GURBACHAN SINGH Vs. RAVINDER NATH BHALLA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Revision Petition has been filed by the tenant -petitioner against the order dated 6.5.2005 passed by the Appellate Authority, Solan, whereby the appeal filed by the landlords was accepted, the order dated 23.8.2001 passed by the Rent Controller was modified and order of eviction was passed in favour of the landlords and against the tenant, on the grounds of arrears of rent, ceased to occupy and bonafide requirement of the landlords.

(2.) The facts which are relevant for the decision of the present revision petition are that landlords Ravinder Nath Bhalla etc. had filed a petition under Section 14 of the H.P. Urban Rent Control Act, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as the act) against Gurbachan Singh, Lambardar (tenant), seeking his ejectment form the demised premises consisting of three rooms, bath room, kitchen and latrine situated at Kasauli District Solan, (H.P). It was alleged in the petition that the tenant was in the arrears of rent with effect from September, 1989 onwards at the rate of Rs.300/ -p.m. in addition to the statutory increase in rent Besides seeking ejectment of the tenant on the ground of non payment of rent, the landlords also sought the eviction of the tenant from the demised premises on the ground that the tenant had ceased to occupy the premises since July, 1988 continuously i.e. for more than 12 months, it was also alleged that the landlords required the demised premises bonafide for their won use and occupation, inasmuch as they have large number of family members and the accommodation with them at Kasauli was insufficient and some times they have to stay in hotels and guest houses when they visit Kasauli, since sufficient accommodation is not available for them in the building in question.

(3.) The said petition was contested by the tenant, by filing the reply, denying that the demised premises was on rent with him on a monthly rent of Rs.300/ -. On the other hand, it was pleaded that the rent for the demised premises was Rs.1500/ - per year and that rent had been paid upto 30.4.1996 to the tune of Rs.7650/ -in the Court. It was alleged that rent was also paid in the previous petition in the Court and thereafter rent has been paid in the present petition. It was further alleged that the premises are "being used and the lock is not there". It was also alleged that "the premises are under use. "It was further alleged that no person live here and the petition is only for getting the rent increased and that the other accommodation with the petitioners was more than desirable. 4.After hearing both the sides and perusing the record, the learned Rent Controller ordered the eviction of the tenant form the demised premises only on ground of non payment of rent, with the stipulation that in case the arrears of rent were deposited in the Court within 30 days the tenant will not be evicted from the demised premises. Dissatisfied with the order passed by the rent Controller, the landlords filed an appeal. The learned Appellant Authority after hearing both sides and perusing the record accepted the appeal of the landlords, modified the order of the Rent Controller and ordered the eviction of the tenant from the demised premises on the grounds of arrears of rent, ceased to occupy and bonafide requirement, with the stipulation that the said order of eviction shall not be executed on the ground of non payment of rent in case the arrears of rent, were deposited by the tenant within 30 days of the passing of the said order. Aggrieved against the order of eviction, passed by the learned Appellate Authority, the tenant filed the present revision petition in this Court.