Introduction

In Sudershan Devi and Others v. Divisional Commissioner, Shimla and Others, 2025 HHC 33312 (decided 22 September 2025), the Himachal Pradesh High Court (per Ajay Mohan Goel, J.) dismissed a writ petition challenging eviction orders passed under the Himachal Pradesh Public Premises (Land Eviction and Rent Recovery) Act, 1971 (the H.P. Public Premises Act). The petitioners—legal representatives of the original occupant, Keshav Ram Khurana—argued that the tenancy was in favour of a partnership firm, M/s Himachal Iron Store(s), and that the firm and all partners were necessary parties whose non‑joinder vitiated the proceedings.

The Court upheld concurrent findings of the Estate Officer and the Appellate Authority that: (i) the premises belonged to a registered co‑operative society (respondent No. 3), which are “public premises” under Section 2(c) of the H.P. Public Premises Act; (ii) the original allotment/letting in 1982 was to Mr. Khurana in his individual capacity; and (iii) the alleged partnership came into existence later (1983) and was never shown to have been recognized as the tenant by the landlord society. On these facts, the plea of non‑joinder failed, and the writ petition was dismissed.

The decision clarifies three intersecting issues:

• When property of a co‑operative society qualifies as “public premises” and the H.P. Public Premises Act applies, notwithstanding the municipal location and rent control regime.
• How and when a later‑formed partnership can be treated as the tenant—specifically, that mere payment of rent by a firm does not, by itself, metamorphose the tenancy from an individual to the firm.
• The narrow scope of judicial review over factual findings rendered by statutory authorities under the H.P. Public Premises Act—interference only upon perversity or procedural illegality.

Background and Key Issues

The dispute concerns Shop/Portion No. 5 on Khasra No. 139/98 (village Dangyar, Tehsil Kasauli, District Solan), originally let out at a monthly rent of Rs. 50/-. Proceedings under Section 4 of the H.P. Public Premises Act were first initiated against Mr. Khurana in 1995 but were dismissed in 1999 on technical grounds—primarily insufficient proof of termination notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. A first appeal failed in 1999.

Fresh proceedings were initiated in 2000 citing arrears of rent and the Society’s requirement of the premises for its own use. The Estate Officer allowed the petition (20.09.2007), finding due termination and non‑payment of rent. The appeal was initially dismissed as time‑barred (06.04.2010), an order later set aside by the High Court in 2016 (CWP No. 2065 of 2010), with a remand to decide on merits. The Appellate Authority thereafter dismissed the appeal on merits (04.09.2018), upholding eviction. The present writ petition assailed the 2007 and 2018 orders.

Core issues before the High Court:

• Whether the tenancy was that of an individual (Mr. Khurana) or of a partnership firm (M/s Himachal Iron Store(s)), and if the latter, whether non‑joinder of the firm and all partners rendered the proceedings void.
• Whether the H.P. Public Premises Act proceedings were maintainable given the premises are within municipal limits where the H.P. Urban Rent Control Act applies.
• Whether the High Court should interfere with the concurrent factual findings of the authorities exercising writ jurisdiction.

Summary of the Judgment

The High Court dismissed the writ petition. It held that:

• The premises were let out to Mr. Khurana in 1982, prior to the asserted partnership deed dated 01.04.1983. There was no evidence of any attornment/recognition of the firm as tenant by the landlord Society.
• Mere payment of rent by a later‑formed partnership firm does not ipso facto convert or novate the tenancy from the individual to the firm.
• The occupant’s plea of partnership tenancy surfaced as an afterthought, was unsupported by cogent evidence (the deed was unregistered and other partners were not examined), and had not been taken earlier by the predecessor‑in‑interest during his lifetime.
• Property of a registered co‑operative society falls within “public premises” under Section 2(c) of the H.P. Public Premises Act (post the 1983 amendment), therefore eviction proceedings under that Act are competent even for premises within municipal limits.
• The writ court does not re‑appreciate evidence like an appellate forum; absent perversity or procedural infirmity, concurrent factual findings of the statutory authorities are not to be disturbed.

Result: The writ petition was dismissed; the eviction orders were left undisturbed.

