RAM KUMAR CHUG Vs. ARUNA BANSAL & ANR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The demised premises, occur, in Shop No.40 in a building, built upon Khasra No.480, 481, 482, situated at Ward No.8, Chhota Chowk, Nahan, H.P. The landlord(s) of the aforesaid premises is/are one Aruna Bansal, and, Smt. Usha Bansal, and, the petitioner herein, is tenant therein. The ground for eviction, reared, in the apposite petition for eviction instituted before the learned Rent Controller concerned is extracted hereinafter:

(2.) The demised premises, apparently, given its being designated as Shop No.40, is, hence a non residential premises. The afore extracted ground, of eviction, reared by the landlord vis-a-vis the petitioner herein, an occupant therein as a tenant, is visibly, in consonance, with the provisions cast under Section 14(3) (d) , of, the Himachal Pradesh Urban Rent Control Act, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) , provisions whereof are extracted hereinafter:-

(3.) The effort on the part of the tenant, to seek the leave of the Court to beget the aforesaid amendment, in his reply, has been aptly declined besides frustrated, by the learned Rent Controller concerned, given the amendment strived by the tenant, rather falling within the ambit of sub-section (3) , and, of, sub section (6) of Section 14 of the Act, provisions besides proviso thereof, stand extracted hereinabove. However, the applicability or attraction, of the aforesaid provisions borne in the Act, is only upon the non residential demised premises concerned, (i) rather being pleaded to be bonafide required by the landlord, for his, own occupation, and, also with obviously the mandate, of, sub-section (6) of Section 14 of the Act, hence, made singularly applicable with specificity vis-a-vis sub section (3) , (ii) thereupon, sub section (6) of Section 14 of the Act, is, obviously applicable, only, upon the ground of eviction reared, in the apposite petition, hence falling within the ambit of sub-section (3) of Section 14, of the Act. However, as aforestated, with the afore extracted ground, of, eviction reared in the eviction petition, hence not, falling within the domain of sub-section (3) (a) of Section 14 of Act, (iii) thereupon, the mandate of sub-section (6) of Section 14, of the Act, when begets attraction singularly vis-a-vis sub section (3) (a) of Section 14 of the Act, and, rather is unattractable vis-a-vis, the ground of eviction reared, in the hereat apposite eviction petition, (iv) ground whereof contrarily comes, within the ambit of sub-section (3) (d) of Section 14 of the Act, vis-a-vis latter clause (ii) , the mandate of sub-section (6) of Section 14 of the Act, is not made applicable, (v) thereupon, the amendment, strived, by the tenant/petitioner herein, by invoking the mandate of sub-section (6) , of, Section 14 of the Act, when is palpably outside mandate thereof, thereupon, the declining, of, the apposite leave by the learned Rent Controller concerned, vis-a-vis the tenant, is both apt and just.