LAWS(HPH)-1996-10-8

GURBACHAN KAUR Vs. MANORMA KAUSHAL

Decided On October 18, 1996
GURBACHAN KAUR Appellant
V/S
Manorma Kaushal Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is landlady's revision against the judgment dated 2.4.1991 passed by Shri Mrigander Singh, appellate Authority (1), Shimla in C.M.A. No. 26-S/14 of 1987 whereby the appeal has been dismissed. This appeal was filed by the landlady against the judgment of Rent Controller (II), Shimla dated 30.3.1987 whereby the claim petition of the landlady filed by her against the tenant was dismissed. Petitioner, hereinafter referred to as the landlady, had sought the eviction of the respondent, hereinafter referred to as the tenant, from the premises 33/1, The Mall Shimla, under Section 14 of the Himachal Pradesh Urban Rent Control Act, 1971. During the pendency of these proceedings, Himachal Pradesh Urban Rent Control Act, 1987 repealed the 1971 Act.

(2.) IN order to understand the controversy involved in this case, it is necessary to narrate few facts. Landlady filed an ejectment petition on 27.8.1983 before the Rent Controller, Shimla on the grounds of tenant having ceased to occupy the premises in question for a continuous period of more than 12 months prior to filing of the said petition without any reasonable or sufficient case. According to the landlady, the tenant acquired tenancy right as per Section 4 of the Himachal Pradesh Urban Rent Control Act, 1971 After the death of her father, who expired on 16th August, 1980. Case of the landlady further was that since the time of acquisition of tenancy rights in her favour, the tenant had remained out at different places as she is employed in the health department of Government of Himachal Pradesh. It was further pleaded that at present the premises are in exclusive possession of one Sushil Kumar, a sub-tenant and ejectment petition is pending in this behalf before the Rent Controller (I), Shimla. Tenant was also stated to be in arrears of rent and taxes for the period from 1.8.1979 to 31st July, 1987, on these grounds ejectment of the tenant was prayed for.

(3.) ON the aforesaid pleadings, the parties went to trial on the following issues :-