YUGAL RAJ PURI Vs. SHANTI DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition under Section 24 of the Himachal Pradesh Urban Rent Control Act, 1987 (hereinafter called the Act) has been filed against the order of the Appellate Authority i.e. the Court of Shri R.L. Khurana, Appellate Authority, Solan dated 14.5.1992 dismissing the appeal of the petitioner -landlord thereby confirming the order of dismissal passed by the Court of Shri Rajan Gupta, Rent Controller, Kandaghat, camp at Solan dated 17.7.1991.

(2.) Briefly, the facts are that the petitioner being landlord filed a petition under Section 14 of the Act for eviction of the respondent -tenant from the premises in dispute i.e. Kamla Cottage, Municipal Ward No.8, Jawahar Park, Solan on the ground that the demised premises were let out to Shri R.L. Bhutani around 1950 on payment of Rs.37.50 per month as rent excluding water, electricity charges arid taxes. After his death, Smt. Shanti Devi, the present respondent has stepped into his shoes being his widow. The rented premises are bona fide required by him for own use and occupation since he has retired from service and wants to settle at Solan. Moreover, the building is very old and requires renovation/reconstruction, which cannot be carried out without its vacation. It is also pleaded that the tenant has not paid rent from April, 198 7 onwards. Hence, the eviction petition. 2A. In reply the tenant -respondent admitted the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties as also the rate of rent However, it was denied that the premises were let out fully furnished. It was further pleaded that she is contractual tenant and the tenancy commences from month to month. It was also pleaded that the disputed premises are not required by the petitioner for his use and occupation. He is well settled at Delhi and has no intention to shift to Solan. The condition of the building was stated to be in very good and it did not require any renovation or reconstruction. It was disputed that the respondent was in arrears of rent. It was pleaded that the present -eviction petition had been filed with an ulterior motive to enhance the rent. On the pleadings of the parties, the Rent Controller framed the following issues: - 1 Whether the respondent is in arrears since 1.4.198 7 as alleged? OPP. 2 Whether the demised premises are required by the petitioner bona fide as alleged? OPP. 3 Whether the respondent is a contractual tenant as alleged? OPR 4 Reliefs.

(3.) Issue No. 1 was held to be redundant Under Issue No.2 it was held that the demised premises are not bona fide required by the petitioner. Issue No 3 was not pressed. On these findings the eviction petition was dismissed In the Rent Controller. The appeal having met the same fate, the petitioner landlord has come in revision before this Court