RAJEEV SOOD Vs. STATE BANK OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE landlord -petitioners have filed this revision petition feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied by the order of the learned Appellate Authority (II) Shimla passed in CMA No. 72 -S/14 of 1997 decided on 28th November, 2001 whereby the order of eviction passed by the Rent Controller (I) Shimla in Rent Petition No. 43 -2 of 1991 dated 30.9.1997 against the respondent -tenant was set aside and the petition for eviction was dismissed mainly on the ground that the premises in question fell within the definition of public premises -, and it is the 'Public Premises Act and not the 'Rent Control Act, which was applicable to the facts of this case.

(2.) PRECISELY , the facts giving rise to the instant revision petition may be noticed thus. The petitioners are the landlords of five storeyed building, known as ˜Ramesh Bhawan, situated at Jakhu, Shimla -1, hereinafter to be referred as ˜suit premises. The landlords let out the ˜suit premises to the respondent -Bank in the year 1979 for housing its officers and employees along with their families. It has eight residential sets alongwith two stores on the ground floor. Monthly rent of the suit premises was fixed at Rs. 5,250/ - as alleged by the petitioners. However, no formal rent deed was executed inter se the parties. The petitioners had also sent a notice terminating the tenancy of the respondent and hand over its possession. The respondents did not vacate the suit premises. Thus the petitioners sought eviction of the respondent -Bank under the H.P. Urban Rent Control Act, 1987 - in short the Rent Act - on the ground of bonaifde use and occupation, as they did not have any residential house or property within the municipal area of Shimla Town preceding five years from the date of filing, the petition for eviction.

(3.) THE petitioners herein had filed a rejoinder to the above reply whereby they refuted the objections, raised by the respondent -Bank and reiterated even paras of their petition elaborating their stand.