially value and utility of the premises in question. They carried out major additions and alteration work in some of the quarters without written consent of respondent No.1. The premises in question became unsafe and unfit for human habitation and the quarters developed major cracks. Hence, the eviction petition.

(3.) Respondents No. 2 and 3 filed a detailed reply to the petition. According to them, their father, Laturia Ram, was tenant in the land and house and the land was being used for agricultural purposes along with house. It was averred that by virtue of operation of Himachal Pradesh Tenancy & Land Reforms Act, 1972 (herein after referred to as the Tenancy Act for the sake of convenience) ownership rights of the property in question were conferred upon them. After the demise of Laturia Ram, respondents No. 2 and 3, being in possession of the property in question, continued to occupy the same, openly and peacefully. According to them there was no question of making payment of rent to respondent No.1 since they were themselves landlords. It was also asserted in para 18(b) of the reply that respondents No. 2 and 3, were exercising rights of the landlord after the demise of their father in the year 1966 and had been letting out the rooms to different persons. Prior to that, Laturia Ram was also exercising the same rights of letting out the premises to different persons. However, there was no question of letting out the rooms to different persons by respondent No. 2 and 3 after the commencement of the Tenancy Act. They denied that they were liable to be evicted from the premises in question on this ground as the respondent No.1 had not locus standi to prefer the petition. No premises were let out after the commencement of the Tenancy Act. It was also denied that they impaired value and utility of the premises in question. It was also denied that any addition or alteration work was carried out by them and that the premises in question became unsafe and unfit for human habitation.