Analysis

Precedents and Prior Proceedings Referenced

• 1999 dismissal of the first eviction petition (Case No. 4/13 of 1995): The Estate Officer had found that Section 106 TPA notice was not proven to have been sent by registered post; therefore, tenancy had not been validly terminated at that time. A first appeal (Misc. Appeal No. 48/99) was dismissed on 24.08.1999.
• Second round of proceedings (initiated 18.09.2000): After issuing registered A/D and UPC notice dated 01.12.1999, the Estate Officer allowed eviction on 20.09.2007, finding valid termination and arrears of rent.
• Procedural detour (2010–2016): The appeal was initially dismissed as time‑barred (06.04.2010). The High Court, in CWP No. 2065 of 2010 (22.06.2016), set aside that dismissal and remanded for a decision on merits.
• Final appellate order (04.09.2018): Appeal dismissed on merits; partnership tenancy plea rejected for want of proof.
• Reference to another allottee’s eviction (Bawa Amarjeet Singh): The Estate Officer noted that eviction from Society land had been sustained up to the Supreme Court, illustrating the Society’s broader policy to reclaim and redeploy premises in the locality’s interest. Although no citation is provided, the reference underscored the Society’s consistent enforcement of rights under the H.P. Public Premises Act.

Statutory Anchors and Legal Reasoning

The Court’s reasoning rests on clear statutory and evidentiary pillars:

1. Public Premises Status and Jurisdiction
   • Section 2(c), H.P. Public Premises Act (as amended by Act 4 of 1983) explicitly brings within its ambit premises belonging to co‑operative societies registered under the H.P. Co‑operative Societies Act, 1968.
   • Consequently, eviction proceedings under the H.P. Public Premises Act were competent, notwithstanding the premises lying within municipal limits where the H.P. Urban Rent Control Act operates. The special statute governing public premises applies to such property.
2. Tenancy Character and the Partnership Plea
   • Chronology was decisive: the original letting/allotment to Mr. Khurana dates to 23.11.1982. The partnership deed is dated 01.04.1983.
   • There was no material evidencing attornment/recognition by the landlord Society of the partnership firm as the tenant. The Court emphasized that mere rent remittances by a firm do not, by themselves, novate the contract of tenancy from the individual to the firm.
   • The alleged partnership deed was unregistered, and no corroborative evidence was led—other partners were not examined; authenticity was not proven. The plea of partnership tenancy had not been raised by Mr. Khurana in the first round, surfacing only later through legal representatives. Onus to prove the firm’s tenancy was squarely on the petitioners and was not discharged.
   • Therefore, the firm and its partners were not “necessary parties” because, on the facts found, the firm was not the tenant.
3. Valid Termination and Arrears
   • The earlier technical defect (1999) regarding Section 106 TPA notice was cured in the second round with a registered A/D and UPC notice dated 01.12.1999. The Estate Officer accepted service and termination; the Appellate Authority concurred.
   • Arrears of rent and the Society’s bona fide requirement for its own expansion were accepted on evidence by the Estate Officer. The High Court did not find any perversity to warrant interference.
4. Scope of Writ Review
   • The High Court reiterated that in writ jurisdiction it does not sit as an appellate court over the factual findings of statutory authorities under the H.P. Public Premises Act.
   • Absent any demonstrated perversity (findings contrary to the record) or procedural violation (e.g., denial of opportunity, non‑compliance with prescribed procedure), writ intervention is unwarranted.

Why the Partnership Argument Failed

The decision is a fact‑sensitive application of settled landlord–tenant principles:

• Initial induction matters: where the original induction is of an individual, later business structuring by the occupant (e.g., formation of a partnership) does not, without landlord’s consent or clear attornment, substitute the tenant.
• Evidence of novation/attornment was missing: no letter from the Society acknowledging the firm as tenant; no rent receipts expressly issued to the firm as the tenant of record; no board resolution or contractual amendment recognizing the firm in place of the individual.
• Procedural conduct: the plea was not part of the original defence by Mr. Khurana, weakening its credibility and inviting an adverse inference when raised belatedly by successors without foundational evidence.

