YOG RAJ SOOD Vs. SUNITA KAUSHAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this petition filed under Section 24(5) of the Himachal Pradesh Urban Rent Control Act, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act"), following questions arise for consideration: (i) As to whether application filed before this Court (under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC), seeking permission to lead additional evidence is bonafide and is necessarily to be allowed for determining the controversy in issue? (ii) Whether Cross Objections filed by the respondent -tenant under Order 41 Rule 22 CPC are maintainable or not? (iii) What is the scope of interference by this Court in a revision petition filed under Section 24(5) of the Act? (iv) Whether, while examining the correctness, legality or propriety of the orders passed by the Authorities below, this Court can grant relief to the respondent -tenant? (v) Whether the findings, concurrent in nature, so returned by the Authorities below are perverse or illegal, warranting interference by this Court? and (vi) Whether in the absence of any interim order, staying the operation of the order sought to be executed, it was open for the Rent Controller to have dismissed the execution petition only on account of pendency of the petition before this Court?

(2.) Vide agreement dated 27.3.1992 (Ext. PW -2/A), petitioner Yog Raj Sood rented out the tenanted premises comprising of one shop, situate in Ward No. 6, Municipal Council House No. 167, Kotwali Bazar, Dharamshala on a monthly rental of Rs.1000/ - (rupees one thousand) to Smt.Sunita Kaushal (respondent No.1) wife of Shiv Kumar Kaushal (respondent No. 2). Subsequently the rent came to be enhanced to Rs.1200/ - (rupees one thousand & two hundred) per month. On 9.10.2001, landlord preferred a petition under the provisions of Section 14 of the Act. As per the claim set out in the petition, w.e.f. 1.4.2000 the tenant was in arrears of rent. Also, though initially the shop was let out for the purpose of running a business of carpets, but however, w.e.f. 26.6.2000, the tenant started running a restaurant under the name and style of "Taste Point". Such change not only damaged but also diminished the value and utility of the tenanted premises, apart from being a cause of nuisance to the occupiers of the building in the neighbourhood and the landlord who resides alongwith his family on the first floor.

(3.) The tenant responded by denying the averments, further clarifying that in any event, the business of restaurant stood closed.