LAWS(HPH)-1995-10-9

MOHINDER KUMAR JOSHI Vs. KALI RAM

Decided On October 20, 1995
Mohinder Kumar Joshi Appellant
V/S
KALI RAM Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition has been filed by the tenant -Petitioner under Sec. 24(1) of the H.P. Urban Rent Control Act, 1987, against the appellate order passed by the learned Additional District Judge (I), Shimla, on 20.9.1994 in CMA No. 19 -S/14 of 1991. The appellate authority affirmed the order of the Rent Controller (I), Shimla in Case No. 25/2 of 1987.

(2.) Briefly stated, the facts are as follows. The Respondent -landlord filed a petition against the present Petitioner -tenant for his eviction on the ground that the premises in question is required for his bonafide use. At present Respondent -landlord is residing at the rented premises at Butail Ganj, Ram Bazar, Shimla. The name of the house, for which eviction is sought for, is Mehlog House situated at Boileauganj, Shimla. The Respondent -landlord has two sons. One son, namely, Shri Rajinder Kumar is residing in one set of Mehlog House with his family members and his second son, Shri Narinder Kumar with his family members is residing with the present Respondent -landlord. As one set has become vacant, the second son of the Respondent -landlord, Sh. Narinder Kumar, is going to shift and the Respondent -landlord being an aged person would like to spend his life in the company and close proximity of both his sons, therefore, the premises in occupation of the Petitioner -tenant are required for his personal bona fide use.

(3.) In the reply affidavit before the learned Rent Controller, the Petitioner -tenant urged that the premises which are in occupation of the Respondent -landlord are more useful to the Respondent -landlord, as his business premises are located below the same building. It was also urged that in Mehlog House, there exists four rooms with glazed Verandah, which are vacant and are in possession of the Respondent -landlord, therefore, he can occupy these four rooms. In the reply affidavit, it was also stated that the premises in question are not required for bona fide use and occupation of the Respondent -landlord and he has filed the eviction petition with a view to enhance the rent.