SURJIT SINGH Vs. PRITAM SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a landlord's revision petition arising out of proceedings for eviction of a tenant under Sec. 14 (2) of the Himachal Pradesh Urban Rent Control Act, 1971.

(2.) The Petitioner, Kr. Surjit Singh, is the landlord and the Respondent, Shri Pritam Singh Patpatia, is the tenant of accommodation in the premises known as "Lyndhurst West" situated on the Mall, Simla. The Petitioner filed a petition under Sec. 14 (2) of the Himachal Pradesh Urban Rent Control Act, (hereinafter referred to as "the Himachal Act") seeking the eviction of the Respondent on a number of grounds. The Controller, by his order dated November 27, 1973, found that the landlord had made out a case for the eviction on the ground that the Respondent had cease to occupy the accommodation for more than 12 months continuously before the institution of the petition. Accordingly, he directed that the Petitioner be put in possession on the eviction of the Respondent. An appeal by the Respondent has been allowed by the Appellate Authority by its order dated March 27, 1974. The Appellate Authority, while agreeing with the appreciation of evidence by the Controller, has come to the opinion that Sec. 14 (2) of the Himachal Act was not attracted, and that the case was governed by Sec. 13(2) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, (hereinafter referred to as "the East Punjab Act") by virtue of Sec. 28 of the Himachal Act. He held that as the ground of ceasing to occupy accommodation for a period did not apply under the East Punjab Act to buildings in a hill station, no case had been made out for eviction of the Respondent. Against the appellate order the Petitioner now applies in revision.

(3.) Two points have been urged by learned Counsel for the Petitioner. One is that the Appellate Authority erred in applying the East Punjab Act and that the case properly falls under the Himachal Act. The other is that the Appellate Authority is vested with jurisdiction to hear appeals against orders made by Rent Controllers under Sec. 13 of the East Punjab Act and not under Sec. 14 of the Himachal Act, and therefore the appeal is incompetent.