THAKUR DASS Vs. SUNITA KUMARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The landlord/petitioner herein (for short "the landlord") instituted an eviction petition bearing No. 6-2 of 2009 before the learned Rent Controller, Court No. (7), Shimla, H.P, wherethrough he seeks eviction, of, the tenant/ respondent herein (for short "tenant"), from the demised premises (described in detail in Rent Petition), on, two Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? statutory grounds (a) in as much, as, hers falling into arrears of rent, and, (b) the demised premises becoming bonafidely required by the landlord for (i) ensuring, the, residing therein, of, his grandson, who provenly as unraveled, by, Ex. PW-3/A, being paraplegic, and, hence requiring his being carried in a wheelchair, and, (ii) the demised premises rather holding all the requisite facilities, for, his grandson becoming housed therein. However, the learned Rent Controller ordered the eviction, of, the tenant, from, the demised premises, only on the ground, of hers, falling into arrears of rent, yet it declined to order, for, eviction of the tenant, from, the demised premises, on the afore latter ground, vis-a-vis, the landlord requiring the premises, for, the use, of his afore paraplegic grandson.

(2.) The aggrieved landlord hence constituted against the afore dis-affirmative order, as, made by the learned trial Court, an appeal bearing No. 34-S/14 of 2013/12, before the learned District Judge, Shimla, and, the latter Court, declined to make any interference, vis-a-vis, the verdict hence recorded by the learned trial Court, and, obviously hence recorded, a, verdict in affirmation thereto.

(3.) The landlord feeling aggrieved, from, the afore order(s), has constituted thereagainst, the, instant Civil Revision Petition, before this Court.