RENU SOOD Vs. RAM PRASAD GUPTA & ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The respondents/applicants claim themselves to be the tenants in the relevant demised premises. They also claim that the petitioner herein is their landlord. The quantum of rent purportedly defrayed by the respondents/applicants vis-à-vis the petitioner/landlord, is averred to be constituted in a sum of Rs. 700/- per mensem.

(2.) Importantly, the order impugned before this Court is upon an application, cast under the provisions of 24(5) of the Himachal Pradesh Urban Rent Control Act, 1987, hence obviously it not arise, from, concurrent pronouncement(s) made by both the learned Courts below, upon an application seeking eviction of the respondents/applicants from the demised premises. Contrarily, it arises from orders pronounced upon an application cast under Section 11 of HP Urban Rent Control Act, 1987, application whereof was for restoration vis-à-vis the applicant(s), of certain amenities, also was for restoration of possession of the purported demised premises, vis-à- vis the applicants. It is averred therein that the petitioner, by locking the door of the purported demised premises, thereupon his precluding the respondents/applicants from making ingress(s) therein. Consequently, the applicants/respondents claim in the apposite petition, for, possession of the purported demised premises, being restored, vis-à-vis them. Even when the application cast under the provisions of Section 11 of H.P. Urban Rent Control Act was not put to trial, yet the learned Rent Controller pronounced interim direction, for restoration of the possession of the purported demises premises, by the petitioner herein, vis-à-vis the respondents/applicants. The order of the learned Rent Controller was challenged before the learned Appellate Authority, whereupon the latter proceeded to affirm the orders recorded by the learned Rent Controller. Consequently, the petitioner is aggrieved therefrom, hence is led to institute the instant petition before this Court.

(3.) The order impugned before this Court, would not, suffer any infection(s) or any gross vices, also may not warrant any invalidation, only upon adduction before the learned Rent Controller, of, best documentary evidence, comprised in rent receipts personifying the factum of the respondents/applicants defraying per mensem rent borne in a sum of Rs. 700/-, specifically qua the extant demised premises, vis-à-vis the petitioner herein. However, the aforesaid evidence did not visibly, exist before the learned Rent Controller, also he did not ensure its adduction before him, rather proceeded to make interim directions for restoration of possession of the demised premises, by the petitioner herein, vis-à-vis the respondents. Likewise, the learned Appellate Authority also proceeded to affirm the orders pronounced by the learned Rent Controller.