NARINDER KUMAR Vs. RAMESH KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is defendants' second appeal against the judgment and decree passed on l 5/12/1988 by the Additional District Judge, Solan dismissing their appeal and thereby confirming the judgment and decree passed on 7/12/1985 by the Senior Sub-Judge, Solar decreeing the suit of the plaintiff-respondents The appeal was admitted for hearing on the following questions of law :

(2.) I have heard the learned counsel for the parties atlength and gone through the record.

(3.) The plaintiffs claimed a decree for possession by way of ejectment of defendant-appellants from a residential premises comprising two rooms, kitchen, bath, latrine verandah and open courtyard, situate in the ground floor of the building known at Mukand Bhawan bearing Municipal Committee No. 61 in Ward No. 2, The Mail, Solan. It was alleged that one Rattan Chand was a tenant under them on payment of monthly rent of Rs. 30.00 and on his death, by operation of law, his widow Smt. Bhagwanti Devi became a statutory tenant under them. Her eviction was sought by them by taking our proceedings for ejectment under S. 14 of the Himachal Pradesh Urban Rent Control Act. 1971 (Act No. 21 of 1971) (hereinafter referred to as '1971 Act') inter alia on the grounds of non-payment of the arrears of rent and bona fide personal requirement etc. An order of eviction was passed against her by the Rent Controller, Solan on 30/04/1980 or the ground of non-payment of arrears of rent. Other grounds were turned down. The arrears of rent were duly paid thereafter within a period of 30 days by her, thus this ground became redundant. Feeling aggrieved, the plaintiffs carried the matter in appeal before the Appellate Authority, Solan. During the pendency of appeal, Smt. Bhagwanti Devi died. It was further averred that since on the death of Smt. Bhagwanti Devi, the statutory tenancy had come to an end, the appeal was withdrawn by them. With this background, it was alleged in the civil suit that the defendants, who are the sons of Rattan Chand had no right to continue in occupation of the premises. Their possession is unauthorised. A decree for possession by way of ejectment was sought.