TAHIR KHAN Vs. JAI DEV SINGH AND ORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner claims to be one of the landlords, whose petition for eviction of the tenant/respondent No.1 was dismissed by the learned Rent Controller vide order dated 31.12.2005 and thereafter an appeal filed against the said order was dismissed by the learned Appellate Authority vide judgment dated 17.3.2011, constraining him to file the present revision petition.

(2.) That the petitioner filed a petition under Section 14 of the H.P. Urban Rent Control Act, 1987, seeking eviction of respondent No.1 from two shops built over Khasra Nos. 48 and 49, bearing Municipal No. 2263/7in Muhal Rajinder Nagar, Nahan Town. It was averred that father of the petitioner, namely, late Sh. Mohd. Khan, let out demised premises to respondent No.1 for repairing, manufacturing and selling of shoes, on a monthly rental of Rs.2000/ and Rs.3000/ respectively, as shown in the rough site plan with ink 'A' & 'B' and besides this, respondent No.1 was to pay the electricity charges and other taxes etc. The tenancy of the demised premises was created by his father during his life time and one of the shops marked 'A' was small and another marked 'B' was bigger. The small shop was rented out about 20 years ago on the monthly rental of Rs. 1,000/ and the bigger shop was let out in the year 1995 for a monthly rental of Rs.3000/. However, the monthly rental of small shop had been increased from time to time and when the bigger shop was also given to respondent No.1 on tenancy in August 1995, the rent of the said shop was mutually fixed at Rs.2000/ per month.

(3.) The petitioner pleaded that respondent No.1 had not paid the rent of the demised premises/shops since the month of August 1996 till the date of filing of the petition for a period of 59 months amounting to Rs.2,95,000/ and thus respondent No.1 was liable to pay arrears of rent amounting to Rs.2,95,000/ along with interest @ 9% per annum. The petitioner sought eviction of respondent No.1 on the ground that he started causing public nuisance in the said two tenanted shops as he used to keep the tenanted shops open on the closing day as well as throughout the working day till midnight and he along with his workers used to keep on repairing the shoes till 11.00/12.00 P.M. even night and thereby creating intolerable noise and nuisance. Respondent No.1 was also in habit of throwing rubbish just in front of the entry of residential house of the petitioner. After the death of father of the petitioner, the petitioner, his brother and sisters became heirs of late Sh. Mohd. Khan and thereafter due to family circumstances and uncooperative attitude of the brother and sisters of the petitioner, coupled with the things which resulted into mental tension and other unavoidable problems, the petitioner had been demanding arrears of rent from respondent No.1, but he on one pretext or the other kept on avoiding the payment of the same. Proforma respondents No. 2 to 6 were also cosharers in the demised premises, but they never received any rent from respondent No.1 as after the death of father of the petitioner and proforma respondents No. 2 to 6, it was only the petitioner who used to deal with respondent No.1 and was responsible for receiving the rent. Though, there was no need legally or otherwise to implead proforma respondents No. 2 to 6 in the petition, but from the conduct and acts of proforma respondents, particularly, proforma respondent No.2, it appeared that in order to settle the personal score with the petitioner to harm him, he might have joined hands with respondent No.1 and further manipulated the things in connivance with respondent No.1, as respondent No.1 for the last few years had been developing an envious and hostile attitude towards the petitioner.