RAMAN JAIN Vs. RAJ KUMAR MEHRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of above captioned civil revision petitions filed under S.24(5) of the Himachal Pradesh Urban Rent Control Act, 1987 (hereinafter, 'Act'), challenge has been laid to order dated 4.7.2018 passed by the learned appellate Authority-II, Shimla, Whether reporters of the Local papers are allowed to see the judgment? . Himachal Pradesh in CMP Nos. 40-S/6 of 2018 under S.24(2)(b) of the Act and 159-S/6 of 2018 under S.151 CPC, whereby the authority below, while staying eviction order dated 15.12.2017 passed by the learned Rent Controller, Shimla has directed the tenant Shri Raman Jain to deposit use and occupation charges at the rate of Rs. 1,64,340/- per month with effect from the date of eviction i.e. 15.12.2017. Authority below has further ordered that, all the arrears, on the basis of use and occupation charges fixed by it should be deposited within a period of sixty days, failing which eviction order shall forthwith become executable.

(2.) For having a bird's eye view, necessary facts, shorn of unnecessary details are that the landlords namely, Raj Kumar Mehra and Mohit Mehra (petitioners in Civil Revision No. 193 of 2018)(hereinafter, 'landlords') filed a Rent Petition No. 11-2 of 2016/12 before the learned Rent Controller, Shimla, Himachal Pradesh under S.14 of the Act, for eviction of the tenant, Shri Raman Jain (petitioner in Civil Revision No. 165 of 2018)(hereafter, 'tenant'), from the shop in question on the ground of requirement for expanding their existing business. Learned Rent Controller, vide order dated 15.12.2017 ordered eviction of the tenant, which subsequently came to be challenged by the tenant by fling an appeal under S. 24 of the Act, before the learned appellate authority. Alongwith the appeal, tenant filed two applications, one under S.24(2) of the Act for the stay of the operation of order dated 15.12.2017 passed by the learned Rent Controller in Rent Petition No. 11-2 of 2016/2012, titled Raj Kumar Mehra and another vs. Ramesh Jain, and, another application under S.151 CPC, with a view to rebut the lease deed filed by the landlords alongwith their reply to the application filed by the tenant under S.24(2) of the Act. Tenant averred in the aforesaid application that, in all probabilities, appeal filed by him is likely to be allowed and, in case, eviction order as passed by the learned Rent Controller, is not stayed during the pendency of present appeal, very purpose of filing appeal would be frustrated. Tenant also averred in the application that, in case impugned order is not stayed, he would suffer irreparable loss and substantial injury, which can not be compensated in terms of money, especially, when premises ordered to be vacated are being used by the tenant for running his business.

(3.) Aforesaid application came to be hotly contested by the landlords, who claimed that they require the premises in question for expansion of their existing business and in case, operation of impugned order dated 15.12.2017 passed by learned Rent Controller is stayed, it will cause prejudice to them, who have filed the rent petition and they would be deprived of their valuable right, which has accrued in their favour. Landlords also averred that the tenant has adopted a delaying tactic to deprive them from reaping the fruits of eviction order passed by the learned Rent Controller. They further averred in the reply that a vested right has accrued in their favour and as such, they can not be denied of same. Landlords, while contesting the application for stay having been filed by the tenant, further claimed before the authority below, that the demised premises are commercial, situated on The Mall, within the municipal limits of Shimla and, after passing of the eviction order, possession of the tenant over the demised premises is totally unauthorized and tenant is liable to pay use and occupation charges at the rate of Rs. 5.00 Lakh per month. Landlords, further claimed that the tenant has purchased a shop in a Benami transaction on the Mall Road, Shimla, which has been let out to M/s Raymond Apparels Ltd. on the monthly rent of Rs. 5.00 Lakh, whereas, to the contrary, he is enjoying demised premises on negligible rent of Rs. 6,325/- per month and prayed that the application for stay may be dismissed in the interest of justice. Record reveals that the averments contained in the reply further came to be refuted by the tenant by way of rejoinder.