KRISHAN MURARI Vs. AMAR DUTT SHARMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Krishan Murari, present petitioner is occupying the demised premises as tenant under Amar Dutt Sharma, the landlord -respondent. Sh. Amar Dutt Sharma, landlord had preferred an eviction petition against the tenant (Rent Petition No 20/2 of 1990) under section 14 of the Himachal Pradesh Urban Rent Control Act (hereinafter to be called as the Act), on the ground of non -payment of arrears of rent for the period from 1 -12 -1985 to 31 -3 - 990.

(2.) The tenant contested the petition which was ultimately allowed on 25 -11 -1993 and the Rent Controller held that the tenant was in arrears of rent with effect from 1 -12 -1985 to 31 -3 -1990 at the rate of Rs. 400 per month amounting to Rs. 20,800 plus statutory interest thereon, upto 24 -11 -1993 amounting to Rs. 8,600 plus costs of the petition assessed at Rs. 300 and therefore it was held that the total amount due was Rs 29,700 (Rs. Twenty nine thousand seven hundred only) and further Rent Controller directed the tenant -respondent to put the landlord -petitioner in the vacant possession of the premises, in question and in case tenant -respondent pays the amount due within a period of thirty days, from the date of the eviction order, he shall not be evicted from the demised premises.

(3.) The aforesaid eviction order was assailed by the tenant -respondent in an appeal before the lower Appellate Authority, Solan, who vide judgment dated 5 -5 -1994, came to the conclusion that the tenant -respondent was in arrears of rent of Rs. 12,800 which he was liable to pay with statutory interest and costs as assessed by the Rent Controller and dismissed the appeal. The tenant -respondent did not rest there but assailed the order passed by the lower Appellate Authority in a revision petition before this court, where he was again unsuccessful as the civil revision No. 107 of 1994 was dismissed on 13 -5 -1994 holding, that the petitioner in the revision, was in arrears of rent amounting to Rs. 12,800 with effect from 1 -12 -1985 to 31 -3 -1990 and that the Appellate Authority was, therefore, quite justified in holding that the petitioner -tenant was in arrears of rent and that the order of eviction passed by the Rent Controller deserved to be upheld