DEEPAK SOOD Vs. PARMOD SOOD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) As per the report of the Registry, respondent No.1 has been duly served. As none has put in appearance on his behalf, the said respondent is ordered to be proceeded against ex-parte.

(2.) Brief facts, necessary for the adjudication of the present petition are that the present petitioner and respondent No.1 are relatives. There is property owned by them within the limits of Municipal Council, Shimla, in which respondent No.2 at one point was inducted as a tenant.

(3.) In the year 2011, respondent No.1 Parmod Sood filed a petition for eviction of the said tenant before the Court of learned Rent Controller, Shimla.