LEELA SOOD Vs. MANOHAR LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition under Section 24 (5) of the HP Urban Rent Control Act, 1987 has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 21.2.2008 passed by the Appellate Authority in Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 61-S/13 (B) of 2006.

(2.) BRIEF facts necessary for the adjudication of this petition are that the respondent-landlord, hereinafter referred to as the landlord for convenience sake, has filed a petition under Section 14 of the HP Urban Rent Control Act, 1987 against the petitioners-tenants, hereinafter referred to as the tenants for convenience sake, in the Court of learned Rent Controller, Court No. 3, Shimla.

(3.) THE tenants have contested that the landlord has no locus standi to file the petition and it was denied that the premises in their possession were required by the landlord for reconstruction of the entire building on old lines. It was also stated that the landlord was not owner of the suit premises, therefore, he had no right to seek eviction of the tenants from the premises. It was denied that the building has become unsafe and unfit for human habitation. The building is in good habitable condition. The building is built in brick masonry with cement. The means of landlord were denied. It was also denied that the tenants were in arrears of rent since 1.4.2004.