KUNDAN LAL AHUJA Vs. SURINDER NATH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties. This revision by the tenant has been filed under Section 24(5) of the Himachal Pradesh Urban Rent Control Act, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The petitioner was a tenant in premises forming part of a building known as Naish Villa Annexe, Lower Jakhu, Shimla. A petition for eviction was filed on 15-12-1979. The eviction was sought on several grounds, but the Rent Controller (I) Shimla found one ground alone in favour of the landlord for granting the decree for eviction. The said ground was that the tenant, Kundan Lal, had acquired vacant residence.

(2.) Tenant Kundan Lal, aggrieved against the order of the Rent Controller, filed appeal which came up for consideration before the Appellate Authority (I) Shimla. During the pendency of the appeal, an amendment was made in Section 14(3)(a)(iv) of the Act. According to this amendment, the landlord was required to prove that the, tenant has, whether before or after the commencement of this Act, built or acquired vacant possession of or been allotted, a residence reasonably sufficient for his requirements. In view of the aforesaid amendment, the landlord sought an amendment in para No. 18, sub-clause (a)(i) of his petition. The amendment was allowed by the Appellate Authority by its order dated 2-1-1989. Both the parties opted not to lead any evidence on this amendment as it was submitted that the evidence already on record can be referred to in this regard. Thereafter, the learned Appellate Authority considered the matter in detail and held that the tenant had built or acquired vacant possession of a residence reasonably sufficient for his requirements and the appeal filed by the tenant was dismissed by order dated 19-4-1989.

(3.) Aggrieved against the judgment of the Appellate Authority, the present revision has been filed by the tenant, Kundan Lal Ahuja.