CHAITANYA PRABHU Vs. ADARSH KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition is directed against the order dated 15.12.2012 passed by learned Sub Judge, Reasi in File No.1/Execution titled "Adarsh Kumar Vs. Chetanya Prabhu", the order dated 22.02.2013 passed by learned District Judge, Reasi in Appeal No.13/Appeal titled "Chetanya Prabhu Vs. Adarsh Kumar ", and the order dated 05.11.2012 passed by learned Sub Judge, Reasi in File No.8/Civil Miscellaneous titled "Adarsh Kumar Vs. Chaitanya Prabhu ". The factual matrix attending upon this revision petition may briefly be summarised as under:-

(2.) RESPONDENT , a tenant of petitioner for about four decades, was running business of photography styled as "M/S Sansar Studio" in the shop which is the subject matter of litigation between the parties. The tenanted premises are located in main bazaar, Reasi. In view of the demised shop being in a state of dilapidation, the respondent filed an application under Section 27 of Jammu and Kashmir Houses and Shops Rent Control Act (hereinafter to be referred to as the Act ') for carrying out necessary repairs of the shop. The petitioner responded to the notice served on him and admitted that the shop in question had collapsed due to heavy rains and it was required to be reconstructed. He came up with the proposal to reconstruct the shop in question holding out the assurance that he would deliver possession of the shop to respondent after completing the reconstruction work. On the basis of the proposal floated by petitioner and consensus emerging between the parties, learned Sub Judge exercising powers as Rent Controller, passed order dated 05.11.2011 granting leave to petitioner to reconstruct the shop in question within a period of three months and then deliver possession of the shop to respondent. The order further stipulated that in the event of failure on the part of petitioner to reconstruct the shop within the given time frame, the respondent shall be at liberty to approach the Rent Controller for restoration of possession of the said shop and carrying out necessary repairs/construction at his own level.

(3.) PETITIONER assailed the order of Trial Court in appeal before learned District Judge, Reasi raising the contention that the Trial Court had passed the order without jurisdiction and that the Trial Court had failed to appreciate that the shop in question was forcibly occupied by the son of petitioner, who had filed a suit for partition of ancestral property including the aforesaid shop against the petitioner. The petitioner further pleaded that having been ousted from the shop in question, he could not be ordered to deliver possession to the respondent. He also raised the plea that there was no provision in CPC for execution of any order passed under Section 27 of the Act. After hearing the parties, learned District Judge dismissed the appeal holding that there was no illegality or impropriety in the impugned order. Thus, the contentions raised by petitioner were repelled.