LAWS(HPH)-2019-12-168

SAUJI DEV I Vs. KRISHAN LAL

Decided On December 04, 2019
Sauji Dev I Appellant
V/S
KRISHAN LAL Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of this petition, petitioners have challenged the order passed by the learned Rent Controller Lahaul-?Spiti at Kullu, H.P. in Rent Petition No.2/2010, titled as Krishan Lal & another Versus Smt. Sauji Devi and others, decided on Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 24.03.2017, vide which learned Rent Controller has ordered eviction of the present petitioners from the demised premises on account of a rent petition filed by the present respondents as also the judgment passed by the learned District Judge, Kullu, District Kullu, H.P. in Civil Appeal No.09 of 2017, titled as Smt. Sauji Devi and others Versus Krishan Lal and another, decided on 16.01.2019, whereby learned Appellate Court while concurring with the findings returned by the learned Rent Controller, dismissed the appeal filed against said order by the present appellants.

(2.) Brief facts necessary for the adjudication of the present petition are that the Eviction Proceedings were initiated by the respondents herein against present petitioners with regard to the demised premises comprising of tin roofed timber structure i.e. a Khokha measuring 20X20 feet, existing over land comprised in khata-?khatauni No.268 min/410, khasra No.459 min, measuring 0-?01-?00 bigha, situated at Phati Dhalpur, Kothi Maharaja, Tehsil and District Kullu, H.P. being Municipal No.DHL-?8, House No.241.

(3.) A perusal of the order passed by the learned Rent Controller demonstrates that upon appreciation of the pleadings of the parties as also evidence led in support thereof, it came to the conclusion that the demised premises were indeed bonafidely required by the petitioners for rebuilding and reconstruction, which could not carried out unless the premises were vacated and demolished. Learned Rent Controller placed reliance upon the statements of landlord Krishan Lal (PW-?1) and Om Prakash (PW-?2), who stated before the Court that they were possessed of sufficient funds for carrying out proposed construction.