GURSARAN Vs. SHAKUNTALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BOTH these revisions are being disposed of through this common judgment as these revision petitions have arisen from the same proceedings.

(2.) SMT . Shakuntala and Tula Ram claim themselves to be the owners/landlords of the demised premises, which is a part of House No. 114, Annadale, Shimla. The landlords preferred a petition under Section 14 of the H.P. Urban Rent Control Act (hereinafter to be called as 'the Act') against Shri Gursaran, for his eviction from the demised premises, which he has been occupying as tenant under the landlords. The eviction of Shri Gursaran has been sought on the grounds that the tenant was in arrears of rent; has sublet the premises in favour of respondent No. 2 without the consent of the landlords; that the premises were in dilapidated condition and that the premises were required bona fide by the landlords for carrying out the extensive and major repairs and such repairs could not be carried out without the premises being vacated. The landlords further pleaded that the premises were bona fide required by them for their own use and occupation.

(3.) THE learned Rent Controller put the parties to trial on the following issues :-