RAJINDER KUMAR Vs. KUSUM GOEL AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of this revision petition filed under Section 24(5) of the Himachal Pradesh Urban Rent Control Act, 1987, the petitioner herein has challenged the judgment passed by the learned Appellate Authority (II), Shimla in Rent Appeal No. 8-S/13(b) of 2007, dated 09.08.2011, vide which, learned Appellate Authority has dismissed an appeal filed by the present petitioner against order passed by learned Rent Controller (2), Shimla in Rent Petition No. 17/2 of 97/96, dated 26.03.2007, whereby learned Rent Controller while allowing an application for eviction filed under Section 14 of the Himachal Pradesh Urban Rent Control Act, 1987 by the present respondents, ordered the eviction of the present petitioners from the premises in dispute on the ground of arrears of rent, sub-letting and re-building and re-construction.

(2.) Brief facts necessary for the adjudication of the present case are that present respondents (hereinafter referred to as "the landlords") filed an application for eviction of the present petitioner and respondent No. 4 under Section 14 of the Himachal Pradesh Urban Rent Control Act, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as "the 1987 Act") in the Court of learned Rent Controller-(II), Shimla on the pleadings that the landlords were owners of shop No. 49, First Floor, Lower Bazaar, Shimla and that the premises were in exclusive possession and control of respondent No. 2 therein, i.e., present petitioner as sub-tenant. The suit property comprised of two rooms including kitchen and latrine and as per the landlords, the annual rent of the same was '1200/- per annum besides taxes. It was further mentioned in the petition that respondent No. 1 therein was tenant in respect of the demised premises prior to the purchase of the property by the landlords from their predecessors-ininterest and they were not aware as to whether any agreement was executed in this regard as no copy of the same had been supplied to them by the previous landlords except a list of tenants. In para 18 of the eviction petition, which pertains to grounds on which the eviction was sought, the grounds mentioned therein were:

(3.) Records demonstrate that no reply was filed to the eviction petition by respondent No. 1, though the eviction petition was resisted and contested by respondent No. 2 therein, i.e., the present petitioner.