RAM KRISHAN MELU Vs. KUSUM BHASIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The landlord/respondent herein had preferred a petition before the learned Rent Controller (V), Shimla, Himachal Pradesh for eviction from the demised premises of the petitioner herein/tenant on the ground of the demised premises being bonafidely required by the landlord/respondent herein to satiate her bonafide requirement of increased accommodation arising from a spurt in the numerical strength of her family members named in the petition for eviction to be residing with her, especially with the extant accommodation available with the respondent herein/landlord being insufficient besides unsuitable to accommodate the landlord/respondent herein and her family members as depicted in the eviction petition.

(2.) The petition for eviction preferred by the landlord/respondent herein before the learned Rent Controller (V), Shimla was dismissed by the latter. An appeal was preferred by the respondent herein/landlord before the Appellate Authority. The latter in his judgement impugned before this Court reversed the order of the learned Rent Controller (V), Shimla. The tenant/petitioner herein standing aggrieved by the rendition of the learned Appellate Authority has instituted the instant revision petition before this Court assailing the judgement recorded by it, in favour of the landlord/respondent herein.

(3.) Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the landlord Kusum Bhasin preferred a petition under Section 14 of the H.P. Urban Rent Control Act against the tenant Shri Ram Krishan Melu, petitioner herein on the ground of his being in arrears in rent since 10.09.1992 and the premises comprised in 56/10 Jutogh Cantt, Shimla was required by her for her bonafide occupation. It was averred that she purchased the demised premises through sale deed and demised premises remained under the tenancy of tenant Ram Krishan Melu. The rent was Rs.100/- per month and on acquiring right, title, interest in the demised premises, the tenant-petitioner herein was required to make payment of rent to her. It was also averred that she has a large family which included her husband, children, two brothers-in-law, their families and mother-in-law i.e. 12 members and premises available with her is insufficient to accommodate the members of the joint family, as such, she required the demised premises for her own occupation. It is further averred that after her acquiring title to the demised premises she had not vacated any premises in her possession within the Municipal Corporation area immediately preceding 5 years from the filing of the present petition without any sufficient cause.