Impact and Prospective Significance

The judgment, approved for reporting, crystallizes practical rules likely to influence public premises eviction litigation in Himachal Pradesh:

• Co‑operative Societies’ Premises: Reinforces that property of registered co‑operative societies is “public premises,” enabling recourse to the speedier H.P. Public Premises Act mechanism even for properties within municipalities.
• Tenancy Identity and Business Re‑structuring: Occupants cannot defeat eviction by post‑hoc claims that a firm is the tenant merely because the business later operated as a partnership and paid rent. Clear proof of landlord’s attornment is required to show a change in tenant identity.
• Pleadings and Proof: Defences that go to the core identity of the tenant must be pleaded at the earliest by the original occupant and supported with documentary and oral evidence. Unregistered partnership deeds, without corroboration, will carry limited weight.
• Non‑Joinder Objections: Non‑joinder of an alleged partnership firm will not vitiate proceedings where the authorities have found, on evidence, that the original tenancy is in the name of an individual and no substitution occurred.
• Writ Discipline: Parties should expect limited writ interference with concurrent factual findings under the H.P. Public Premises Act. Strategic focus should be on building the record before the Estate Officer and the Appellate Authority.

Complex Concepts Simplified

• Public Premises: Statutorily defined category of properties where a special eviction law applies. In Himachal Pradesh, premises belonging to registered co‑operative societies are “public premises” (Section 2(c), as amended in 1983).
• Necessary Party vs. Proper Party: A “necessary party” is someone without whom no effective order can be passed. If the firm was never the tenant of record, it is not a necessary party to eviction of the individual tenant.
• Non‑Joinder: Failure to include a necessary party. Non‑joinder is fatal only if the absent party is truly necessary. Here, because the firm’s tenancy was unproven, non‑joinder did not invalidate proceedings.
• Attornment/Novation: Attornment is the landlord’s recognition of a new tenant; novation is substituting a new contract/party. To transform an individual‑tenant relationship into a firm‑tenant relationship, clear landlord recognition is typically required.
• Perversity (in judicial review): A finding that no reasonable person could reach on the evidence, or one that ignores vital material. Writ courts avoid re‑weighing evidence and intervene only if findings are perverse or illegal.
• Burden of Proof: The party asserting a fact (e.g., that the firm is the tenant) must prove it with credible evidence. Assertions without supporting documents, testimony, or conduct recognized by the landlord will fail.
• Section 106 TPA Notice: For monthly tenancies, a notice of termination is generally required. The first eviction attempt failed on this technicality; the second round cured it with registered A/D and UPC service.
• Unregistered Partnership: A partnership can exist without registration, but an unregistered deed’s evidentiary value can be questioned. Without corroborative evidence or landlord recognition, it may not suffice to prove a change in tenant identity.

Practical Guidance Emergent from the Ruling

• For Co‑operative Societies/Landlords:
  • Preserve initial allotment/tenancy records and rent ledgers showing the named tenant.
  • When issuing termination notices, use registered A/D (and keep UPC as backup) and retain acknowledgments.
  • If the occupant’s business form changes, insist on formal requests and, where appropriate, explicit attornment documents; avoid inadvertent recognition.
• For Occupants/Tenants:
  • If you contend that a firm is the tenant, assemble robust proof: landlord’s written acknowledgment, rent receipts in the firm’s name as tenant of record, board resolutions, correspondence, and examination of all partners.
  • Raise all core defences at the earliest opportunity; late, unsubstantiated pleas may be rejected as afterthoughts.
  • Understand that mere payment of rent from a firm account is insufficient to prove that the firm is the tenant.
• For Counsel:
  • Frame the tenancy identity issue early, aligning pleadings with contemporaneous documents.
  • Recognize the limited scope of writ review; build your evidentiary case at the levels of the Estate Officer and Appellate Authority.
  • When relying on a partnership deed, authenticate it through partner testimony and connected business records; address registration status candidly.

Conclusion

The Himachal Pradesh High Court’s decision cements a pragmatic and evidence‑led approach to tenancy identity in public premises evictions. It sets out, with clarity, that the occupant who pleads partnership tenancy must demonstrate landlord recognition of that change; mere rent payments by a subsequently constituted firm will not suffice. It also reiterates that premises of registered co‑operative societies are “public premises,” enabling resort to the H.P. Public Premises Act’s summary mechanism, and that writ courts will not revisit concurrent factual findings absent perversity or procedural lapse.

Key takeaway: In public premises eviction disputes, chronology and attornment matter. Parties must align their pleadings with contemporaneous records, and expect writ courts to defer to reasoned factual determinations unless a clear legal or procedural error is shown.

Case Metadata

• Case: Sudershan Devi and Others v. Divisional Commissioner Shimla and Others
• Citation: 2025 HHC 33312
• Court: High Court of Himachal Pradesh, Shimla
• Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel
• Decision Date: 22 September 2025
• Disposition: Writ petition dismissed; eviction orders sustained
• Reportable: Yes