SAROJ BEHL Vs. JOHN CHUNG

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS civil revision under Section 24(5) of the H.P. Urban Rent Control Act, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) is directed against the order passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Shimla (Appellate Authority) in Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 11-S/14 of 2001, dated 26th April, 2003, whereby he has partly set aside the order of the learned Rent Controller dated 30th November, 2000. 1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment?

(2.) THE undisputed facts are that the petitioner is a tenant in the demised premises i.e. 23, Middle Bazaar, Shimla. The premises consist of one big room in which the tenant is running her business. The respondents claim themselves to be the landlords and owners of the building for which an eviction petition on the ground that the tenant had, without consent of the landlords, changed the user of the shop from that of electric goods to a dhaba; it was also urged that the tenant had done substantial additions and alteration in the demised premises which had materially impaired the value and utility of the building; lastly it was alleged that the respondent is in arrears of rent w.e.f. 1.10.1993 onwards.

(3.) THE learned Rent Controller came to the conclusion that there was no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. He also decided the other issues against the landlords and dismissed the petition. Appeal was filed by the landlords before the Appellate Authority who has come to the conclusion that the respondents are landlords within the meaning of the Act and, therefore were entitled to file the petition. The petition was only allowed on the ground of arrears of rent, but was rejected on other grounds. Aggrieved by the said order the tenant has filed the present revision petition.