ASHOK SHARMA Vs. KANTA BHAGAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner herein is a tenant under the respondent in the demised premises. An application under Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC read with Section 14(6) was filed before the learned Rent Controller for rejection of the petition on the score of the demised premises having been purchased in the year 2010 and as such in view of the prohibition engrafted in Section 14(6) of the H.P. Urban Rent Control Act, 1987 against the institution of an eviction petition on the grounds specified in Section 14(3)(a)(i) inasmuch as, an eviction petition being not institutable unless a period of five years stands elapsed from the date of purchase by the landlady/respondent herein of the demised premises. Consequently, when given the purchase of the demised premises by the respondent herein in July, 2010, as such, the eviction of the tenant from the demised premises sought through an eviction petition instituted prior to the elapse of five years necessitated its being rejected or thrown out. Even though, the learned Rent Controller before whom the application under Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC read with Section 14(6) of the H.P. Urban Rent Control Act, 1987 was laid, concurred with the submission made before her by the learned counsel for the petitioner herein, nonetheless the appellate authority disaffirmed the conclusions and findings recorded by the learned Rent Controller, hence set -aside the orders of the learned Rent Controller impugned before it. Now, the instant revision petition before this Court.

(2.) BEFORE proceeding to render a conclusion qua the sinew and tenacity of the findings recorded by the learned Appellate Authority it is pertinent to extract the relevant portion of the apposite pleadings, comprised in paragraph 18(a), which are extracted hereinafter: - -